As featured in The Wall Street Journal, Money Magazine, and more!
     

Economic Stimulus Tax Rebate Calculator

This article was written by in Economy. 336 comments.


Welcome! If you’re new here, please consider subscribing to the Consumerism Commentary RSS feed!

This article is for tax year 2008. For 2009 and beyond, see our roundup of 8 (or more) Ways to Benefit from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (AKA Stimulus Plan).

Updated March 18, 2008 with an estimated schedule of payments.

President Bush has signed into law a $165 billion economic stimulus package providing rebate checks to taxpayers. You might receive a check for $300, $600, $1,200, or even more depending on your conditions.

Originally, PBS Newshour provided a calculator to help taxpayers to determine the amount of the rebate, but that calculator has been proven to be faulty. With the help of Consumerism Commentary reader cdg, I’m now including a new calculator, revised several times over the past few days to increase clarity and accuracy. This calculator properly takes into account the information from the bill passed by Congress and signed into law by the President (H.R.5140) and has been verified by CPAs and tax accountants. However, any information presented should not be considered tax advice.

The validity of the result depends on the accuracy of the information you enter. Before entering the data or asking any questions, please scroll the calculator down to read the definitions and read all the comments at the bottom of this post.


TurboTax is Easy, Free Edition, Fast Refund

Since this “rebate” is an advance for a new credit which will be included on the 2008 1040 income tax form, it will not affect your 2007 taxes. In April 2008 (this year for 2007′s tax settlement), you will receive what you are owed or you will have to pay what you owe as if the rebate never occurred.

This summer you will receive the rebate for the 2008 credit as calculated above.

In April 2009 or thereabouts, when you file your taxes for 2008, the IRS will run the calculation for the stimulus rebate credit again. If the results show that you would have received more (due to an additional child, for instance), you will be sent the difference. If your results show that you would have received a smaller rebate, then you get to keep the difference. This is an additional credit. You do not have to pay back to the IRS what you will receive this summer. Receiving this advance will not reduce next year’s refund nor will you owe more federal tax.

March 18 Update: The IRS has released a schedule estimating when you will receive your rebate.

Updated March 21, 2011 and originally published January 28, 2008. If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to the RSS feed or receive daily emails. Follow @ConsumerismComm on Twitter and visit our Facebook page for more updates.

Email Email Print Print
avatar
Points: ♦127,475
Rank: Platinum
About the author

Luke Landes, also known as Flexo, is the founder of Consumerism Commentary. He has been blogging and writing for the internet since 1995 and has been building online communities since 1991. Find out more about him and follow Luke Landes on Twitter. View all articles by .

{ 336 comments… read them below or add one }

avatar Luke Landes ♦127,475 (Platinum)

MJ: Self-employment taxes are not included in your net tax liability for the purposes of this rebate. I can’t tell you why.

Reply to this comment

avatar "Lower class"

Where would your sorry educated asses be without us “lower class” farmers who feed you people who don’t even know how to grow and process your own food? We know how to appreciate something of this nature where people like you should have to shovel crap for a day or so, although I doubt you would last 5 minutes.

Reply to this comment

avatar Toby

To MJ:

The self-employment tax rate is 15.3%. The rate consists of two parts: 12.4% for social security (old-age, survivors, and disability insurance) and 2.9% for Medicare (hospital insurance). In other words, the self-employment tax is your contribution to Social Security and Medicare. It has no bearing on the rebate. If you have a job where you are an employee, then your employer pays half your social security and Medicare, and the other half is taken out of your check. People who are employees can’t use their social security and Medicare withholdings for the rebate, so I’m guessing that’s why you can’t use the self-employment tax.

Reply to this comment

avatar randyp910

The whole thing that you people don’t seem to realize.Is that the rebate that you will be getting is just an advance on your 2008 taxes.The government is just basing the amount on your 2007 taxes.So whatever you get will be deducted next year when you file.Maybe this will help you realize how ridiculous you sound complaining about what others are getting.This whole rebate deal is nothing but an infusion of cash into our economy to try and slow down a recession.Bush is banking on all of you people thinking that this is free money so you’ll waste it instead of saving it or paying bills with it.

Reply to this comment

avatar Luke Landes ♦127,475 (Platinum)

Randyp910: it’s an advance, but it’s an advance of a NEW CREDIT. What you get this year will be deducted from your NEW CREDIT next year, and otherwise, your tax bill/refund would be the SAME as if there were no credit at all. Thus, it is an advance, but it is new. Of course, it’s still a credit from the government, which means it’s paid for by the citizens. But of course you are right about the intentions.

There is too much misunderstanding here. This is a *new credit* and it will not affect 2008 tax returns. This “rebate” is a new credit to your 2008 taxes that you’ll be receiving this year instead of next. It’s not any more complicated than that. You won’t get this new credit next year if you get the rebate this year… otherwise your taxes will be the same.

Reply to this comment

avatar Gosh

Move to the middle of the country, your choice!

Reply to this comment

avatar randyp910

I have absolutely no idea what your talking about.I happen to be a married father of 2 and my wife and I earn a little over $100,000 a year after our 401k contributions are deducted from our earnings.I live in the suburbs just north of detroit.I am by no means rich nor am I poor. I just can’t see getting all worked up over what others are getting from this economic stimulus package.It is designed to advance money to people who are lower income for one reason and one reason only.That is because bush and his advisors are banking on people who have to work their butts of just to make ends meet will be more likely to take the money they are given and go out and spend it on luxaries that they would not normally be able to afford.Thus infusing a large sum of money from the government in to the retail market place and slowing the growth of a economic recession.Ironically a good portion of the money will still end up in the hands of the rich because the lower class people will spend it on things that they can’t afford instead of saving it or paying down their debts.Thus filling the pockets of the large retailers.So the rich will still get richer but the poor will get a 42″ flat screen television out of this deal.

Reply to this comment

avatar jm

i am really confused with this rebate. i read that certain people who normally wouldn’t file taxes, should this year because of the rebate. so if i am on welfare and have a income of 5,800 for the year would i be able to file taxes for this rebate. please don’t get mad for me asking, i just wanted some advise. i don’t think i should get it but at the same time if i could it would really help me out. thanks

Reply to this comment

avatar sherry

This is my first time to this blog so forgive me if the answer was already given as i have not read every comment but does anyone know when the refunds can be expected? I originally heard May but now hear that they have already started to be mailed.

Reply to this comment

avatar Sue

I am in the same boat and would really like answer to your quesstion. We file married/joint with an injured spouse return. I own taxes, my husband doesn. He pays most of the taxes and I pay very little (just enough to not have to owe) we also have 2 children. Together we quality for $1800.00. Does ANYONE know the IRS will do in these cases?

Reply to this comment

avatar RDK

For reference, according to the calculator, my wife and who are school teachers and make a combined income of $90,000 annually in Northern Virginia, who received $3300 back from the government this year with 0 withholding on our W4 and quite a lot of charitable contribution this year, will be receiving the $600 accurately described above.

Regarding CDG’s comment, quoted here…

“Flexo: I disagree. Everyone is entitled to a rebate of all the taxes they have paid, as we have received nothing of value for our (forced) investment. But I don’t expect those whose power base is supported by the tax system to agree.”

You’re not talking about left-wingers here, CDG. You’re talking about every single politician in the country, and both major political parties. Let’s call a spade a spade, here.

As for NOTHING of value, I take exception. The public (I emphasize public) high school at which I teach is one of the top schools in the country. We agonize over every single dime of taxpayer money that we receive to make sure it’s appropriately invested, and the result is one of the best performing schools in the nation. Funded by taxpayer dollars. The return on the investment for the taxpayers in the area is astronomical: a state-of-the-art hub for science, mathematics, technology, fine and performing arts, cultural activities… a place where the local electric cooperative can hold meetings… a perfect voting center… If you’re not getting anything of value out of your tax dollars, then it’s your responsibility to vote your local bums out of office and get people in there who can make the right decisions.

Granted, our local politicians are just as corrupt and useless as most in this country, regardless of party, and we’re forever in a multimillion dollar shortfall situation… but at the end of the day, the taxpayers are getting one heck of a return on that investment. Over 95% of our graduates are going to 2- or 4- year postsecondary institutions.

Our role is to give that kind of education to every child that comes through our door. We provide opportunity on an equal basis to every child. That’s a socialist enterprise, and if you don’t think the above-described situation is a worthwhile investment, unless you’ve only ever attended private school, kindly turn in your high school diploma and any degree earned from a state institution. Return to the end of the line and start over… without any help this time.

Oh, and one more thing. Let’s hope you don’t get mugged, your house catches on fire, or need an emergency appendectomy and left your wallet at home. Yes, clearly socialist enterprises have NO useful purpose.

Let’s be careful about painting with too wide a brush, eh?

Anyways, $600 for my wife and I. My leftist commie pinko family will continue to be fiscally conservative, not use credit, pay for the home we can afford because we waited and saved for nearly three years instead of jumping on the ARM bandwagon, and maybe, just maybe… invest a little money in the economy!

Reply to this comment

avatar MileHighMom

Just an FYI for all those that didn’t think the above calculator was accurate, I would recommend going to the following IRS site to use their calculator…

http://www.irs.gov/app/espc/

(it said I was getting back double what the above calculator said)

Reply to this comment

avatar MS

For some reason the irs.gov calculator in comment 212 shows I will get $1088 instead of the 900 figured on the above calculator so the only thing I can figure is that child tax credit entered from my tax forms is what makes it different? Couple with one qualifying child, $0 tax liability. Still it is pretty close.

Reply to this comment

avatar Luke Landes ♦127,475 (Platinum)

The IRS’s calculator is basing eligibility on total income (Form 1040 line 22), while the text of the law indicates that eligibility should be based on *earned* income only. The IRS’s calculator is admittedly only an estimate, as is the calculator posted here, which might explain discrepancies between the two calculations. The IRS’s calculator is server based, which hides the formulas behind the calculation.

Reply to this comment

avatar cdg

To #133 by samantha: If the calculator says one thing and your “income tax lady” says another, believe the calculator! It has been thoroughly tested, and produces the same results as all 35 IRS examples (as well as accurately reflecting the actual tax legislation, rather than the ridiculously inaccurate media reports). However, if you had no income, and therefore no net income tax liability, the calculator will show a rebate of zero. So, if you have stated your situation correctly, you must have entered the wrong information into the calculator.

To #134 by samm the man. The calculation of the “stimulus payment” is considerably more complicated than you indicate, which is why I wrote the calculator in the first place. Furthermore, your simplified formula is totally incorrect. Please read the tax legislation and/or the calculator explanatory footnotes. A large category of low-income non-taxpayers will indeed be getting a “stimulus payment” that is “free money” and not a rebate of taxes paid. Similarly, a large category of “wealthy” taxpayers will not get any rebate, as it is phased out (not reduced) for taxpayers with incomes over the stated limits. The minimum rebate threshold is $3,000 of “qualified income” AND a net tax liability greater than zero, not “if you made more than 3K” (as you state). And the minimum rebate amount is $300 per person ($600 per married couple filing jointly), which are half the amounts you state. You are correct in stating that it is not rocket science, but it is apparently too complicated for you (and others) to understand. That’s why you need a calculator.

