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
I guess I was thinking "middle class" as a country-wide term. I didn't take it as varying from place to place.
Upvote
0
I think it's based on 2008 income, so they won't know by the time they send the checks whether you exceed the limit or not. If the determiner of whether you are eligible for the rebate is 2007 income, then you're correct.
Upvote
0
maggiegrace1
Well-Known Member
Every time I see this thread I want to sing...
Money...Money...Money....Money..MONEY!!!!!!!!!
Oh well..
That is all...
Money...Money...Money....Money..MONEY!!!!!!!!!
Oh well..
That is all...
Upvote
0
slappy magoo
Well-Known Member
Uh, sorry guys and gals...
***The fate of $600-$1,200 rebate checks for more than 100 million Americans is in limbo after Senate Republicans blocked a bid by Democrats to add $44 billion in help for the elderly, disabled veterans, the unemployed and businesses to the House-passed economic aid package. […]
The tally was 58-41 to end debate on the Senate measure, just short of the 60 votes Democrats would have needed to scale procedural hurdles and move the bill to a final vote. In a suspenseful showdown vote that capped days of partisan infighting and procedural jockeying, eight Republicans - four of them up for re-election this year - joined Democrats to back the plan, buc/king GOP leaders and President Bush, who objected to the costly add-ons.***
____________________________
IN the interest of fair play, I'll argue both sides.
If you lean to the right, you're angry for the Democrats introducing "pork" that torpedoed any chance for these checks to get to you. Taxpayers deserve to get some money back, considering it's taxes that keep the economy going in the first place. Taxpayers spend money to get to work, commuting is more expensive than ever with 3 bucks plus for a gallon of gas, and there was no way everyone was going to get some money back, this only punishes the people the package was designed to "help" the most...
If you lean to the left, you wonder why the elderly, disabled veterans, the unemployed and businesses weren't part of the stimulus package in the first place. This wasn't about giving people their hard-earned tax dollars back "because they earned it" (after all, we would have to borrow the money to give to taxpayers in the first place); this was about getting people to spend quick cash to jump-start a stagnant economy. Old and poor people know how to spend money, too.
Oh, and while McCain pledged to support the stimulus package, he didn't make it to DC to block the filibuster. Don't get me wrong, he was in D.C., he just couldn't get to the office to block the filibuster after promising to do so:
***As recently as this morning, McCain again told reporters that he planned on returning to the Senate for this evening’s vote on the economic stimulus, stating that Congress needed to quickly pass legislation.
The measure, blocked by conservatives, fell just one vote short of the 60 needed to end debate. At the “last minute,” McCain decided to skip the vote, even though his plane landed in DC in time. McCain claimed that he was “too busy“:
“I haven’t had a chance to talk about it at all, have not had the opportunity to, even,” McCain said. “We’ve just been too busy, focused on other stuff. I don’t know if I’m doing that. We’ve got a couple of meetings scheduled.” *** (via thinkprogress.org)
Obama & Clinton did make it back and voted to block the filibuster. The vote failed by one. Had McCain voted based on his promise, you'd have your checks.
My sympathies for anyone who already spent this money.
EDIT: One report says 58 senators voted to block the filibuster, another report said they were "one vote shy" of breaking the filibuster. At the moment, I'm not sure which is right.
***The fate of $600-$1,200 rebate checks for more than 100 million Americans is in limbo after Senate Republicans blocked a bid by Democrats to add $44 billion in help for the elderly, disabled veterans, the unemployed and businesses to the House-passed economic aid package. […]
The tally was 58-41 to end debate on the Senate measure, just short of the 60 votes Democrats would have needed to scale procedural hurdles and move the bill to a final vote. In a suspenseful showdown vote that capped days of partisan infighting and procedural jockeying, eight Republicans - four of them up for re-election this year - joined Democrats to back the plan, buc/king GOP leaders and President Bush, who objected to the costly add-ons.***
____________________________
IN the interest of fair play, I'll argue both sides.
