capecodhome
Member
I am hoping with the extra tax money the goverment is giving to us to put back in the economy, I will put money down for a vacation in 2009 :sohappy:.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Thankyou to the US goverment- "I am going to Disney World"
- Thread starter capecodhome
- Start date
k.hunter30
New Member
Ditto!
Yes, that is the sad truth. Though hopefully--for each individual--Americans will act wiser than the governent intended. If not, I'll be happy with more money in my account and my IRA and other investments increasing with an increasing economy because others are spending all of the money they're given!
Upvote
0
dandaman
Well-Known Member
Try 6 months and a letter after said time period stating that incorrect information was given. Took another month after and being questioned every time I crossed the border (which is usually every week) to finally receive it. :brick:
Is anyone else reminded of the Futurama episode where everyone gets 300 Nixon Fun Bucks as a tax rebate? :lol:
Upvote
0
k.hunter30
New Member
That's why I always try explaining to people that it ISN"T that great that they're getting thousands and thousands of dollars each year after they file their taxes. It's money that should have been in their pocket (or, better yet, earning interest in THEIR bank account instead of Uncle Sam's) that they're getting -- not just free money from the government.
Upvote
0
Don't go to medical school.:lol: :lookaroun
I don't do blood and guts. :hurl: Don't worry!
Or in my case, it is great. We paid out $2,000 and are getting $9,000 back. So they're paying us $7,000 just for existing. :shrug:
Upvote
0
mousefan1972
Well-Known Member
My hubby (a licensed CPA and PFS) calls it "giving the government an interest-free loan"....
Upvote
0
JDM
New Member
The passport SNAFU was primarily a function of many people waiting until the last minute to apply and thinking they could get one on 2-3 weeks. In the bast of times, it takes 6-8 weeks and they tell you that. I applied in November, two months before the deadline and had no trouble getting mine (renewal) and my daughter's (new).
A lot of people were hoping that the law would be scaled back and not take effect and so they gambled and lost. But they did it to themselves.
And lest anyone forget (as some have seemed to), this isn't the first time a tax rebate check has been issued on this scale. Not even the first time in this administration.
Yes, the Dems continue to oppose just about anything President Bush says or does. BUT, this is an election year and neither party wants to be the one to stop this from going forward. So, while there may be some changes, it is likely this will happen and also likely it will happen welll before election day.
So, use your money wisely (maybe get your passport with part of it) and enjoy!
Upvote
0
Jimmy Thick
Well-Known Member
Don't get your hopes up yet. We live in a country, thats the greatest country in the world, but is run by people of questionable competence.
Congrats if you get something, but don't spend it until you know you got it.
Congrats if you get something, but don't spend it until you know you got it.
Upvote
0
k.hunter30
New Member
:lol: Exactly! I love that! I think I may use it!My hubby (a licensed CPA and PFS) calls it "giving the government an interest-free loan"....
Upvote
0
JDM
New Member
November of 2006, which was two months before the law went into effect in January of 2007. If you waited until February of 2007 to apply, then it is not surprising you got caught in the landslide of waiting.
I'm not defending the government's red tape or slowness in any way, just pointing out that with just a little better planning, you (and others) would likely have avoided the problem.
Upvote
0
Wilt Dasney
Well-Known Member
Re: "It's your money anyway"
Eh...not really. You choose to live in a country where Uncle Sam takes his cut to keep the roads paved and retirement checks going out, you implicitly agree to give up that chunk of your paycheck.
You can set up a dummy corporation in the Cayman Islands or vote for Ron Paul, who seems like he'd be happy to dismantle the entire federal government and let you keep your paycheck, but until the gubbmint says different...it ain't your money. If you don't believe me, don't pay anything and see how well that argument goes over.
Eh...not really. You choose to live in a country where Uncle Sam takes his cut to keep the roads paved and retirement checks going out, you implicitly agree to give up that chunk of your paycheck.
You can set up a dummy corporation in the Cayman Islands or vote for Ron Paul, who seems like he'd be happy to dismantle the entire federal government and let you keep your paycheck, but until the gubbmint says different...it ain't your money. If you don't believe me, don't pay anything and see how well that argument goes over.
Upvote
0
slappy magoo
Well-Known Member
What I said in my previous post (but you didn't quote) is that *I don't really care* about not getting the rebate, personally. Sure, if I got it, I'd probably do something with it, same as the rest of you, and I'm not sure if that makes me a realist or a hypocrite. But I'm fine without it, or at leat, more fine without it then many other people might be.
My ranting is more to do with the fact that
a: in a time of war, where we're borrowing money hand over fist to pay for the war as well as tax cuts, *nobody* should really be getting money back...but if the government insists on "paying back" the middle-class...
b: be fair about it, take into consideration the cost of living. Forget about people in your situation, or people who really really could use the money. And forget about people like me, who wouldn't mind an extra grand in his pocket but won't starve without it. If you make 74,990 a year in Nebraska, you're living fairly large, big house, two car garage. If you're making 75,100 in NYC, you're living in a studio, maybe a 1BR apartment or condo that's ridiculously expensive, or you're commuting to the city, which means hundreds of dollars just to get to work on top of your car payment and insurance and your rent or mortage. The standard of living for the guy in Nebraska is likely better than the guy in NYC, despite making 200 dollars a year less, yet Nebraska will get the rebate, and not NYC, because he's just under 75K.