To #136 by Toby: There is no need for the “additional line of JavaScript code” you suggest. Please read the tax legislation and/or the calculator explanatory footnotes. The basic rebate is the lesser of net tax liability or $600 ($1200 if married filing jointly). There are no minimum income qualifications to received the basic rebate, although there *are* maximum income qualifications. The minimum income qualifications only apply to the $300 ($600 for married filing jointly) minimum “rebate” amount, and the $300 additional welfare payment per qualifying child. [I believe it was you that previously tested the calculator against the 28 IRS examples. There are now 35, one of which is similar to your example.]

To #137 by Sherrie: The earned income credit neither qualifies nor disqualifies you for the “stimulus tax payment” (rebate). The payment is based on your filing status, qualifying children, income and net tax liability.

To #139 by Shannon: Net tax liability is defined in the tax legislation, the calculator form, and the calculator footnotes. Please read one (or all) of them.

To #140 by Critic: The “rebate” will not “postpone the recession until Bush is out of office”. It is too little and far too late to do so. Nor was that its goal. The “rebate” legislation was designed to make it appear that the administration and Congress were doing something positive to solve the economic problem they created (with earlier legislation), so that they wouldn’t get voted out of office in November, which typically happens during a recession. Blaming it on Bush is ludicrous. The President proposes legislation, but Congress writes it and votes it into law. Both are responsible for the results, but the brunt of the blame (or credit, if the results are positive) lies with Congress.

To #142 by Toby: The amazing “IRS specialistâ€? is probably a minimum-wage affirmative-action employee who can’t answer any questions that aren’t in the FAQ database — assuming they understand tax law well enough to find the answers in the database.

To #143 by Jim: You are confusing “earned income”, “qualified income”, and adjusted gross income”. The “second part” is stated very clearly in the tax law and in the explanatory calculator footnotes.

To #145 by Leah: I suggest you convey your sentiments to Congress (as if they will listen). But, if there is any justification for the refundable earned income credit (which provides a “tax refund” in excess of taxes paid), there is equal justification for a “stimulus payment” being provided these “taxpayers”. If the latter is unjustified, so is the former.

To #146 by Gena: You should double-check with a “tax professional”, but I believe that your daughter’s “survivor benefits” are considered to be her income, not yours. Therefore they cannot be included to calculate your minimum “rebate” amount. Conversely, if your daughter is (or can be) declared as a dependent on another person’s (your) return, she cannot qualify for a “rebate” herself. You do *not* qualify for the “minimum rebate” or the extra $300 per child, because your earned income ($2917) is less than the $3000 threshold, and your gross income ($11,000 + 2917) is less than the (basic standard deduction plus one exemption) threshold (see table in calculator footnotes). However, if you had a net income tax liability, you will get that amount (or $600, whichever is less) back. Unfair? Tell your Congressperson.

To #147 by Blkcam: That’s an interesting theory. Tell your Congressman. Maybe they’ll pass a bill telling us where to shop. FYI, the “Great Depression” was a direct result of Congress passing a protective tariff (which increased the price of foreign goods, in a vain attempt to make Americans “buy American”) whilst the country was in the middle of a recession. So pray that Congress doesn’t adopt your theory. If American companies made a better and/or less expensive product, Americans would “buy American”. There’s a reason that foreign goods are sold and purchased in this country, and it isn’t lack of patriotism.

To #148 by joey: Since the “stimulus payment” is based on your income and net tax liability (in addition to your filing status and number of qualifying children), your question cannot be answered without this information. Put your information into the calculator. That’s what it’s for.

To #149 by Rick: That’s an interesting theory. Tell your Congressman.

To #150 by Jim: There are many inequities in the “rebate program”, but none of them are “loopholes”. You also have your facts confused. “If you file single and have a qualifying dependent” you are (by definition) a head-of-household. Furthermore, if you have an AGI of $14,000 AND a net tax liability, you get a $600 rebate, regardless whether your filing status is single or head of household. Of course, you will have a lower net tax liability if you file as head-of-household, and this may reduce your net tax liability to zero. Write to Congress, and complain that they left you out (as they did many others). Perhaps they’ll share their millionaire’s salaries with you.

To #151 by evelyn carter: If your grandmother’s social security benefits were at least $3000, she can and should file a 2007 income tax return to obtain a $300 “stimulus payment”. If her benefits were less than $3000, she doesn’t qualify for the rebate, and there is no reason to file a return. There are a number of volunteer organizations who will help people such as your grandmother file what is probably their first income tax return in many years. Alternately, the IRS provides instructions at the following sites:

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=179201,00.html
http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=179096,00.html
http://www.irs.gov/pub/newsroom/1040a.pdf

The same applies to your sister. However, please note that neither SSI payments nor state supplemental benefits will qualify a person for the “stimulus payment”. If she received a Form 1099-SSA, the qualified amount appears in Box 5. If she did not receive a Form 1099-SSA, the amount is probably not qualified. She needs to have 1) a net tax liability, or 2) earned income and/or social security OASDI (old age, survivors and disability) benefits and/or railroad retirement benefits and/or veterans benefits of at least $3000, or 3) a gross income greater than the minimum standard deduction plus one exemption (see table in calculator footnotes). Otherwise, she doesn’t qualify for the “rebate”.

To #156 by tiffany: Self-employment tax is not included in the equation. It is (supposedly) used only to fund social security and Medicare. It would be illegal for Congress to “refund” any part of the social security or Medicare “trust funds”, which are (supposedly) only to be used for their intended purpose. The “rebate” is (loosely) based on 2007 income tax paid. Effectively, Congress is lowering your 2008 income tax, and issuing you the refund now. They are also issuing a “rebate” for some low-income taxpayers, regardless of whether or not they paid any taxes. Your net self-employment income is “earned income” for purposes of qualifying for the minimum rebate.

To #158 by firefly814: Perhaps moving is not an option. One needs to live where the work is. Besides, if everyone moved to where the cost-of-living were low, it would drive up the cost of living, and you wouldn’t be able to afford to stay there! Few people choose to be in an unfortunate situation.

To #159 by firefly814: The calculator originally gave you a choice between “married” and “other”, because that was all that was necessary to compute the rebate in most cases. Other filing statuses are only relevant in computing the basic standard deduction to determine if your gross income exceeds this amount, and the test may be redundant if other factors are correctly entered. Nevertheless, a drop-down menu with all five filing statuses (including “head of household” was added to the calculator long before the date of your message), so I have to assume you are using it incorrectly. Click on the down arrow to the right of the word “Single” and then click on “Head of Household”. If you do this, and enter all the other required information correctly, the calculator will provide the correct result. The rebate for HOH is not necessarily $600. There are many, many, other possibilities. That is why I created the calculator. I am not responsible for “all the other sights”, but I know as a fact that my calculator was the ONLY one that provided correct results at the time I wrote it. Some of the sites still have the PBS calculator, which was never correct. If you want to double-check your results, the IRS now has an online calculator. It is much more complicated and time-consuming, and it doesn’t give the same results as their 35 (manually calculated) examples, but feel free to use it.

To #160 by yank5353: For whatever reasons, Congress determined that a child must be less than 17 to qualify for the child tax credit, and that criteria should also be used for the “minimum rebate” giveaway program. For purposes of claiming a dependent and earned-income credit, the cutoff age is 19 (or 25 for a “full-time” student). There is no rhyme or reason to tax law, and it is usually a compromise between conflicting goals and/or political philosophies. It has nothing to do with the “legal age”. If you don’t like it, write your Congressman, and get a form-letter reply to some other issue.

To #161 by Jim: The calculator follows the tax law to the letter. If certain conditions are redundant or unreachable, blame Congress, not the calculator.

To #162 by yank5353: If your child is less than 25 years of age and a full time student, and you are supporting them, you can take them as a dependent. This reduces your taxable income (for 2007) by $3400, and reduces your tax liability by $340-952 depending upon your marginal tax bracket. This also qualifies you for certain other tax credits, but not the “stimulus payment”. If you think this is unfair, write your Congressman.

To #165 by Ben Grim: Everyone “could use the money”, and there are good arguments why each of us should get more than we are getting and/or pay less than we are paying. There are also very good arguments why we should not. If you are receiving SSI rather than SSDI, it is because you DIDN’T pay enough FICA and/or self-employment tax to qualify for SSDI. Thus, you are receiving welfare from the government, and (as you say), you don’t pay taxes on it. Be grateful. A lot of people pay taxes on their Social Security benefits, even though their “contributions” to the fund were made with after-tax dollars. Thus, they are getting taxed on the same income twice. You are not. Someone is always left out of every giveaway program. Perhaps more people should be included. Perhaps less people should be included. There are good arguments for both. Remember that someone has to pay the bill for government programs. Bill Gates, most ball players, most rock stars, and most gang bangers will NOT be getting any of this rebate. Firstly, the rebate is phases out for taxpayers with incomes greater than $75,000 ($150,000 for married filing jointly). Thus anyone making more than these amounts loses some of the rebate, until there is none left (at about $90,000 and $195,000). Most of the people you listed make far more than that, and pay more than their “fair share” in income taxes. Low-income tax payers pay 10% of their income (after all the exemptions and deductions are subtracted out). “Wealthy” tax payers currently pay as much as 28%, and corporations pay as much as 50%. A few years ago, they paid as much as 96%. Did you? As for “gang bangers”, I doubt any of them file income tax returns, or pay income taxes, so they won’t be getting a rebate. If you think this is unfair, write your Congressperson, and get a form-letter reply.

To #168 by Maurice: As clearly stated a the top of the calculator footnotes, “Estates and trusts are ineligible” [for the "rebate"].

To #170 by Bruce: Thank you. Please consider making a donation by clicking the Tax Professionals please click here link.

To #171 by Amber: Your advice is incorrect. Estates and trusts are ineligible for the “rebate”.

To #181 by walkerny: The government never called it a rebate. That was the term the media chose. The tax bill called it “a credit against taxes”. The IRS is calling it a “stimulus payment”.

To #183 by cookie: If you add a log to a fire, the fire will increase in size. If you smother it with logs, it will probably be extinguished. So, assuming that a $1200 rebate will stimulate the economy, a $12,000 rebate might do more harm than good. The assumption is that people will rush out and buy something with the windfall. In theory, this would be a good plan (if it were a true tax rebate, and not a redistribution of other people’s money), but many beneficiaries are more likely to put it in a savings account, or pay an existing bill, and thus there will be no increase in discretionary spending, and thus no stimulus. If it had been done last summer, it might have helped, but the recession is now to deep for such measures. What *would* work is a 10% across-the-board tax cut, but that violates liberal principles of tax the rich (unless they are fellow liberals), tax the middle class, pocket most of the proceeds, and give just enough to the poor to buy their votes.