If you lean to the right, you're angry for the Democrats introducing "pork" that torpedoed any chance for these checks to get to you. Taxpayers deserve to get some money back, considering it's taxes that keep the economy going in the first place. Taxpayers spend money to get to work, commuting is more expensive than ever with 3 bucks plus for a gallon of gas, and there was no way everyone was going to get some money back, this only punishes the people the package was designed to "help" the most...
If you lean to the left, you wonder why the elderly, disabled veterans, the unemployed and businesses weren't part of the stimulus package in the first place. This wasn't about giving people their hard-earned tax dollars back "because they earned it" (after all, we would have to borrow the money to give to taxpayers in the first place); this was about getting people to spend quick cash to jump-start a stagnant economy. Old and poor people know how to spend money, too.
Oh, and while McCain pledged to support the stimulus package, he didn't make it to DC to block the filibuster. Don't get me wrong, he was in D.C., he just couldn't get to the office to block the filibuster after promising to do so:
***As recently as this morning, McCain again told reporters that he planned on returning to the Senate for this evening’s vote on the economic stimulus, stating that Congress needed to quickly pass legislation.
The measure, blocked by conservatives, fell just one vote short of the 60 needed to end debate. At the “last minute,” McCain decided to skip the vote, even though his plane landed in DC in time. McCain claimed that he was “too busy“:
“I haven’t had a chance to talk about it at all, have not had the opportunity to, even,” McCain said. “We’ve just been too busy, focused on other stuff. I don’t know if I’m doing that. We’ve got a couple of meetings scheduled.” *** (via thinkprogress.org)
Obama & Clinton did make it back and voted to block the filibuster. The vote failed by one. Had McCain voted based on his promise, you'd have your checks.
My sympathies for anyone who already spent this money.
EDIT: One report says 58 senators voted to block the filibuster, another report said they were "one vote shy" of breaking the filibuster. At the moment, I'm not sure which is right.
Upvote
0
sbkline
Well-Known Member
Since I tend to lean towards the right on many issues, I would have to say that my view on it is simple: if the idea is to issue a tax rebate, then it stands to reason that the people who will receive a rebate on taxes are the ones who paid taxes. If you paid taxes, you get a tax rebate. If, for whatever reason, you didn't pay taxes, you don't get a rebate on money you weren't out in the first place. It's that simple. A "rebate" to folks who didn't pay in isn't a rebate. It's a handout. So if you want to advertise this as a free handout, then it should include everyone. If it's advertised as a tax rebate, then it naturally should only go to, oh, I dunno...people who pay taxes. :shrug:
Of course, instead of issuing rebates, I think we need to lower taxes and let us keep more of our own darn hard earned money instead of Uncle Sam stealing it. Better yet, get rid of the income tax and institute a national sales tax. Although that may adversely affect our WDW trips, since I intentionally withold extra from our paychecks so as to end up with a larger tax refund with which to finance a WDW trip. No more income tax means no more witholding, and therefore no more tax refunds with which to pay for a WDW trip. :lol:
Of course, instead of issuing rebates, I think we need to lower taxes and let us keep more of our own darn hard earned money instead of Uncle Sam stealing it. Better yet, get rid of the income tax and institute a national sales tax. Although that may adversely affect our WDW trips, since I intentionally withold extra from our paychecks so as to end up with a larger tax refund with which to finance a WDW trip. No more income tax means no more witholding, and therefore no more tax refunds with which to pay for a WDW trip. :lol:
Upvote
0
Wilt Dasney
Well-Known Member
Brilliant move by the Republicans, giving the Democrats the cudgel of "you voted against money for disabled vets" in an election year.