And finally, because I guess I didn't make myself clear, I'm not begrudging anyone for getting the money, I'm pitying the people who aren't but need it and could use it. And I certainly don't think anyone should be thanking the government for "giving" them the money, because we'll all be paying it back sooner rather than later. Personally, I'd rather the government make oil companies pay a little more in taxes and enviornmental cleanup with the stipulation that they can't pass those losses over to the consumer. I'd rather see the government at least make the Catholic church pay at least some tax on at least their real estate holdings. Those little things would enhance the standard of living of every single American comparable to giving everyone a rebate, and would level the playing field just a little bit for everyone as well. But that doesn't happen. So the government throws money at a problem it doesn't really have, and people get giddy about it and think up ways to spend it.
Last week, "white House insiders" whoever they are, predicted that by the end of the year, Bush's popularity would surge to 45%. I wonder if they knew this rebate was coming, and if they took it into account. I'm interested to see the next round of poll numbers, or more accurately, the poll numbers when the checks start coming in the mail
Upvote
0
throw a little bit of bloombergs money in with corzines and we could probably repair the ozone.
Upvote
0
TestTrack
Active Member
I have to comment on your post just because of a few things. First of all, if you read enough of the news, the cutoff is not a hard cutoff. If you are making $76,000 as a single person you will likely get most of the rebate. It tapers off up to I believe $87K-ish. Not that this takes into account cost of living which I agree with you on...but it is a bit more fair than a hard cutoff.
Secondly, You probably would have gotten a rebate if the president would have had his way. His plan, while all the details weren't out, was basically $800 per individual and $1,600 per family. They had to compromise to let people not paying taxes(under $10000 income or so) to get the bill through congress with the support of the democrats.
Lastly, your complaint about the tax cuts for "the richest one percent" works against you. In the first part of your argument you are complaining about the poor getting back money they aren't paying. Then you complain about a tax cut where the rich get more. When they say that a tax cut give most of the money to "the richest one percent" they are using a curve which is directly correlated to the amount of taxes paid. To spell it out, the richest 1% of people in this country pay most of this country's taxes so they get most of the money back. It's when they are giving MORE money back to those who paid less that people don't hear that these tax cuts were "for the rich"
So basically, you need to decide, do you want to give tax refunds to the poor? Or do you want to give a refund proportional to the tax paid. You can't claim both are bad.
::gets off political pedestal::
Upvote
0
slappy magoo
Well-Known Member
I have to comment on your post just because of a few things. First of all, if you read enough of the news, the cutoff is not a hard cutoff. If you are making $76,000 as a single person you will likely get most of the rebate. It tapers off up to I believe $87K-ish. Not that this takes into account cost of living which I agree with you on...but it is a bit more fair than a hard cutoff.
Secondly, You probably would have gotten a rebate if the president would have had his way. His plan, while all the details weren't out, was basically $800 per individual and $1,600 per family. They had to compromise to let people not paying taxes(under $10000 income or so) to get the bill through congress with the support of the democrats.
Lastly, your complaint about the tax cuts for "the richest one percent" works against you. In the first part of your argument you are complaining about the poor getting back money they aren't paying. Then you complain about a tax cut where the rich get more. When they say that a tax cut give most of the money to "the richest one percent" they are using a curve which is directly correlated to the amount of taxes paid. To spell it out, the richest 1% of people in this country pay most of this country's taxes so they get most of the money back. It's when they are giving MORE money back to those who paid less that people don't hear that these tax cuts were "for the rich"
So basically, you need to decide, do you want to give tax refunds to the poor? Or do you want to give a refund proportional to the tax paid. You can't claim both are bad.
::gets off political pedestal::
OK. Sure. Keep telling yourself that.
What I want is for the government to be more responsible with the taxes they bring in. Stop giving tax breaks to the rich AND stop the election year handouts to the poor and some of the middle class while borrowing from other countries, until they prove they understand the value of a dollar.
Upvote
0
I noticed quite a few Dave Ramsey sayings in this post. Love him. If we get the rebate, it will be 1800, so, it will most likely go for the SUV loan. Although, I'm also thinking of giving my DD 12 the $300 and tell her it is her clothing allowance for the next 12 months. ha. She would be in sticker shock.ha.
Upvote
0
TestTrack
Active Member
So, if you don't want tax breaks for the rich, then you favor no tax breaks at all. Otherwise, the tax breaks(if they don't give them to the rich as well) will favor some class of people. You seem to be against favoritism of tax breaks so I assume you are for no tax cuts.
Upvote
0