To #191 by Bernard: Oh, please don’t try to blame the economy on the current administration. The Democrat-controlled Congress is at least equally responsible, if not more so. Corporate tax breaks create jobs and provide the very government revenues that your liberal friends love to spend. Every Democrat Congressman had access to the same intelligence reports as GWB, and they still voted for it. The only lies are the nonsense they are spouting now. In the last election, the Democrats campaigned on ending the war, but that was just rhetoric. They, as the administration, know that it is in our country’s vital interests to remain in Iraq, that there would be mass genocide and warfare as soon as we pulled out, and that it would give carte blanche to various terrorist groups to attack our allies in the Middle East and Europe as well as in the US. Over-regulation, not tax breaks, have run our country, as a business, into the ground. We didn’t have any allies going into the war, and we haven’t lost any favor with them as a result of it. Your $3+ trillion figure is a matter of creative accounting (i.e. DNC propaganda) unfounded in mathematics or logic. The reason the “current administration took office and inherited the highest national surplus our country has seen” is that Congress was dominated by the Republicans during the last 6 years of the Clinton regime, and we finally got some decent tax cuts. The reason the surplus shifted to a deficit is because the Democrats took over Congress, and found new ways to spend money. The military budget (which is one of the few legitimate functions of the federal government) is miniscule compared to the myriad of socialist programs (which are not legitimate functions of the federal government). Mr. Clinton got away with the mysterious disappearance, “accidental” death, and “suicide” of 347 people. Is that who you meant when you said “those top few that get away with murder”? You object to how much Chuck Prince was paid (by a private concern)? How much did the taxpayers pay when LAX was shut down so Clinton could get a $200 haircut (on the runway) from some Hollywood hotshot? How many billions did Clinton earn last year from dubious activities? How many billions are rich Democrats like Kerry and Gore and most of Hollywood paid, despite their failures?

I too have a problem with the old phrase, ““The rich get richer and the poor get poorer” because it is simply not true. Bill Gates was not born rich. Neither was Obama, for that matter. This country is full of people who have gone from rags to riches, with a little hard work, and a bit of good fortune. Unfortunately, punitive regulations and confiscatory taxes (favorites of the Democrats) make it more difficult to do so. Most of the “idle rich” in this country are Democrats, and they want to protect their favored status.

For every “extremely wealthy person” who is “able to help out and choose[s] not to” there are thousands of wealthy people who choose to help out. Who do you think funds charities, builds hospitals and theatres, and pays most of the taxes the liberals spend so freely?

After having your say, and inaccurately attacking the administration and the (non-Democrat) “wealthy”, NOW you want to “bring this back to what the forum was meant for?” How very Democratic (but not democratic).

To #202 by “Lower class”: Our “sorry educated asses” would be up a creek without farmers such as yourself who produce the food we eat (although most food in this country is produced by corporate farms and/or imported). But where would YOU be without the technology that our “sorry educated asses” produces for you to use in your farming operation. Have you ever plowed 40 acres by hand? Or tried to guess what nutrients your soil needs? Or tried to treat your own animals when they become ill, without the aid of modern medicines? By the way, I worked on a farm before I went to college and after. It lasted considerably longer than 5 minutes.

To #208 by jm: Welfare payments are not taxable income, nor are they “qualified income” for purpose of the ‘stimulus payment”. Thus, there is no reason for you to file an income tax return. Social security, railroad retirement, and veteran’s benefits are qualified income, and people receiving more than $3000 of these benefits should file a tax return to obtain the “rebate”, even if they normally do not file a return.

To #210 by Sue: The IRS will intercept your rebate to pay your past due tax liability, just as they do any income tax refund. Your husband can then file an injured spouse form for his portion of the rebate, just as he does with his portion of any income tax refund. I believe you can attach the injured spouse form to your tax return, rather than waiting for the “Notice of Offset”. If you live in a community property state, you each “own” half of the rebate. Otherwise, it will be based on your portion of the income and deductions.

To #211 by RDK: You quoted me and then replied to something I didn’t say. I am well aware that “those whose powerbase is supported by the tax system” refers to (almost) every single politician in the country, and both major parties. It’s not politically correct to call a spade a spade, anymore. When I say nothing of value, I mean nothing of value. You may teach at one of the top schools in the country, but that hardly benefits those of us who do not attend your school, and yet pay the taxes that support your purported excellence. Your opinion of “appropriately invested”, “best performing”, etc. may not match mine. But any value derived via coercion (e.g. taxes) is not value for money, but sheer coincidence. Perhaps it’s not possible to “vote the local bums out of office and get people in their who can make the right decisions”. After all, democracy is nothing more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

If “your local politicians are just as corrupt and useless as most in this country, regardless of party [what happened to voting the bums out of office?], and we’re forever in a multimillion dollar shortfall situation”, how do you figure “the taxpayers are getting one heck of a return on that investment”? I’m less interested in how many “graduates are going to 2- or 4- year postsecondary institutions” than whether those same graduates can read, write, spell (!), and do simple arithmetic, which most high-school and even college graduates can not. I never learned anything in school that I couldn’t learn (more quickly and more thoroughly) from a book — and I taught myself to read at the age of 3.

How does the government help me if “[I] get mugged, [my] house catches on fire, or [I] need an emergency appendectomy and left [my] wallet at home? If I get mugged, the police will take a report. They will not pay for my ambulance ride or my hospital visit. If they catch the mugger, I will NOT get my money back, even if they mugger still has it, as it will be kept “for evidence” until it eventually disappears. If my house catches fire, our local volunteer fire department will watch it burn, and keep it from spreading to the neighbor’s house, just as taxpayer-financed fire departments do. If I need an emergency appendectomy, I will be out of luck, as I couldn’t possibly afford the prices hospitals and physicians and everyone else but the parking lot attendant charges those without medical insurance. All these inflated costs are the direct result of government regulation.

The brush wasn’t anywhere near wide enough.

BTW, if you don’t spend your refund, you are not being a good, patriotic, fellow traveler. Benevolent Big Brother WANTS you to spend the money. How can you do otherwise?

To #212 by MileHighMom: If the IRS calculator gives a different result (assuming that you have entered the data correctly in both cases), you should probably use the IRS calculator, as that is probably what they will use to calculate the actual refund. I would be interested in seeing the exact figures you entered, so that I can fix my calculator if there is truly an error. You can email me at taxrebate @ chateaumezcal.com.

Reply to this comment

avatar Gordon

HI

I am on Social Security disability. $12,432.00 in 2007 also work part-time and made $7,392.00 in 2007
the first time I used calculator it said $600 I just use it again and said $300

How much am I going to receive.

Thank you Gordon

Reply to this comment

avatar cdg

To #216 by Gordon:

The calculator doesn’t give different results each time you use it, unless you enter different data. If it “said” your rebate amount was $600, and then said it was $300, most likely you entered “Married” for the filing status the first time, and “Single” the second.

With an SSDI of $12,432.00 in 2007, you qualify for the minimum rebate. With an additional earned income of $7,392.00, your net income tax liability would be zero, so you would *only* qualify for the minimum rebate of $300.

To arrive at a figure of $300, you would have had to enter a filing status of “married filing jointly” OR one qualifying child OR a net tax liability greater than $599.

To #213 by MS: I had a look at the IRS calculator. It produces the same results as my calculator for the situation you cite, although it uses two fields to compute net tax liability, whereas my calculator requires you to add these two fields together yourself. This was done because I was asked (by Flexo) to restrict the calculator to a particular frame size.

I suspect you entered the wrong values in one or the other calculator, and this caused the discrepancy.

For some reason the irs.gov calculator in comment 212 shows I will get $1088 instead of the 900 figured on the above calculator so the only thing I can figure is that child tax credit entered from my tax forms is what makes it different? Couple with one qualifying child, $0 tax liability. Still it is pretty close.

Reply to this comment

avatar MS

It was indeed the child tax credit, I missed the addition of line 52 to the tax liabilty above, Got the same results now of $1088 on both calculators.

Reply to this comment

avatar PorkedAgain

Well… once again, redistribution of wealth by the government. This plan is merely to keeps the masses at bay and throw them some peanuts to avoid chaotic uprising. This is TOTAL GARBAGE.

I made in excess of $200,000 last year and wife’s income on top of that… so it is pretty much a guarantee I’ve merely contributed to others get my money. Think I’ll see a dime of what I paid back? Hell no!

Now does that seem fair? No! Of course not. I paid more in taxes than many people made in income last year (not to be arrogant) and those people will be getting $1200 back? What’s wrong with this picture?

Reply to this comment

avatar kent

too bad some of us get nothing. I paid almost 85k in fed taxes this year and made just over 300k. But I get nothing. Something is wrong with this. I should get the same share as others

Reply to this comment

avatar mr. long

it’s funny how the people on here that make the most money are crying about fair treatment. Honestly I feel like that it is fair to give the people that aren’t making that much a little bit of leverage; 3 years ago i was one of the one’s that only made a grand total of only 20,000 in a year living in san diego california and i would’ve hoped for something like that to come along and give me a slight boost, now i make in excess of 110,000 living in orlando florida and i really don’t mind the fact that people that aren’t making that much are getting for once a break, because i was there at one point. So really you guy’s with the higher income need to quit crying because the 1,200 they may be back in one year we make in one paycheck. honestly it seems like greed to me when you make over 300,000 in a year and your crying because your not getting back the same amount as someone that’s working for 7.00 an hour scraping to make ends meet

Reply to this comment

avatar randyp910

I agree with mr.long.I’m sick of hearing all of you self righteous crybabies.You’ll get a tax credit next year.So what, your not getting a check for $1200 this year.Have your accountants find a few more deductions next year and quit your whining.I’ve already had over $5000 deducted from my pay for federal taxes this year and thats not mentioning the other $3000 that my wife has had deducted and to be quite honest It doesn’t bother me that lower income people are getting a break from the government.I just appreciate the abilities that god has given me to earn a good living so I can support the lifestyle that me and my kids enjoy.Some people work their asses off just to keep a roof over their head and to put food in their childrens mouth.Whats wrong with them getting a little lift from our government.In closing my advice to all of you ingrates is, think of what you already have instead of what some other people are getting.Because if they had the education and the abilites that most of you have. they wouldn’t e getting anything either.

Reply to this comment

avatar Vlad

Youre forgetting that technically this rebate will end up back in the hands of the government since we live in a world of double, triple and even quadruple taxation.

The refunds will be spent towards goods which are taxed. The owners of those taxed goods will report their profits/income and will have taxable liabilities on that income. After all is said and done, more than half of that money will be collected back as taxes, whether it be by the federal government, states, municipalities or a combination of all three.

Will it have a positive effect of stimulating the economy? Perhaps. But this is nothing more than a temporary solution to a pyramid/lapping/kiting scheme type of problem that has been building for the past 20 years within the nations economy.

Reply to this comment

avatar Jonathan

This is not a REBATE. A couple that did not even pay taxes will get $1,200 while a couple that paid over $30,000 in taxes will get nothing. This is a Robbin Hood plan and the end of the capitialist society we have spent the last 200 years building. It over, we are now socialist. The end.