Not that I don't see the wisdom in curtailing spending, but if we've already decided we're going to throw a bunch of money around to cure what ails ya, is THIS really the sword to fall on in the name of "fiscal responsibility"? :shrug:
Not that I don't see the wisdom in curtailing spending, but if we've already decided we're going to throw a bunch of money around to cure what ails ya, is THIS really the sword to fall on in the name of "fiscal responsibility"? :shrug:
Upvote
0
slappy magoo
Well-Known Member
And naturally, a national sales tax would adversely "penalize" people who have to spend more money, like larger families, which means larger families would find it harder to afford to go to WDW, meaning more elbow room for the rest of us! For once, I agree with the national sales tax! :lol:
Upvote
0
Wilt Dasney
Well-Known Member
From CNN.com: Supporters actually had 59 votes in favor of the Democratic proposal, but Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada switched his vote to 'no' at the last moment, a parliamentary move that allows him to bring the measure up for a revote.
The story I read says Republicans are betting the Dems will now allow amendments to their version, leaving in rebates for the elderly and disabled vets but letting the GOPpers introduce language to exclude illegal immigrants, instead of the alternative, which would likely be adopting the House version with none of the extras the Senate Dems are pushing. Either way, this will probably happen eventually.
Upvote
0
GenerationX
Well-Known Member
An election year tax rebate? Now, I have heard of everything!
I don't have any plans for the cash until it is a done deal. Then, we may start talking about a WDW visit.
I despise Income and Property taxes. They are disincentives for owning property, saving, and investing. A national sales tax (Fair Tax) is the way to go. A standard "prebate" to insure no one below the poverty line pays any taxes, no loopholes, no time wasted on tax forms, and improved demand for U.S. exports. Philosophically, taxing consumption makes much more sense than taxing income.
I don't have any plans for the cash until it is a done deal. Then, we may start talking about a WDW visit.
I despise Income and Property taxes. They are disincentives for owning property, saving, and investing. A national sales tax (Fair Tax) is the way to go. A standard "prebate" to insure no one below the poverty line pays any taxes, no loopholes, no time wasted on tax forms, and improved demand for U.S. exports. Philosophically, taxing consumption makes much more sense than taxing income.
Upvote
0
TestTrack
Active Member
This was a vote on the Senate's version of the bill. Now that that didn't pass they will likely vote on the house's passed version. This bill would have sent rebates of $500/$1000 and not the $600/$1200+kids version that the house proposed.
The senate set a deadline of Feb 15th to pass it so it hasn't been stopped yet.
Upvote
0
Umm, why? Just open up a savings account with that extra and earn the interest for yourself. If you insist on giving free loans, why don't you send the extra money to me. I can send you the refund much quicker than the government can.
Upvote
0
I have always heard this argument and while it works great on paper it just does no work with the average person. Most people simply do not have the discipline to simply let money sit in an account that they have easy access to. They take out $20 here $50 there and by the time the end of the year hits they have spent 10 times the amount of interest they would have earned. If you are the type of person that can leave the money alone then by all means it is the way to go but if you are not the lost interest is a good trade off for not being able to spend the money on useless stuff and get one check at the end of the year that can make a difference in paying down debt or a major purchase.
Upvote
0
sbkline
Well-Known Member
I was partially joking with my post because he's right...I could set aside a little into a savings account throughout the year, but, for me at least, it's alot harder to take out 3 grand from the bank than it is to just cash a check and spend it before it makes it into the bank. :lol: Once that money is in the bank and I see that balance in my bank book, it hurts alot more to yank it out. It's alot easier to just get a check in the mail and then blow it all before it becomes part of your bank account.
Upvote
0
You have to do what works for you. I can put money in an account and for all intents and purposes forget that it is there and never touch it. My wife on the other hand will consider it disposable income and periodically pull from it. Our solution, I have a savings account that she does not have access to and I stick a percentage of my check in there every week without fail. At the end of the year that account is what we use for Christmas.