Reply to this comment

avatar randyp910

Explain to me why you would want to live in this country if your so against the socialist society it is becoming.If you’d use your head for more than a hatrack you would see that capatalism as a whole has caused the majority of this countries problems.I don’t advocate communism but if you take time to think, capatalism in this country has caused such a ridiculous disparity in the way that wealth is distributed that there is no longer a middle class left.Greed is causing us to have multi billionaires who only look to find ways to keep the money they’ve acquired plus make more money that them and their future generations will never be able to spend.Then there is the rest of us poor shmucks,we work our asses off to make them more money and fight for the table scraps that they discard.Most of us people who make anything less than $1,000,0000 per year are exactly who I’m talking about (this is 99% of this country).Take time to figure out how much debt you have on mortgages,credit cards,car payments,insurance payments,school tuition on those fancy grade scools and colleges then pay them off and see what you have left.Most of you so called upper middle class people are under the perception that your wealthier than you really are.The truth is you just have better credit than poor people.But you also owe quite a bit more than them.It really sickens me listening to people who have put themselves into the situations they are in, continue to piss and moan about everone and everything but themselves and then do nothing to resolve their own problems because they have no idea that they exist.Quit complaining about how the government and those poor selfish people getting the handouts that your not getting are living and clean your own houses.( for all of you idiots out there who don’t understand what I mean.I’m saying take care of your selves and your own problems not fire your cleaning lady)

Reply to this comment

avatar cdg

To #225 by randyp910

The answer to your question is quite simple if *you* would use *your* head “for more than a hat rack.”

Those who were born in this country, and contributed to its greatness, have no wish to leave their country. Instead they are willing to fight to restore the capitalist society and free market that define true freedom. Furthermore, the only alternative would be to move to an even more socialistic country — or a desert island — since the disease of socialism has spread throughout the planet.

It is not capitalism that has caused the majority of the problems in this country, but government — which has never solved any problem without creating a greater one.

If you “don’t advocate communism”, then don’t advocate it. And, if you knew anything about EVERY country in which communism and socialism dominate, you would realize that there is a far greater disparity of wealth in those countries than in the U.S. Do you think everyone in Cuba lives in a palace like Castro and his favored minions? Or the Soviet Politboro?

Oh, but that’s not *real communism*, you might protest. Well, we could counter that the U.S. is not *real capitalism”, but the existing models are all we have to compare, not pie-in-the-sky philosophy.

The biggest problem in this country is class envy, as promulgated by the liberal element, whose leadership are ironically the wealthiest people in the country, while they pretend to be “for the little man”. In reality they are only for the little man’s vote, and they will throw him a carrot (or more likely the promise of a carrot) every now and then to secure it.

“Multi billionaires” are the most generous of our countries citizens. They fund hospitals, museums, libraries, opera, universities, etc, making these institutions available to those who could otherwise dream of affording them. And they do it with their own money, not taxes they have (literally) stolen from others. They also pay the largest portion of the tax burden, despite the fictional liberal propaganda of wealthy persons and corporations who pay no taxes.

In fact, the only selfish multi-billionaires I’m aware of are Democrats such as the Kennedy’s, Gore’s, Kerry’s, etc. who are only generous with other people’s money — while exempting themselves from onerous tax legislation.

If you are going to misuse the word “schmuck” (which designates a male organ), at least try to spell it correctly.

The reason “we work our asses off” is because the government steals the majority of our income in taxes, fines, and “user fees” to fund programs which purport to help the little guy, while providing lucrative executive positions and expense accounts for your Liberal leaders. Additionally, government policies drive up prices, and reduce the buying power of the the pittance the government doesn’t steal from us.

You complain that we have so much debt that any wealth we have managed to keep is imaginary. And then you advocate and defend government policies which increase the national debt! Very consistent!

We don’t “piss and moan” about the situation we have put ourselves in, but rather the situation that the government has put us in.

Unlike your hypothetical, I don’t make “over 1,000,000″, nor am I in debt over my head. I live frugally on about 2% of that amount, and I do without what I cannot afford. I don’t have a cleaning lady to fire, but I do feed and clothe numerous poor people (whose needs Benevolent Big Brother seems to ignore).

If our government followed my example, instead of constantly finding new ways to steal and spend other people’s money, the country (and the populace) would be much better off.

I find it interesting to hear a liberal adopt the “love it our leave it” philosophy that used to be attributed to “anti-hippie” conservatives. It defines Liberal hypocrisy in a few pithy words.

Reply to this comment

avatar MS

I thought this blog was for comments on the above calculator and help to figure the “rebate”, I am sick of all the fighting going on and I will not be reading any more of it, turning off the emails. Free world, I know…. Thank you to the creator of the calculator I found it very useful. Bye

Reply to this comment

avatar Luke Landes ♦127,475 (Platinum)

MS is right. This particular tax law is the result of *bipartisan* posturing (and our American culture has survived thus far thanks to the interaction between both “social/societal” and “capital/individual” ideologies). Any further partisan political discussion not related specifically to the economic stimulus will be deleted.

Reply to this comment

avatar randyp910

The whole point of my my rant was obviously not made clear and I apologize for that.I’m simply trying to point out that this entire stimulus package and it’s rebate are extremely trivial.The fact that people are complaining about what someone else is getting purely out of greed and envy is pointless.
I am not against the rich, the poor,democrats or republicans.I am just sick and tired of listening to and reading about the haves complaining about the havenots.This is not a generalization it is strictly for the people who have been whining about low income people getting handouts while they don’t get one.My wife and I pay taxes give to charitable organizations to give not for a tax rightoff and we actually care about our fellow man.This is what our country was founded on not greed and envy which is what I seem to hear alot of these days.Gods to most important commandments are love god and love your neighbor as yourself.

Reply to this comment

avatar Jonathan

Charity is when it is voluntary. Socialism is when it is not. Give to charity, I encourage it, but don’t force others to do the same or steal from them to do it. The government should not be redistributing wealth in a free society.

Besides, helping people buy their next fix, will not cure the economy.

Reply to this comment

avatar randyp910

This is a government rebate no one has stolen anything.AS a matter of fact this happens to be a rebate on taxes that haven’t even been paid yet.I often wonder why people complain so much about our government and then continue to stay here.You can always move to canada they’re a democracy to.If you move right now you won’t have to help fund this silly stimulus package and all of your problems will be solved.

Reply to this comment

avatar randyp910

I was wrong in calling canada a democracy

Reply to this comment

avatar cdg

To #231 by randyp910

How do you figure “this is a government rebate” when neither Congress (who passed the law) nor the IRS (who will administer the law) so designated it?

A [tax] rebate is a return of taxes that have been paid. This is only a tax rebate for some taxpayers. For the large number of “low-income” persons who will receive far more than they have paid in taxes, it is simply another socialist “giveaway” which is funded with money taken from others.

[Taxes are simply a form of armed robbery, albeit a form most of us have "agreed" to.]

“This” is absolutely NOT “a rebate on taxes that haven’t even been paid yet”. It is only designated “an advance credit against 2008 taxes” for government (smoke-and-mirrors) accounting purposes. For those who have actually paid taxes, and thus will actually be receiving a rebate, the taxes have already been paid.

It is only for those “taxpayers” who will be receiving a welfare payment, rather than a rebate, that the taxes have not yet been paid.

The reason that “people complain so much about our government and then continue to stay here” is that we were born here, we helped build this country, we belong here, and we will continue to fight those influences that seek to destroy it. If good people were to have moved elsewhere, the Revolutionary War would never have been fought, the USA would never have been founded, the Civil War would never have been fought, slavery might still exist here (as it does in so many European and Islamic countries), and you wouldn’t have the “right” to tell people who disagree with your uneducated views to “love it or leave it”.

Canada is as much a democracy as this country, however they have became far more socialist and confiscatory.

Those of us who pay taxes have already “funded” the stimulus package. Fleeing the country, as you suggest, will make no difference. But perhaps you should move to Canada, or Cuba, if you like socialism so much?

Reply to this comment

avatar randyp910

How much has or will this stimulus package effect your bottom line.I haven’t heard that my taxes were raised to fund this socialist referendum.That’s the point I’m trying to make. I wish my taxes were lower but I haven’t heard that this stimulus package has raised my weekly or yearly obligation.Therefore complaining about others that are less fortunate than me are getting seems like nothing more than pure envy (because someone else is getting something and I’m not).Please inform me on this if I’m wrong.

Reply to this comment

avatar randyp910

I have one last thing to say and this is it.I know that this has nothing to do with this stimulus package but in my defense.I feel I should set things straight.While I don’t exactly agree with the way that the government spends our tax dollars they are still the govenment that has been elected.I don’t think that we need a dea,fbi, cia,national security council,atf,terrorist task force,secret service and all of the other law enforcement entities that we have on top of the military, state,county and municipal law enforcement especially since our streets are still flooded with drugs and guns in the hands of people that they shouldn’t be. we spend far more on law enforcement than any other country in the world yet still have one of the worst crime rates and some of the sickest crimes commited outside of genecide and dictatorships.I don’t believe that our government should spend billions on funding a war with a country to destroy it and then spend even more on helping them rebuild what we’ve destroyed.I believe that welfare should be in place to help people that really need help to get on their feet and not carry them,and I also believe that it should only be given to people who need it, not given to all of the frauds that find a way to cheat the system.We loan money to countries all the while knowing that it will never be repaid and fund wars in other countries just to get people in office that will possibly agree with our politics in the future.There are so many things that are disagreeable about the way that our govenment spends our tax dollars it isn’t even funny. But this stimulus package seems to be one of the most trivial to be complaining about.all of the constant complaints do nothing but breed negativity and nothing to solve the problems.I just wish that the people who had all of the contempt for the our government and the way they run this country would run for office and try to reform it instead of complain about it.

Reply to this comment

avatar Jonathan

Randy. You are wrong. The “rebate” will require more taxes to fund, or worse, we will print more money weakening the dollar.

Reply to this comment

avatar cdg

**To #234 by randyp910**

As per your request, I am informing you that you are wrong.

The taxes which will fund this “stimulus package” have already been paid. If the government has a surplus of money, it is logical and equitable that it should be refunded to those who paid the taxes, not to those who paid no taxes and are already receiving various government benefits (funded with other people’s money, of course).

Now, since money which was budgeted for another purpose will be spent to fund the “stimulus package”, the government will have to make up for the deficit elsewhere. Thus, they will have to raise taxes, reduce other services, borrow (adding to the national debt), and/or print more money, thus hitting everyone (but mostly the poor and those on fixed incomes) with the “inflation tax”.

So, whether or not you or the politicians wish to acknowledge it, this “stimulus package” will cost everyone dearly. And it will not have the desired effect on the economy, nor was it intended to do so. The ONLY reason the legislation was passed was to create the appearance that the government is “doing something” to solve the economic crisis that has been created by excessive taxation and government regulation, so that we will re-elect them in November.

It’s not a matter of “envy” to wish a more equitable use (and return) of our tax dollars. It’s a matter of justice and good sense.

**To #235 by randyp910**

How very “on-topic” to provide us a detailed list of what you like, dislike, and wish the government would do differently. Surely, you understand that others will disagree with some or more of your list. And some will even agree with parts of it. But no one will agree with you entirely. That’s why our system of government is based on compromise, between differing goals. It’s very important to respect that. The alternative is totalitarianism.

The fact that law enforcement is relatively ineffective in this country has more to do with the court system than the number of police agencies. There is a good reason for each of the agencies you list, although some of their duties tend to overlap. But what would be the alternative?

If you think the crime rate is high now, what do you think it would be with less law enforcement? And who would remove the “drugs and guns” from the hands of people that [you think] shouldn’t have them?

As to having “some of the sickest crimes committed outside of genocide and dictatorships”, perhaps you should actually review the crime statistics in some other countries (such as the Muslim world, where “honor killings” and other mutilations abound).

The reason our government “spends billions on funding a war with a country to destroy it and then spend[s] even more on helping them rebuild what we’ve destroyed” is that we don’t declare war on a country and its populace, but rather on the government of a country. Thus, having destroyed the government, we feel obligated to help the populace rebuild. It’s comparable to putting abusive parents in jail, and then doing everything we can to help the children, rather than deserting them. Of course, it would be much simpler to have destroyed all of Iraq and its warring factions, but that wasn’t the goal.

Virtually everyone agrees with your vision of what welfare should be. But our current system, despite reform after reform, costs a fortune, leaves a lot of needy people without sufficient assistance, provides benefits for a lot of people who do not need them, and discourages people from getting off the welfare wagon.

Similarly, we agree in respect to foreign aid, the support of corrupt foreign governments, and wasteful spending.

The disagreement is in how to solve these problems. Liberals think the solution lies in more government and higher taxes. True conservatives think that government is the problem, not the solution.

You think that “the stimulus package seems to be one of the most trivial to be complaining about”. Perhaps you are correct. But that is precisely what this “blog” is supposed to be discussing, not the entire spectrum of your political philosophy.

Are *you* running for office, rather than complaining about the way the government runs things? Or is that just what you suggest “everyone else” do?

Reply to this comment

avatar randyp910

I don’t run for office because to be honest with you I don’t believe that I have the experience or knowledge to do anything about our countries problems.That is why I try to concentrate on the the problems in my own world.Meaning I try to do the best with what is front of me(namely me,mywife,our children,my friends and the people I come in contact with on a daily basis.I try to solve what ever problem I have in front of me and do what I can for the people who ask me for help.The key part of that phrase is the people who ask me for help.Because I’ve found that some people don’t want help, they just feel like complaing about everything is their right and they would prefer to be miserable.My way of looking at things may seem to be very selfish but it works for me.I can complain about everything that happens in the world or I can try to make it a better place where I’m at.Thats one of the biggest reasons I have given up watching the news.I have no control over what happens in the world so why should I spend my time getting aggravated with it.This way I can concentrate on the things that really need attention and appreciate what god has blessed me with once and a while.

Reply to this comment

avatar cdg

To #238 by randyp910

_Of course_ you don’t have the experience or knowledge to do anything about our country’s problems, or (based on your previous comments) even understand those problems accurately. [Neither do most of our self-serving politicians, who foster class-envy to promote their own careers.] But it was YOU who suggested everyone else “run for office” rather than exercising their democratic right to complain about what they feel is wrong with this country’s policies, while simultaneously posting a number of lengthy diatribes describing what YOU think is wrong with this country. Although such a double-standard is quite common amongst Democrats and other Liberals, it is not in the least democratic.

In #204 you inaccurately told us “the rebate that you will be getting is just an advance on your 2008 taxes….So whatever you get will be deducted next year when you file….Maybe this will help you realize how ridiculous you sound complaining about what others are getting.” Then you blamed this bi-partisan bill on President Bush.

Your biased assertions were refuted by FACT, so you tried a new tactic:

In #207, you were honest enough to admit “I have absolutely no idea what your [sic] talking about”, but that didn’t stop you from offering your opinion of that you admittedly don’t understand. You then told us how wealthy you are (while simultaneously denying it), and once again blamed this bipartisan legislation on President “bush [sic] and his advisors [sic]“, and delivered an inaccurate diatribe (replete with spelling and grammatical errors) about the entire rebate ending up in the hands of “the rich” (according to your uneducated misunderstanding of the economy).

These assertions were also refuted by FACTS,

Then in #222, you told us YOU are “sick of hearing all of you self righteous crybabies” (even though you earlier admitted you have absolutely no understanding of what “we” are “crying” about). Once again, you inaccurately described the “rebate” legislation, told us about your personal wealth, and advised us to make up the inequity [in the "rebate" legislation] by having our accountants find a few more deductions [showing your ignorance of other tax matters as well.] You then summarized with your (typically Liberal) political philosophy that, as long as you and your wife have above average income, you don’t care if the government confiscates and redistributes _other people’s_ hard-earned wealth amongst whatever privileged class of persons it deems “worthy” today.

How very generous (and Democratic) of you to be so willing to share your opinion and OUR “wealth” with others.

In #225, you suggest anyone who disagrees with you should leave the country, blame all the ills of a socialist government on capitalism, falsely accuse “wealthy” persons of “greed” (as though avarice was restricted to any economic class), employ (and misspell) various obscenities to emphasize your political philosophy, tell us that we are all in debt over our heads (like yourself?) despite our frugality, and ridiculously suggest that the solution to all the country’s problems is for us to fire our (non-existent) cleaning ladies!

Once again, your assertions were politely refuted with FACTS and logic. But you didn’t give up.

In #229 you told us that “the whole point of [your] rant was obviously not made clear”, and that what you meant to say (amongst all the virulent accusations and name-calling) was “this entire stimulus package and it’s rebate are extremely trivial” and you are “sick and tired of listening to and reading about the haves complaining about the havenots [sic].”

It’s interesting that you are “sick and tired” of the (valid) on-topic complaints of others, but apparently not too fatigued to offer your own complaints, false accusations. and groundless opinions, about every conceivable subject.

Then in #231 you once again demonstrate your complete ignorance of the text of the “rebate” legislation, and suggest that anyone who doesn’t like _anything_ about our country’s policies (by which you apparently mean doesn’t agree with you) should move to canada [sic].

In #232, you tell us that you were “wrong in calling canada [sic] a democracy”, which shows you don’t know what the word democracy means either.

In #234, you further demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of the “rebate” legislation, and once again tell us that anyone (besides yourself) exercising their democratic right to complain about what they perceive as inequitable is only doing it out of jealousy! (Earlier it was greed.)

In #235, you treat us to a lengthy diatribe on your entire political philosophy, listing everything that YOU find wrong with the country, and suggest that anyone (else) should run for office rather than complain (which is a marked improvement on your earlier demand we leave the country). You also told us this would be your final comment, but apparently couldn’t (and can’t) resist additional ranting.

Your lengthy diatribe was again refuted and you were asked (rhetorically) if you were going to follow your own “advice” to run for office _rather_ than complain about things.

So, in #238, you tell us that you are unqualified to run for office, as you have absolutely no understanding of the issues involved, much less any inkling of how to solve them. Yet, despite this admission, you have treated us to ten posts in which you have inaccurately described the tax legislation, inaccurately attributed various attitudes to the administration and “wealthy” persons, inaccurately attributed all the country’s problems to “capitalism”, engaged in obscenities and name-calling to emphasize your points, and suggested anyone who disagrees with you leave the country and (simultaneously) run for office.

There is an old saying, “Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.”

Reply to this comment

avatar randyp910

This message is for cdg.I admit that I was wrong commenting on the on the crybaby nature of a great deal of the posts on this blog.Believe it or not it has been very educational reading some of the postings.unfortunately I have offended you by voicing my opinions.The ONLY point I was trying to make is that you and quite a few other people have done nothing but bitch about this stimulus package.Yes it’s design is flawed, yes it gives money to the less fortunate and yes it is a political ploy to make our government look more effective than they really are.But how can you criticize something without evidence.Contempt without investigation is nothing more than proof of a closed and ignorant mind.Bitch about the stimulus package after you’ve seen the results.Not one penny has been spent on it yet so there are no results.Negativity breeds negativity and complaining does nothing.That is my point!!!!!!!!!

Reply to this comment

avatar kmp

If I’m not mistaken didn’t the government do something like this tax stimulus package about 8 years ago.If so what were the results of it.I understand that this is just a bandaid on a faultering economy but I see no way to permanantly fix the problem without tearing down the entire system and starting over.I understand that the concept is to give money to the people most likely to spend it and that would be people who don’t have six figure bank accounts and large stock portfolios because they have no reason to spend the money immediately.So if you give the money to someone with just enough money to get by they will probably look at it like winning the lottery and blow the money on things they normally couldn’t afford.I see that this will infuse money into the marketplace.So what is wrong with throwing a bandaid on the problem instead of just letting it to continue to spiral out of control and put us into a full blown recession right now.

Reply to this comment

avatar Pacheco

I understand that some people are getting more of a rebate than others, and that some people who hardly made any money are getting a big chunk of change. But I hate when people get on here and complain that they make 6 figures and it can barely get them by. BOO HOO. YOU chose to live in a place that is expensive so DON’T COMPLAIN if someone makes 6 figures and lives somewhere cheaper, they are smarter than you. Go live somewhere cheaper if you think it’s unfair.

Reply to this comment

avatar kmp

After reading more about this I’m a bit confused.I was under the impression that our government was running under a deficit not an abundance of funds.How is the government funding this if there isn’t any money to fund it.I’ve read that other government programs will suffer.Well what programs are they and what percentage of this program are they funding.I’ve read that my taxes will be raised to fund this, is that dependant on if a democrat or a republican is president or on who controls congress.I have seen that democrats raise taxes and republicans try to lower them so why would my taxes raise if we keep a republican in office.Honestly looking at the democratic candidates a republican president seems highly likely.I’ve read here that this isn’t a rebate on future taxes, but have been told that this is a rebate on my 2008 taxes. In order to implement this package before bush is out of office they are basing it on my 2007 return.Will someone who KNOWS what they’re talking about please answer these question.I’m not looking for a commentary or someones opinions just the facts.

Reply to this comment

avatar cdg

To #240 by randyp910.

Well, thank you very much for changing your characterization of those who disagree with your uneducated political viewpoint from “crybaby” to “bitch”. Are you incapable of expressing any thought without profanity? Are you the only person who is entitled to express his opinion, or complain about what he/she perceives as an inequity?

After attempting to make _numerous_ erroneous points in the form of inaccurate observations and illogical conclusions not supported by fact, you now claim that “The ONLY point I was trying to make is that you and quite a few other people have done nothing but bitch about this stimulus package”. Once again, you are totally wrong!

In addition to “bitching” (as you put it) about the stimulus package, I have read the tax legislation and committee reports (unlike yourself) so I actually know what I’m “bitching” about, provided an accurate calculator to determine _your_ rebate or welfare payment, answered hundreds of questions (in this forum and by email) as to the law and its application, made numerous modifications to the calculator and the explanations to make it easier for laymen to understand and use, and refuted various inaccurate statements that have been made about the law and the related politics.

Unlike you, and despite your accusations, I do not criticize anything without “evidence”. You have written eleven posts, replete with inaccurate information, groundless opinion, and criticisms for which you have provided no evidence (because there is none to support your position). Conversely, I have attempted to educate you and refute your inaccurate assertions with facts and logic.

It is you who have demonstrated “contempt without investigation” and “a closed and ignorant mind”, as you have leveled one inaccurate and groundless accusation after another.