Upvote
0
k.hunter30
New Member
Unlike sbkline, I'd much rather want my money when I earn it. As much as I love our country, I like my ROIs better than Uncle Sam's. I'd rather be making interest on that money throughout the year instead of the government taking that interest.:shrug:
And it is so rewarding for us to be able to take our earned money and pay cash for something like a vacation when we want to. You appreciate things so much when you know you've earned it and paid for it yourself. So, again, I'm not on the same page as not wanting to take that money out of savings for trips. We feel blessed we can do so--AND with a little extra money from the interest! :sohappy:
And it is so rewarding for us to be able to take our earned money and pay cash for something like a vacation when we want to. You appreciate things so much when you know you've earned it and paid for it yourself. So, again, I'm not on the same page as not wanting to take that money out of savings for trips. We feel blessed we can do so--AND with a little extra money from the interest! :sohappy:
Upvote
0
sbkline
Well-Known Member
You earn it and pay for it yourself regardless of whether you set that money aside into a savings account, or overpay your taxes and get a refund at the end of the year. Either way, it's your money that you worked for, that you're getting back and using to buy a vacation.
I suppose it would be better to put the extra witholding into a savings account instead of paying extra into witholding, since you would be getting a little bit of interest on it in the bank.
But I'm not sure if anyone else is like this or not, but for some reason, it's alot easier for me to get a check in the mail and go out and spend it than it is to take money out of the bank. Even though it's all my money either way, I guess when it comes in the form of a check and has never been part of my bank balance, it "feels" like extra money, as opposed to seeing my bank balance suddenly shrink by 3 grand. :ROFLOL:
Upvote
0
k.hunter30
New Member
Exactly... I was using that as my reasoning for not having a problem taking it out of my savings. I know in either case it's your money. And because it's my earned money, I feel like I've accomplished something when I take it out. I guess that part of my post was concerning your hesitation of taking out money.
And $3k should be a little hard to spend... It's a good amount of money for most families.
Upvote
0
sbkline
Well-Known Member
Fortunately, I have enough in savings to easily cover the cost of this trip while I'm waiting for my tax refund, since there's no way I'll have it by Feb 28, which is my 45 day mark by which I must have the trip paid. Then the tax refund will go into the savings account.
Just a word to the wise: Don't participate in stock programs at your workplace. :brick: I work at Walmart and have worked there for 10 1/2 years. Ever since 2000, I have been having money taken out of every paycheck and put into stock. I stopped last January, after spending 6 years taking 100 bucks out of every paycheck and putting into stock. Over the years, I would sell chunks of it periodically if I needed extra cash, for Christmas, etc. When you sell stock you must file a Schedule D for capital gains and losses. Unfortunately, after 7 years of bi-weekly stock deductions from your paycheck, with each deduction at fluctuating stock prices, it's a nightmare to try to figure out a cost basis for the stock you have bought and sold. Normally, I would have filed my taxes by myself and had it in the mail last month. But since I sold stock last year (and I sold all of it, at that), I have no clue how to file a Schedule D, especially when it is impossible to figure up a cost basis. So I dumped it off on a tax preparer to figure out, which is why I am late in filing and will not have my refund by the time I must have this trip paid for.
So, although it's off topic, I just thought I'd issue that word of warning to anyone who works in a place where you have the option of buying into company stock. DON'T DO IT!
Just a word to the wise: Don't participate in stock programs at your workplace. :brick: I work at Walmart and have worked there for 10 1/2 years. Ever since 2000, I have been having money taken out of every paycheck and put into stock. I stopped last January, after spending 6 years taking 100 bucks out of every paycheck and putting into stock. Over the years, I would sell chunks of it periodically if I needed extra cash, for Christmas, etc. When you sell stock you must file a Schedule D for capital gains and losses. Unfortunately, after 7 years of bi-weekly stock deductions from your paycheck, with each deduction at fluctuating stock prices, it's a nightmare to try to figure out a cost basis for the stock you have bought and sold. Normally, I would have filed my taxes by myself and had it in the mail last month. But since I sold stock last year (and I sold all of it, at that), I have no clue how to file a Schedule D, especially when it is impossible to figure up a cost basis. So I dumped it off on a tax preparer to figure out, which is why I am late in filing and will not have my refund by the time I must have this trip paid for.
So, although it's off topic, I just thought I'd issue that word of warning to anyone who works in a place where you have the option of buying into company stock. DON'T DO IT!
Upvote
0