One needn’t (and shouldn’t) wait to see the results before offering a critical opinion. The Congresspersons who debated this legislation and voted it into law didn’t wait to see the results before they offered their opinions of what they expected the legislation to accomplish and what they considered “unfair”. The media didn’t wait to see the results before they offered their opinions of what they expected the legislation to accomplish and what they considered “unfair”. _You_ didn’t wait to see the results (or even bother to read the legislation) before offering your opinion on the entire spectrum of politics. Why should those who find faults different than the faults you find wait to see results before offering their opinions? This is just another Liberal double-standard.

And, once again, you are incorrect in your “facts”. We have already seen the results of a very similar stimulus package in 2001. Most recipients put the money into savings rather than going out on a spending spree as Congress hoped they would. Thus, the “rebate” did not stimulate the economy as expected, and simply cost the taxpayers money. [However, the more permanent tax cut implemented in the same year did have a stimulus effect.]

Conversely, EVERY tax cut in history has stimulated the economy, provided more jobs, more benefits for the poor and middle class, and more government revenues. And EVERY tax increase in history has done the opposite. Yet, since this reality flies in the face of Liberal pipe dream philosophy, they refuse to acknowledge, much less implement, true economic stimulus.

Albert Einstein defined insanity as making the same mistake a subsequent time, and expecting a different result.

You are also incorrect that “not one penny has been spent on it yet so there are no results”. The IRS has already spent hundreds of millions mailing out notices to everyone who filed a tax return last year, telling them to file again this year to receive their “rebate”. (Since most of them would do so regardless, this was a total waste of money. Furthermore, no notices were sent out to those who did not file a tax return, and yet qualify for the “rebate” (e.g. social security recipients), which might have made sense).

Furthermore, if you knew anything about Congressional accounting, you would know that as soon as the tax law was passed, the necessary funds were “earmarked” for this purpose, and thus made unavailable for other purposes. This is how Congress “spends” money in every case, so the money (for the “rebate”) has already been spent in this case too.

If you truly believe that “negativity breeds negativity and complaining does nothing”, I suggest you stop being negative and complaining.

And, if “that is [your] point!!!!!!!!!”, I suggest you take a class in writing, because you have done a very poor job of presenting it. A casual observer might even think you have presented many other points in your eleven posts.

To #241 by kmp

Yes, the “rebate” idea has been tried before, and the results were other than hoped for (which is almost always the case when the government tries to “fine tune” the economy).

Yes, the idea _is_ for (poor) people to go out and spend the money, and thus stimulate the economy, but the reality is that this will not occur to a great enough extent to make any difference.

Since the money has to come from somewhere, more harm will be done than good (as explained in a previous post). This is born out by history as well as logic.

The “Great Depression” of 1929 was caused primarily by the government instituting a “protective tariff” (tax) in the middle of a recession. The next administration tried to spend its way out of the depression, which only prolonged it. It was America’s entry into World War II, not Roosevelt’s “New Deal” that finally ended the “Great Depression”.

Despite the continual Liberal mantra that tax cuts and rebates do not stimulate the economy, the Democrats (as well as the Republicans) turned to this very procedure when they saw a recession looming. Unfortunately, they do not (or will not) understand that permanent tax cuts for business and “the rich” provide far more stimulus at far lower cost than seemingly “fairer” give-aways to the poor and lower middle-class. The former create real (non-government) jobs and economic opportunities, and thus increased government tax revenues, while the latter simply buy votes.

What’s wrong with “throwing a bandaid on the problem instead of just letting it continue to spiral out of control” is that the “band-aid” itself can easily becomes the catalyst that creates a “full blown recession”. This is what President Bush meant when he said we don’t want to do too much. Unfortunately, no one can know what is “too much” or “too little” until long after the fact. That’s why it is important to learn from history, and not repeat the same mistakes.

U.S. law requires Congress to balance the “rebate” program (just as any “tax cut” or expenditure) with an offsetting reduction in expenditures, or increase in taxes, using static economics (that is, ignoring the true economic effects of the expenditure they are offsetting). If they decide to fund this program by increasing taxes during a recession, it could easily result in another Great Depression.

To #243 by kmp

As stated in a previous post, the government will “fund” the “rebate” program by increasing taxes, reducing other expenditures, borrowing money, printing money, or a combination of these. Those are the only options the U.S. government has to fund its various programs.

If, as hoped, the rebate actually stimulates the economy, it may fund itself, by increasing government revenues from sales taxes, taxes on corporate profits, and personal income taxes obtained from the new jobs which will be created.

If, as happened in 2001, the rebate fails to stimulate the economy, the rebate will simply add to the growing deficit. [It is noteworthy to mention that the deficit has received a lot of attention in past years. Yet, when we finally had an annual surplus (due to a robust economy resulting from the Reagan tax cuts, followed by those of the Republican Congress during the Clinton Administration), neither party was interested in reducing the deficit. The Republicans wanted to issue a tax rebate, and the Democrats wanted to find new ways to spend the money.]

Yes, traditionally, Republicans lower taxes, while Democrats raise them (although there have been notable exceptions to this generalization). But this is dependent upon who controls Congress, not who sits in the White House. The President proposes, but Congress enacts tax legislation as they see fit. The President can veto legislation he doesn’t like, but Congress can override his veto. So, regardless who wins the next Presidential election, it’s more important which party controls Congress.

As stated many times in previous posts, technically, the “rebate” _is_ an “advance credit against 2008 taxes”, but this is simply a Congressional accounting ploy, so that the 2007 Budget isn’t put further out-of-balance. [If the "rebate" works, it will increase government revenues during 2008, not 2007, and it looks better on the balance sheet to have the "rebate" expenditure appear in 2008 as well.]

The “rebate” is based on your 2007 tax return. It is automatic. If your 2008 tax return will entitle you to a larger rebate, you can request it with that return. Unless the IRS changes its stated procedure, that will not be automatic.

The goal isn’t “to implement this package before bush is out of office”, and that is _not_ why “they are basing it on [your] 2007 return”. The goal is to stimulate the economy (or create the appearance of doing so) before the November 2008 _congressional_ elections, so that the voters will not vote the incumbent _congresspersons_ out of office. _That_ is why this measure received such wide bi-partisan support.

Reply to this comment

avatar randyp910

Do you have the ability to let anything go.I don’t need you to write me a novel when I try to make an effort at seeing things your way.The last thing I need is for you to try to convince me of how right you are and how wrong I am.I bet everyone who knows you loves you for your openmindedness and compromising nature.

Reply to this comment

avatar kmp

Quite a few others have said that reaganomics is one of the chief contributors to the shape of our country economically.They say that it overstimulated the economy and caused it to grow to rapidly.Most of the jobs that were created were exactly that jobs not careers.Most people can’t support a family on a job.They have also told me that most of the jobs that were created back then now exist in other countries instead of here.Thus causing less working people and less taxable income from the working man.It all seems to be nothing more than a giant baloon that is going to burst.

Reply to this comment

avatar Luke Landes ♦127,475 (Platinum)

randyp910 “and” kmp: Let’s stick to discussion about the tax stimulus package only. As emails sent to your email address bounce, I can only contact you via another comment. I want to remind you and others not to take advantage of the free commenting policy here. Any further personal criticisms (from any visitor) will be deleted.

Reply to this comment

avatar cdg

To #245 by randyp910

You might ask yourself the same question, as you persist in the very activities of which you accuse others. You provided us with twelve posts (so far) consisting of nothing but inaccuracies, spelling errors, false and malicious accusations, and your uneducated opinions on virtually everything. I don’t care if you “see things my way” or continue to stumble in your ignorance. I simply don’t like to see “opinions” which are based on ignorance and bigotry go unrefuted.

You are correct that you don’t need anyone to write you a novel. A novel, by definition, is a work of fiction. But it might be a good idea if you would bother to read a few _factual_ articles discussing the the subjects you expound upon with such virulence.

In your twelve posts, I see no evidence that you have “tried to make an effort at seeing things [my] way” at all. Instead you have persisted in presenting cascading factual inaccuracies. These are not “differences of opinion”, but rather outright fabrications.

Those who do know me, indeed respect me for my open mindedness and compromising nature. They also respect me for my knowledge of facts, and ability to distinguish between fact and propaganda. Thank you for recognizing this. Perhaps there is hope for you yet.

To #kmp

The opinion you express in the name of “quite a few others” is simply common Liberal propaganda. First the Liberals claimed that “Reaganomics” (which is nothing but real-world economics, as opposed to the Liberal dream world of Keynesian economic theories) wouldn’t work. Then, when it _did_ work, they claimed that it worked “too well” (whatever that may mean). Then, they said that the jobs it created weren’t good enough. Then, they tried to give the Clinton administration credit for the economic boom. These are four mutually exclusive assessments, all delivered by the same “experts”.

In fact, _most_ of the jobs that were created as a direct result of the “Reagan tax cuts” and later “Bush tax cuts” have been substantial career opportunities, not simply “flipping hamburgers” (or shuffling paperwork for the government or featherbedding on a government work project). But, if you were out of work and unable to support yourself, wouldn’t flipping hamburgers be superior to unemployment, or starvation? Wasn’t this the purported reason behind Roosevelt’s various work programs, which the Liberals think were so wonderful? What about President Johnson’s infamous “job corps”? What about all the subsequent and current Liberal proposals for creating jobs?

In fact, the Liberals love to create low-level _government_ jobs. They only gripe when the jobs are created by the private sector (which produces income), rather than the government (which simply spends it).

This, rather than all the common nonsense, is the only significant difference between the liberal Democrats and the (almost equally liberal) Republicans: The Democrats think solutions require more government, while the Republicans think solutions can and should come from the private sector. When Republican administrations and Congressmen support government solutions, they are actually acting like Democrats. But don’t expect the Liberals to give them any credit for doing their bidding. Most (not all) of what President Bush has done during his administration has been precisely what the Democrats (and Algore) were advocating before Bush was elected. It only became “bad” in the Liberals’ eyes when it came from a Republican. This is worse than a double-standard.

The reason many jobs have been “outsourced” to foreign countries is that corporations (who need to make a profit to survive, and to provide jobs and government tax revenues) can save substantial money by doing so. This is because of the excessive regulation and taxation in this country. Thus, the very programs that the Liberals promote cause jobs to flee the country. This has nothing to do with “Reaganomics” (or Keynesian economics for that matter). It is simply the predictable result of bad economic policy, which fails to learn from experience.

Back in the 1950′s, most people could support a family on (what you term) “only a job”. A minimum wage worker could rent an apartment, pay for their food and medical costs, make payments on a late-model (or even new) car, dine out for dinner once a week, and have something left to save for a rainy day. Gasoline cost 20 cents per gallon. A new car was less than $2000. Milk was $1 gallon. Butter was 79-cents. A week’s groceries — including steak — was less than $25.

Unfortunately, there were a great many people, black and white, especially in the South, who didn’t even earn minimum wage, and lived in abject poverty. So the government tried to “fix things”.

Johnson’s “Great Society” created numerous government welfare and other “entitlement programs” at great cost. Although we now have various government benefits for “poor people”, and the minimum wage is much higher than it was in the 1950′s, we have paid the price in non-stop inflation and an ever growing deficit (which will have to be paid some day).

Despite all these programs, there are probably as many impoverished people as before. There are probably more “hard-core” unemployed, because government policies have taken away many low-level jobs. But now, the “middle-class” is struggling to make ends meet, in a way which was once the sole province of the very poor.

A minimum wage worker can no longer afford to rent an apartment without taking on one or more roommates. What once cost 25% of a person’s income, now costs about 50% of a middle-class wage earner’s income. Medical costs are unaffordable by anyone but the very wealthy, or those fortunate enough to have employer-provided health insurance (which, in turn, drives down wages and drives up the cost of goods). A new automobile, or even a decent junker, is only a dream for a minimum-wage worker. Social security benefits are insufficient to make ends meet, for those who depend on them. And, whatever you have managed to save for your own retirement, your children’s college, etc. has been eroded by the inflation tax.

All this is a direct result of 40 years of reckless government spending by both Democrat and Republican Congresses. There is no attempt to balance the budget, other than with smoke-and-mirrors accounting. The deficit is only important when the other side is in power. When there is a surplus, the money is immediately earmarked for new programs. When one side wishes to raise a budget item by 5%, and the other side wishes to raise it by only 4.95%, the first side labels the second a “draconian budget cut”. There is no attempt at co-operation or compromise, only false accusations hurled at the other side.

_It is indeed a huge balloon that is going to burst one day_. The current “mortgage crisis” (which was brought about primarily by government regulations requiring mortgage companies to lend to unqualified borrowers, or face “discrimination” charges) may well be the catalyst that brings down the economy. The “economic stimulus” package is far too little and far too late to make any difference.

This recession is already in full swing. [Unfortunately, it is impossible to recognize a recession or economic boom until about 6-months after the fact.] If the government stays out of it, and gives the markets and economy a chance to correct themselves, it may not get out of control. If the government tries to “fix things”, they will only make the problem worse. This is born out by history as well as logic.

What makes a “soft landing” highly unlikely is the constant battle between those who want more government and those who want less, between those who want more “social” spending and those who want more military and police spending. The only thing both sides will agree on is the “need” to employ a “band-aid” fix, get themselves re-elected, and postpone the problem for future generations.

Reply to this comment

avatar kmp

Your absolutely right I’m just looking for actual answers about how this is being funded not speculation.I figure that our government has come up with a better idea than printing more money.Also what were the results of the previous tax rebate? I’m not looking for it wasn’t what they hoped for I’m looking for the reslts meaning did it cause an infusion of cash,did it stimulate our economy and was inflation slowed at all.I don’t want to get into a political conversation I just want to understand why this stimulus package would be put into effect if it has no chance of making any difference.I can’t see the entire government trying to find a way to buy themselves another term in office as being the only reason for this.

Reply to this comment

avatar kmp

You seem to be a very intelligent person with quite a bit of knowledge on this subject.Thank you for explaining the way that our political system has failed us.In most cases I agree but this still has nothing to do do with what I’m trying to understand about this package.I’m looking for an actual summary of the results of the past tax rebate and the way that this tax rebate will effect us not the way it might.

Reply to this comment

avatar JP

This calculator does function correctly, if used correctly.

And in regard to the comment about how liberals don’t know how to stimulate the economy… This is the package by the republican president. The democrats wanted tax cuts, but President Bush and the republicans did not. Please don’t change fact as to justify your beliefs, and pass them as truths. That’s how this country got into the mess it is in today.

Reply to this comment

avatar SLG

Question on this that I read:
“The “rebate” is an advance credit against your 2008 tax return (which will be filed in 2009). However, it is calculated based on the amounts shown on your 2007 return (which will be filed in 2008). When you file your 2008 return, the IRS will recalculate your “rebate” based on the 2008 amounts. If this results in a larger “rebate” amount, you will receive a “refund” of the difference. If this results in a smaller “rebate” amount, you will not have to repay the difference.

The “rebate” will not increase or decrease any tax refund to which you would otherwise be entitled. It is an additional credit for 2008, which you are receiving in advance.”

*****Does this mean we will get less back than we normally would in 2009 when we file taxes for 2008? If so, I don’t want the rebate. I would rather have all I can get back next year than $900 less.*****

Reply to this comment

avatar Brian

Just don’t pay your taxes, that way you don’t have to worry about whether you are getting a rebate check or not. Refile your w4 as exempt and don’t file a 1040, it’s that easy.

Reply to this comment

avatar Luke Landes ♦127,475 (Platinum)

Brian: I don’t think that suggestion will fly, but good luck.

Reply to this comment

avatar Brian

heheh… why not?

Reply to this comment

avatar Nancy

I have this same questions. I am planning on sending in an installment agreement with my 2007 taxes. Will I still get the rebate check or will they deduct this from what is owed?

Reply to this comment

avatar drsmartypants

I am a college student and my parents claimed me for the ’07 year. However due to a summer job that I worked overtime 80% of the time I earned around $8,000 and paid taxes on it all. Do I get a refund or because my parents claim me am I SOL?

Reply to this comment

avatar Melissa

My question simply is the rebate is for people who filed 2007 taxes in 2008? Or for those who filed 2006 in 2007? Also, It gives the dates for people who recieved their refunds via check or direct deposit what happens if I recieved mine on a debit card? Just curious..

Reply to this comment

avatar carol

Please e-mail answer to comment #26 regarding a stimulus refund if you owe back taxes, thank you.

Reply to this comment

avatar Juanita T

I have a AGI 12,704 and I’m self employed I paid 1,931 in taxes and i have 2 dependents what will I receive in my stimulus check.

Reply to this comment

avatar Bernard

To #260, I plugged your info in and got $1,200 if you filed single and $1,800 if you filed Married Filing Jointly.
It’s fairly easy to plug your own info into the calculator as you’ve left out a couple bits(Earned Income and how you filed). It’s cake if you have your filing papers as they gave exactly which lines to take the info from.

CDG, I kind of understand the frustration you showed being as the calculator made it as easy as having the answers to a test in High School and some people still just want other people to do it for them.

Reply to this comment

avatar Holly

I have same question as Nancy #256 – UGH!!! I can’t seem to get a straight answer on this. The IRS site doesn’t even address it!! I worked out an installment plan over the phone with the IRS (for 2007). I sent in my 1st payment with my tax return 2007 – I subsequently got letter from IRS approving my installment payments – i owe them 1,899 (less the 160 I paid w/ the return) Will I get a rebate check (of the 1,200 we should get) or will they apply it to the balance due on my debt/installment plan to the IRS?

Reply to this comment

avatar woe is me

cdg….you are bitter. Although I think that this rebate/prebate whatever is a huge mistake… Every iota of wealth realized in this nation is due to a very liberal idea…personal freedom. This personal freedom is not being usurped by liberals or conservatives, but by Democrats and (mostly) Republicans who wrap themselves in the “wholesome” ideological garb of their respective parties while cozying up to corporate interests. Corporations, not rich individuals, will squeeze the last drop of blood out of this nation, and they will do it with politicians with the aid of corporate welfare, no-bid contracts, etc. We already live in a fascist nation: when business buys elections and controls government, it is inevitable that government will exert huge influence over business, and in the process doing the deepest damage to the small businesses.

But, this is all to the wind I’m sure. you probably think it’s ok that just because the minimum wage is slightly more than the price of a gallon of gas, it’s ok for an employer to pay only that wage. You probably had a conniption when the minimum wage was raised. Evil, evil gummint.

I am ecstatic that we will soon have not just a democrat, but a liberal as president. The fact that that person will more than likely still have student loans, like the folks who are backing him (not like the illiterate rednecks who voted for Bush), makes me very enthusiastic about the future. And, he’ll have an idea as to how to actually achieve a balanced budget, which I’m sure we’ll all agree is important.

And, please, throw around some more generalities about “commies” and “pinkos,” you little McCarthy/Nixon/Atwater protege. You, sir, are a Great American.

Reply to this comment

avatar chapstick123

Same questions as #256 & #262. Everything I read says it does not affect the 2007 taxes you owe. I also will have an installment agreement for this year (2007 taxes). I did call the IRS and the lady I spoke with said my rebate will go toward the additional taxes I owe therefore reducing the amount left on my installment agreement. But she was not positve about that. I guess I will have to wait and see if we get a check or not.

Reply to this comment

avatar Nicole

OK…I filed for electronic return for my income taxes, the bank denied it for whatever reason, they said it was because it was more than 5K & I ended up having to wait for a paper check, does this mean I have to wait for a paper check for this rebate money as well? Or since I originally filed for direct deposit will it go in automatically????

Reply to this comment

avatar Carolyn

If someone has many many children. Do they receive $300 for each of their six kids or is there a limit to the number of kids? In my opinion there should be a limit. Question number two: Since I owe the federal and the state, will the IRS keep the stimilus check?

Reply to this comment

avatar dsp

I am a college student so my parents claimed me but I earned 7,000+ last year and paid taxes. Do I qualify for the rebate?

Reply to this comment

avatar Ben

Carolyn, Why should there be a limit on the number of children? For stimulus purposes, people with many children are more likely to be consumers–each child is a secondary consumer–than others with the same income but fewer children. In the long run, people that have sacrificed to have large families are the reason you will have social security benefits when you retire.

Reply to this comment

avatar Meli

I don’t get it….I work and scrape together just enough to barely keep a roof over my head, and according to your calculator because I’m single and have no children I’m only going to get $300 back? The same amount those bozos who haven’t bothered to go get a job would get?

For all everybody whose posted here who have kids or who are married have whined about, singles with no children pay more money in taxes in relation to their income than the rest of you. Most of us don’t have the deductions you can take, such as educational credits or homestead exemptions or Earned Income Credits, and we can’t combine our incomes with anyone else to put ourselves in a different tax bracket so we can get more money back on our returns. And yet I’m supposed to get back less than some Baby Mama who dropped out of school in the 10th grade, doesn’t work and spit out 5 kids between the ages of 14 and 20? Please.

Reply to this comment

avatar Heather

Meli, that’s because you’re making the amount you do and just supporting yourself. However much that may be, there are people who may be making the same amount as you but have to support another person(s) besides themselves. Of course they would get back more.

Reply to this comment

avatar dsp

I’ve asked this before. Does anyone know about students who’s parents have claimed them? Will I, a college student who payed taxes, get a refund? I’d be grateful for any knowledge. I’ve tried looking it up but I seem to be missing the answer.

Reply to this comment

avatar Luke Landes ♦127,475 (Platinum)

dsp: If you were claimed as a dependent on someone else’s 2007 tax return, then you will not receive your own stimulus payment. You’ll get another chance when you file your 2008 taxes if your parents don’t claim you as a dependent then.

Reply to this comment

avatar Robin Hood

Welcome to Sherwood Forrest everyone. Work hard; become successful so that you can lend a hand to your fellow citizens without any choice in the matter. Got to love it!

Reply to this comment

avatar Confused

So what happens if you are a single mom who has to flip the years for claiming her only child with her ex-husband? I claimed her for ’07 and he gets to claim her for ’08. Who rightfuly gets the rebate? It’s coming to me but he thinks I should split it with him. Does he just lose out or will he get something on ’08 taxes?

Reply to this comment

avatar Amber

To confused, if you go to irs.gov they answer those questions for you about the who gets the stimulus check for their children if the parents are divorced. I myself had a few questions and they pretty much cleared it up for me. As for the whole dependent thing. Its not fair! I believe those who didn’t file taxes should not get the stimulus check, and it should go to those who are dependents and have a job who made the amount to be qualified. I can’t help my parents are willing to pay for my college. To make matters worse my mom who is a single parent is not getting anything back for me either nor my dad for that matter. She is getting the stimulus payment for herself, not for me, and I am not getting anything either. I think Bush should have thought that situation out a little bit more. Plus if my mom claims me again next year then the same is in effect. She is going to claim me as long as I am in college. I was really hoping I would get something back. The way gas is and prices rising on everything is making it really hard on the ones who do not make that much money, and who are still in college trying to get a good education so we can go on to make good money.

Reply to this comment

avatar chris

I made $240K last year, but with interest and depreciation write-offs I didnt pay any taxes. Do I still get my $1800 hand-out? I want to stimulate the economy with new set of taylor made golf clubs.

Reply to this comment

avatar Adam Holland

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJDbVd6C2-s
I made this video for youtube because I think this rebate this is a total joke. It’s a “middle-class welfare check”…

Anyone who puts it in savings will lose the money due to inflation.

Anyone who pays off debt is just throwing it in the toilet, basically..

Anyone who actually spends it is probably going to spend it on some electronic toy, gismo, or trinket that they not only don’t need… but it’s made in another country.. Why don’t we just write a multi-billion dollar check to China and Japan? hello!!??

What if we invested that money into ourselves and our own business? .. and created an asset that would pay us every single month!? I think that’s a better idea…

Reply to this comment

avatar RACHEL

I will tell you what i think …. you did ask… the fact the you make 200K per year does not mean that you work harder than i do. i bet your job is no more important than mine. Whoever pays you this much should not have this much money to toss around. I am a school teacher and try to make a difference in my community. i will never earn 200k per year… also i might add… on my salary, and with good credit and zero debt i still cannot qualify for the average home in this area ! also a policeman cannot qualify for a home either. so you see, you making 200k per year and a teacher or police officer making 40k is NOT fair. i guess no one forced me to work thru college just to be a teacher….. i figure that’s what your response will be. have a good day !

Reply to this comment

avatar Ann

All in all I really think this is bushes way of paying back for his greed while in office. I qualify for a rebate but I don’t really agree with it. Of course I could use, it but who couldn’t? Everyone lives in different situations in different parts of the US. But I think more things should have been taken into account….such as anyone on wellfare, foodstamps, unemployment, or any other government funded program for an EXTENDED period of time, shouldn’t be eligible. Emphasis extended because things happen and some people need short term help…but also if you already recieved more than you paid in, that should have been an immediate exclusion. Which would include me. The government knows this. However, it just seems funny that gas prices didn’t shoot up till a big investor went into office. This just isn’t the way to boost our economy, it only makes us a poorer country. Oh and I’m in school to be a teacher, so I’m never going to make a whole lot,a better way to boost our economy would be to put more money into professions that deserve to make a little more. Whether or not that never happens I’m gettting through college knowing I’m be able to help children learn. But like you pointed out that’s my choice.

Reply to this comment

avatar Nancy

We received a notice that we owe additional taxes for 2006. We also sent in a installment agreement for 2007. I called the IRS to see how this would affect my rebate. He said that I should just wait until I get a bill from the IRS. He said that usually takes a couple of months. He said by that time I would have received my rebate. He said it would be unusual for them to intercept my rebate due to the time it takes to send out the balance owing bill. Just thought you would be interested in knowing this.

Reply to this comment

avatar SharpShooter

Your ex will not be receiving this check next year, the stimulus check you receive this year is what he would have received next year if the new tax credit was not made available this year in the form of an advance. If he was receiving the check, would you feel entitled to a portion & would he give it to you?

Reply to this comment

avatar Joe

I am disabled and my total income was $1562.80. I am not in a taxable bracket but I filed for the stimulus anyway. The calculator says I will get nothing. Is this correct? And if so, why?

Reply to this comment

avatar Carolyn Hall

I filed head of household as a single grandparent of a nine year old. I also care for my elderly mother – age 97 in my home and declare her as a dependant. She doesn’t not file her own taxes as I claim her. Does that mean she gets nothing? She only receives 700 a month social security.

Reply to this comment

avatar Thor

Hi. I posted this in response to a similar comment on another blog, but thought it might be helpful here too.

I’m in the same boat. My wife and I are actually working off 2 adoption credits, one year after the other.

I just wanted to let you know that you may still be able to receive the balance of the full stimulus payment, albeit next year. Here’s how I read the rules and apply it to my situation:

1. The adoption credit(s) may be spread out over 5 years. You are not required to claim a credit as early as possible, as far as I know. In my case, the 2 credits will not fully offset my federal income tax liability for the next 5 years, so there’s so wiggle room in there.

2. The stimulus is actually set up as an early discount on your 2008 taxes… so you can qualify with your 2007 OR 2008 return, or both, up to the maximum amount. So if you defer just enough of your remaining adoption tax credit next year to a following year so that your tax liability ends up right at $600 (or $1200 per couple), you should be able to claim the rest of your stimulus payment and save that credit for future years.

I’m not certain of this, but it seems to fit with all the rules I’m reading.

Reply to this comment

avatar Zook

It YOUR freakin’ money folks! People don’t agree with getting your money to spend or do what you like with it?

It is a prebate on what you would have got next April. Don’t you think you deserve to have your own money until then?

Reply to this comment

avatar Dan

Spoken by someone who is too young to have been penalized financially or someone who makes the higher income and doesn’t need a stimulis check. As an early baby boomer, having been taxed heavily during prime working years without the tax breaks now being given to post baby boomers, I’m happy to get the stimulis check. The majority of lower middle and middle class workers are eccstatic to receive such a windfall. We can debate all day on whether this stimulis plan will or will not benefit the economy. The bottom line is that this plan will help individuals pay overdue bills, medical bills and maybe, for the first time, allow some to start a savings for rougher times ahead.

Reply to this comment

avatar Mase

I just heard if your child is adopted that you can not receive credit for that child. Is this true? I adopted a child in 10/06 and claimed her as a dependent on my taxes.

Reply to this comment

avatar Kelly

Has anyone received a paper check yet?

Reply to this comment

avatar RJ

I’m a bit confused. I had zero ‘earned’ income last year but had taxable interest income of approximately $14,700. After Deductions and Exemptions (single, 1 exemption) I had a Line 57 tax liability of $598 which I paid. Using both the IRS Calculator and the Calculator on this page, going line by line exactly as instructed,both calculators show a rebate due me of $598. But other posts and columns I have read say interest income of $14,700 does not apply as qualifying towards the rebate. So which is it? Is the calculator correct or am I not getting a rebate based on interest income (AGI Line 37) of $14,700 and taxes paid of $598 on that amount ?

Reply to this comment

avatar Luke Landes ♦127,475 (Platinum)

RJ: The law says that you need *either* $3,000 of “qualifying income” (earned, non-interest) *or* net income tax liability greater than zero and gross income greater than the basic standard deduction plus exemptions.

Sounds like you qualified for the rebate under the second condition.

Reply to this comment

avatar RJ

Thanks Flexo for the reply. I had read somewhere on this page in some post (can’t find it now) that it had to be “qualifying income” (earned, non-interest) AND net income tax liability greater than zero . BOTH to qualify. But you state it is EITHER/OR which would explain why both IRS calculator and calculator above do show a rebate of $598 due me. I was at the Turbo Tax page before and they too say interest income does not apply as qualifying income, yet in my case interest income of $14,700 is sum total of my AGI in 2007 with no “qualifying” earned income. So much conflicting information.

Reply to this comment

avatar RJ

Flexo, I found the post above where it state “AND” not “OR”. It’s post # 86 by cdg. But then in post #102 (replying to post #100 cdg states “OR”) Gets a bit confusing when one word and/or can change the entire calculation. But then I read further down and it seems to clarify. Turbo Tax is still putting out bad/wrong or at the very least confusing information at their website when they say flat out that interest income does not qualify. If I paid tax based on AGI solely consisting of interest income, how can it not qualify?

Reply to this comment

avatar RJ

Re-reading post #86, perhaps that “AND” applies to a different scenario, not my situation.

Reply to this comment

avatar Luke Landes ♦127,475 (Platinum)

In comment #86, cdg described the two ways to qualify for the rebate. The first full paragraph is your first option, the second full paragraph is your second. In the first option, you need to have over $3,000 in “qualifying income” (non-interest, etc.) The second option has two conditions (hence the “AND”). RJ, you qualified using option two.

Check out the full text of the law (look at SEC. 6428.b.2) and the definitions that follow.

Reply to this comment

avatar m9710c

I understand what you say, but the fact that combined you made $169,000 is why you only get a lousy $300.
Consider yourselves lucky to be able to live fairly well without relying on any rebate.
I am a single Mom who earned 59,000 last year while assisting 2 sons in college. Because they are over 17 and claimed as my dependents. not only do I NOT get an extra $300 for them but they get NOTHING. and they both worked part time to pay help with college fees while attending full time. So how does that seem fair.
Let’s face it, our Congress didn’t put a lot of thought to this . Basically you could be unemployed or on public aid with a nasty coke habit and still get the same rebate as us poor working slobs.

Reply to this comment

avatar kmp

My wife and I have 2 children and made $110,000 last year filing jointly. we just received a stimulus payment from the government into our checking account and it was for $2100 when the calculator and everyone we know said we were receiving $1800.Can someone explain to me which amount we were supposed to receive because I don’t want to have problems if the irs screwed up and gave us to much.

Reply to this comment

avatar CMQ

Are you sure this calculator is correct because I typed in a friend’s income to see if she got the correct money back and it says she was suppose to recieve 300 but she recieved the full 600.

Reply to this comment

avatar Luke Landes ♦127,475 (Platinum)

CMQ: Yes, the calculator is correct, but you have to enter the correct information in the calculator to get the correct result. You won’t get the correct result if you know only your friend’s income. The instructions are within the calculator, and they must be followed precisely.

Reply to this comment

avatar Michael

ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT
1,500 REBATE CHECKS WAS WIRED TO THE WRONG BANK ACCOUNTS OF PEOPLE WHO ALREADY RECEIVED THEIR PAYMENT OR OTHERS WHO WERE NOT ENTITLED TO THE MONEY.

NEWS DAY CITED A MAN IN LONG ISLAND FOUND AND UNEXPECTED $1,800.00 IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. tHE MAN CHECKED WITH HIS BANK AND FOUND THE DEPOSIT BELONG TO SOMEONE WITH A DIFFERENT SS#.

Reply to this comment

avatar Belinda

Dear comment #269…YOU make me proud to be an American…actually you make me sick! GROW UP!!!

Reply to this comment

Leave a Comment

Connect with Facebook

Note: Use your name or a unique handle, not the name of a website or business. No deep links or business URLs are allowed. Spam, including promotional linking to a company website, will be deleted. By submitting your comment you are agreeing to these terms and conditions.

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

Previous post:

Next post: