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 June 24, 2016 and originally published January 28, 2008.

Email Email Print Print
About the author

Luke Landes 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 Luke Landes and follow him on Twitter. View all articles by .

{ 336 comments… read them below or add one }

avatar 1 Anonymous

Individuals that earned $86,999 in Adjusted Gross Income would get back $240. But darn those folks that made $87,000 while paid the majority of all the income taxes. They get nothing!

“Rebate”?! HA! A rebate is defined as a return from an original payment.

If you didn’t owe taxes and you earned as little as $3,001 you’ll get a $300 handout! Alright! Free money that you didn’t earn!

This is wealth distribution and I don’t care for it. People that didn’t even pay taxes are getting a handout.

Sheesh…if you’re filing jointly and earned $173,999 combined you get to PAY the government $240 MORE, according to this calculator.

Reply to this comment

avatar 2 Luke Landes

The idea is to get money in the hands of people who will stimulate the economy… it’s probably wrong to call it “tax rebate” thanks to the newer addition that those who didn’t earn enough to owe taxes should still receive money.

The calculation for the $173,999 earning couple is obviously incorrect. No one is paying MORE taxes due to this plan.

Reply to this comment

avatar 3 Anonymous

Well, by the governments logic, they should give it all back and lead us into a capitalist revival of which the world has never seen.

Reply to this comment

avatar 4 Anonymous

This is an interesting calculator. I recently wrote about why I don’t like the tax rebate — and that’s based on how it may be distributed. According to the calculator above, I will receive $1200 [if the bill goes through as is], which is the exact amount someone with an AGI of $3001 will receive. I wish I could receive 30% of my income as a rebate…

This is not a rebate.

Reply to this comment

avatar 5 Anonymous

I couldn’t agree more with shana (I read your post too). I make a pretty good living somewhat above 6 figures depending on my bonus. Nonetheless my salary living in the heart of Manhattan does not stretch very far. I wouldn’t mind seeing something linked to cost of living at least – someone making 74,999 in the middle of the country has far more actual cash available than I do here since the cost of living is about 2x. It’s yet another benefit I pay into with my taxes that I’ll never see a dime of (added to SS, and many other tax rebates that get phased out at my income level).

Reply to this comment

avatar 6 Anonymous

I think it is funny that a lot of the same people who understand that we shouldn’t be giving out the “rebate” in the first place then get jealous that they’re not getting one when others are.

I’m not going to be getting a check, but I don’t think the government should be writing checks when we’re already in the biggest national debt in history…hence I don’t complain. This “stimulus package” is a bad idea all around, so the cheaper it ends up being in the long run the better.

Reply to this comment

avatar 7 Anonymous

This is exactly what is wrong with the world, who cares what other people are getting back?

Any discussion should center on the economic utility of the plan. Will it work to add money into the marketplace? Doubtful – I know I will be reducing my debt with my check.

Reply to this comment

avatar 8 Anonymous

Well reducing debt with the package can help your finances some, and for people like me who would rather spend some money monthly on items instead of just credit bills, it certainly could help the economy. Doesn’t mean we all have to spend the $300 instantly!

Reply to this comment

avatar 9 Anonymous

those don’t pay taxes get 300 while those paid a lot of taxes got nothing? Do these politicians have brains? Don’t call it a rebate for crying out loud.

Reply to this comment

avatar 10 Anonymous

Oh, it gets worse. We didn’t pay anything in taxes this year but by this calculator we’ll be getting $1200 back (family of 4 making 24,000).
Don’t complain to me, I didn’t ask for this money. They think it’ll stimulate the economy. I’ll be doing my part, I won’t be paying down bills. I’ll spend every last penny of it while on vacation in Branson (hey, at least it’s not Paris or something, right?)

Reply to this comment

avatar 11 Anonymous

From what I’ve read elsewhere, this calculator seems to give the wrong answer if you owed between $1 and $1199 in federal income tax.

My understanding is that if your are a married couple filing jointly with no children with more than $3000 AGI:

* If you owe $1 – $600 in federal income tax, you get $600.

* If you owe $601 – $1199, you get that amount.

* If you owe > =$1200, you get $1200.

Have I misunderstood something?

Reply to this comment

avatar 12 Anonymous

Why does it say “Do yo OWE taxes for 2007?” Wouldn’t it make sense for it to say, “Did you pay taxes for 2007?” When I put in NO it drops me down to $600, but when I put YES it takes me back to $1200. My husband and I don’t owe taxes but we did pay taxes. I don’t understand. You get more money back if you OWE the IRS?

Reply to this comment

avatar 13 Luke Landes

Brandy: It’s not referring to whether after calculating your 1040 form you’ll be receiving a refund or owe additional tax… If you paid tax in 2007 on your 2007 earnings then you owe taxes for 2007 (unless you’re getting the full amount refunded to you).

Reply to this comment

avatar 14 Anonymous

If I am in a payment plan with the IRS for 2006 Taxes will I get any rebate, according to the numbers we should be getting $1800

Reply to this comment

avatar 15 Anonymous

I don’t understand this much at all. I am married and file jointly. We will be getting back approx. $900 for 2007 rabate. How does this proposed stimulus tax effect me? Will I owe or receive any of it? Our combined income was about $76,000

Reply to this comment

avatar 16 Anonymous

I dont understand this at all either. My husband and I made 65k this year. We owed in federal 469.00 and state 303.00 so we didnt get a “refund” but we did pay taxes. We have three children. So Will I actually get the proplsed stimulus package or since we owed more taxes and paid the goverment do we now get disqualified? So confused!

Reply to this comment

avatar 17 Anonymous

that is your choice to live where you do. what does that have to do with the person that lives in Nebraska and makes as much as you. Sounds like they are just more wise, or don’t really care about having the option to see broadway plays, and have amazing dinners. You shouldn’t get more refund. And i’m speaking from the stand point of someone that lives in San Fran, i iknow the high cost of living.

Reply to this comment

avatar 18 Anonymous

Thanks for the calculator! I think this “rebate” will be the topic of hot discussions for the next few months!

Reply to this comment

avatar 19 Anonymous

I have been led to believe that if I am on Social Security but pay taxes, I would not receive a tax rebate.
Both my wife and I are fully retired receiving a govt. pension (wife) and retired military pay, social security and state retirement (spouse)with an adjusted income of about $80,000. Please calculate.

Reply to this comment

avatar 20 Anonymous

I don’t think this calculator works right. If you put in any amount more than $3000 (singly) and less than $75,000, it gives you the full amount ($600). I read the bill for myself and it says you will only get back as much as you put in, up to $600 singly or $1200 jointly. It’s actually written as a credit towards your 2008 taxes, more like a pre-bate than a rebate. How do they know how much you will make in 2008? I guess they will use 2007 as an estimate, and then calculate it correctly at tax time in 2009. Some people might make more in 2008 than in 2007, so they wouldn’t get as much as they should, but the bill says it won’t pay after Dec. 31, 2008. So they can’t give you more money at tax time in 2009 if they should have. So, what will they do? Probably give everyone the full amount and then charge you for what they overpaid if you didn’t make enough to qualify for the whole thing! I know most people don’t do their own taxes, but some of us do and I’d like to really know what to expect. Technically, the calculator works right, because they will probably give us all checks for the full amount, and then ask those of us who don’t owe that much to give some back at tax time. To hell with the lower class!

Reply to this comment

avatar 21 Anonymous

After all of my education credits, hybrid vehical credit and such I ended up not having to pay anything in, but I did have a tax to reduce before the credits. So will I get 600 or 300?

Reply to this comment

avatar 22 Anonymous


Reply to this comment

avatar 23 Anonymous

People are being confused by the term “Owe” taxes. If you had an income you owe taxes. It means the same as paying taxes, not if you have to pay additional when filing or getting a refund. When you pay or get a refund when you file it is because you either under or over paid your taxes. I panicked at first thinking I wouldn’t get a check because I had a refund then read through things a bit more and it became clearer.

Reply to this comment

avatar 24 Luke Landes

Thanks for that clarification, Scott. You’re exactly right. Except for those on the very, very lown end of the income scale, if you *earned money* in 2007, then you *owe taxes.* It has nothing to do with whether the IRS sends you a check after filing your taxes or if you have to pay them… that’s just to catch-up with the tax you paid throughout 2007 in each pay check.

Reply to this comment

avatar 25 Anonymous


Reply to this comment

avatar 26 Anonymous

Will you get this money if you owe taxes to the IRS from a previous year or do they keep it then? Anyone know?

Reply to this comment

avatar 27 Anonymous

Folks, the adjusted gross income number the calculator is referring to, is the bottom number on page 1 of the Fm 1040. What this is comprised of, is all of your taxable income (including some portion of your social security, depending on your age and your other income) less certain deductions that are allowed from that total (like alimony paid, educator expenses, IRA deduction and others). This is before any standard or itemized deductions (like mortgage interest, etc.) and personal exemptions are deducted, and before any calculations are made concerning whether you will get a refund or have to pay taxes to the Feds. I am a retired accountant who had a tax business for 15 years, and many people get confused about what all these terms mean. Grab a copy of your last year’s taxes, and look it over. It basically adds up income, allows some deductions, allows you some living expenses (standard or itemized deduction and personal exemptions), gets you to a net taxable income number and calculates your tax based on that number. Then there are some credits against that number, more taxes added in if you are doing some oddball (for most of us) stuff, some more credits and then you get to a final tax number. THEN the form looks at what you have paid in (and some credits will come in to help you out, like earned income credit if you qualify, and if you have paid in more than what is owed, you will get some money back. If not, you pay in on April 15th. Just grab your tax form from last year and give it a lookover – ignore all the things you don’t know about – just look at what the form is doing – and I think the tax process will be a little clearer for you. Hope this helps!

Reply to this comment

avatar 28 Anonymous

I find it amazing.. I’m a single parent of a 2 year old. My AGI is roughly 88K. I receive NO child support from my ex (he’s at the poverty level in my state due to child support for a child of a previous marriage).

HE will get back $600, and his income was only $23K last year so obviously he PAID a whole lot less taxes.

I will be lucky if I get $340 back, INCLUDING the rebate for the child.

I am actually considering having HIM take the child as a deduction this year and paying me the $300 when he gets it.

It’s insane. I pay more taxes, do more support of the child, but yet I’m not entitled to a fraction of the rebate that the non-supporting parent would get.

I have a good mind to send my State Senator (Ms. Hillary) a letter.

Reply to this comment

avatar 29 Anonymous

This stimulus nonsense demonstrates again why we should replace the payroll tax and income tax with a tax on non real property transaction public, business, and government. Exclude services performed in the US, Rx drugs, Medical devices, used finished goods, financial instruments and groceries for home consumption.
Tax everything else every time anything changes hands or is imported.
It’s not regressive because most of the basics of life are untaxed for everyone.
When the economy is overheating raise the tax.
When a stimulus is needed cut the tax.
The effect and response would be immediate…. it would be fair……..and it would make labor in the US more competitive because there would be no payroll tax to be paid by US manufacturers

Reply to this comment

avatar 30 Anonymous

It appears that many people don’t understand the point of these “rebates.� They hear money and think they everyone should get some or it’s not fair. The point is to get it to people who are more likely to spend it as discretionary income who may not be doing so now. If you are over the income limits the assumption is you already have discretionary income and don’t need incentive to spend. If you don’t earn enough to be taxed there is no way you are going to spend this money on goods the boost the economy. Those who are in between get the checks in hopes that it will be spent instead of saved or pay off bills…thus stimulating the economy and in theory improving the overall financial health of the country. It’s just another tool to adjust the economy just like the Federal Reserve does in adjusting interest rates (raise rates people save, lower rates people spend) and the Treasury does but making more money or removing it from circulation to affect the value of the dollar.

Reply to this comment

avatar 31 Anonymous

How does this effect next years tax returns?

Reply to this comment

avatar 32 Anonymous

I am also very interested to know if a person owes taxes from previous years will they still get the rebate check?

Reply to this comment

avatar 33 Anonymous

Just because someone is at a higher income level doesn’t mean they have higher discretionary income. In some cases (like mine), what I make, with a child, is JUST enough to get by (daycare easily costs, for an infant, upwards of $15K a year), any decent apartment is minimum $1,500 a month.

I spend, I actually LIKE to spend, and I’d gladly pour $900 into the economy by buying my daughter clothes or gifts that I otherwise couldn’t afford to buy.

But, if you read the surveys, MOST people are planning to pay down debt or save their rebates, so I don’t think the darn thing is going to do much good.

I actually DID send a letter via Hillary Clinton’s website (she is one of my State Senators).

BTW.. does anyone know? How does the IRS know your marital status? For example, if my divorce was final on 12/31, how do they know that???

My date isn’t that close, but pretty near, so I was married for 350 days out of the year, single for 15 but I have to file single.. which also causes me/us to lose literally thousands of dollars in deductions.

Reply to this comment

avatar 34 Anonymous

On the calculator, i’m not sure how to define my ‘paid tax’ situation.

I am married with kids and a house and mortgage. Wife stays home with the kids, so she has no income.

I make 42K, but paid just $300 in fed taxes, which i’ll get all of it back. In addition, i get some more money back for the Additional Child tax.

So, am i categorized as paying taxes for 2007?

Reply to this comment

avatar 35 Anonymous

If you receive social security disability benefits and are not required to pay taxes, do you receive a rebate at all?

Reply to this comment

avatar 36 Anonymous

My mom lives on about $600 per month which comes from a VA pension, Social Secuity and PERA. She lives in a building where her rent is based on income. If she takes this rebate all it will do is make her rent go up and/or reduce her VA pension, isn’t that right? I don’t see the value of this at all!

Reply to this comment

avatar 37 Anonymous

Ok I am real confused! My husband is in the Military and has been deployed since Jan 07. We had no taxable income last year but our income was 49,500. We did recieve child tax credits for our dependant children this tax season. So are we going to qualify for this “rebate” ?

Reply to this comment

avatar 38 Anonymous

Ok. . . .so if I underpaid my taxes and have get no return and owe the IRS because I didn’t have enough withheld will I not see the money? I would appreciate any feedback, thank you.

Reply to this comment

avatar 39 Anonymous

This calculator, “courtesy of PBS Newshour”, is a prime example of why NOBODY should rely on ANYTHING they see or hear on PBS.

The “economic stimulus rebate”, as proposed by President Bush, as passed by the House, as modified by the Senate, and in its final form, is designed to be a tax rebate, eliminating the 10% bracket for most taxpayers. As such, it is designed to be a return of the taxes you have paid.

The “rebate� amount is the lesser of your net income tax liability or $300 (for single taxpayers) or $1200 (for married persons filing jointly) plus $300 per dependent.

If the taxpayer has earned income or social security benefits in excess of $3000, they will receive a minimum rebate of $300 (for single persons) or $600 (for married persons). If someone qualifies for either rebate, they will also receive $300 for each of the children claimed as dependents on their returns.

In the original house bill the criteria for qualifying for the minimum rebate was having an adjusted gross income (AGI) of $3000. This was replaced in the final version by $3000 of “earned income” or social security benefits, so as to share the “rebate” with those who don’t pay any taxes. However, the size of the rebate is a function of tax liability, not AGI!

PBS’ calculator uses AGI rather than taxable income, to determine the size of the rebate. This was/is incorrect for all versions of the bill.

If you need a calculator to perform the simple arithmetic to determine the size of your rebate, follow these steps:

1) Did you (and your spouse if you file jointly) make more than $3000 in earned income (wages, salaries, etc. but not including investment income) and/or social security (not including SSI) benefits? If yes, then you qualify for at least the minimum rebate.

2) What is your (anticipated) tax liability for 2007? See line 44 (Form 1040) or line 8 (Form 1040A) or whatever line is labeled “Tax” on Form 1040EZ.

3) For single persons (including head-of-household, and married filing separately): If your tax liability for 2007 is less than $600, your rebate amount is equal to your tax liability for 2007. If your tax liability for 2007 is not less than $600, your rebate amount is $600. If your tax liability for 2007 is less than $300, and you answered “yes” in step 1, your rebate amount will be $300.

4) For married persons filing jointly: If your tax liability for 2007 is less than $1200, your rebate amount is equal to your tax liability for 2007. If your tax liability for 2007 is not less than $1200, your rebate amount is $1200. If your tax liability for 2007 is less than $600, and you answered “yes” in step 1, your rebate amount will be $600.

5) If you qualify for a rebate, add $300 for each dependent.

It’s far easier to calculate than it is too explain, but PBS is too busy promoting their liberal agenda to provide an accurate calculator.

As far as being an “economic stimulus”, the rebate is too little, too late, and too inflationary. It would make far more sense to provide a permanent tax cut. That would stimulate the economy, and spread the wealth across the board. But that flies in the face of liberal mantras, no matter how many times it has been proven true, so the “Democratic” Congress won’t even consider it.

Reply to this comment

avatar 40 Anonymous

I was wondering if I am planning on making installment payments for additional tax owed for 2007, will I still receive the stimulus rebate check?

Reply to this comment

avatar 41 Anonymous

In reply to comment #40 by Nancy:

Q: I was wondering if I am planning on making installment payments for additional tax owed for 2007, will I still receive the stimulus rebate check?

A: The rebate check will be based on the tax shown on line 44 of your 1040 (as well as earned income, social security income and adjusted gross income, for purposes of computing the minimum and maximum due). It doesn’t matter whether you have a refund coming, or owe taxes at the end of the year; and it doesn’t matter whether you pay the taxes you owe with your income tax return or with an installment agreement reached with the IRS.

However, the IRS can “offset” ANY tax refund to pay amounts owed to federal or state government agencies (including, of course, the IRS). Whether or not they will do this with tax rebates is anyone’s guess. The bill passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush does not cover this situation, thus leaving it up to the IRS and the courts to decide.

In my earlier post, I neglected to mention that the rebate is not available for “higher income” tax payers. So, if you make more than $75,000 ($150,000 for married filing jointly), you are out of luck. The liberals don’t think you are entitled to a rebate of any of the extortionate taxes you have paid to finance their socialist programs.

Reply to this comment

avatar 42 Luke Landes

cdg: No one is “entitled” to a rebate, regardless of income level. The idea is to get the funds into the hands of the people who would most likely stimulate the economy (or give the appearance of doing so), not because they “deserve” some money back as a reward of some sort.

I agree that the whole maneuver is mostly for show and the economy will likely improve later on this year regardless of the rebate.

Sending money to the masses is mostly a political move… with an eye towards boosting approval ratings rather than the economy (though the two are often correlated when “sentiment” is the first measure of the economy).

Reply to this comment

avatar 43 Anonymous

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.

I understand the (flawed) concept of stimulating the economy by putting additional money in the hands of those who are more likely to spend it than to invest it. But, if the economy is in such dire straits, people are more likely to use the money to pay their mortgages, rents, utilities, and other bills, than to go on a shopping spree. It’s insulting to everyone that the Administration and Congress think we will all behave as though we were ######-rich.

However, the sole reason there is a cutoff in the “rebate” based on income level is the warped liberal mantra that “the rich” (however that is currently and conveniently defined) do not “deserve” to benefit from any tax cuts.

Left alone, the economy might improve later this year. But the more the government tries to solve the problems (that they create), the worse the problems will be.

Reply to this comment

avatar 44 Anonymous

So – where is a calculator that takes VA disability/SSI into account?? I am on VA disability, my husband works fulltime, our joint filing is for less than 50K AGI, no children at home … would we see the 1200 for a couple, or do we see 1500 with the addition of the VA disability “rebate”?? no one can seem to explain that to me …

Reply to this comment

avatar 45 Anonymous

Stephanie: To my knowledge, there is no separate “VA disability/SSI rebate”. The Senate added a provision to the “rebate” bill to give a minimum of $300 to people with at least $3000 in social security retirement income and/or earned income, regardless of whether or not they pay taxes. [SSI benefits are not social security benefits for purposes of this law.] Those covered by this provision would not otherwise receive any “rebate” (since they had not paid any taxes to be rebated).

As I stated above, the PBS calculator does not provide the correct result for anyone, as it does not request the data necessary to do so. A better rebate calculator can now be found at However, it doesn’t take into consideration the phase-out of the rebate for those with “higher incomes”. So it won’t work if you have an AGI greater than 75,000 (single) or $150,000 (married filing jointly).

Since _your_ AGI is less than $150,000, you and your husband (jointly) should receive a “rebate” of the lesser of the income tax liability shown on line 44 of your 2007 Form 1040, or $1200. If that is less than $600, but you have (combined) earned income and/or social security benefits in excess of $3000, you should receive a “minimum rebate” of $600.

If “no one can seem to explain that to” you, it is because you have been asking the wrong people. The news media has completely botched their coverage of this, as they do with all tax legislation, and focused on who it supposedly benefits, and who it supposedly leaves out, and how unfair it is to this or that group, while favoring this or that group. They are too busy with their predictable propaganda to find out what the legislation actually says.

An accurate summary as well as the entire text of the House Bill can be found here:

It’s too bad PBS didn’t bother to read it before they created a useless calculator that has been copied all over the internet

Reply to this comment

avatar 46 Anonymous

I’ve created a more accurate calculator, and posted it at:

Reply to this comment

avatar 47 Anonymous

my earned income was $3309…AGI 2559 after all the deductions etc…i got a refund of 434…(filed single) no children….will i get the $300 or what????? confused!!!

Reply to this comment

avatar 48 Anonymous

To #47 (rk):

If your 2007 earned income was $3309, and your AGI was $2559, and you filed single with no dependent children, you should get a minimum rebate of $300. If your tax liability (not your refund) was more than $300, you will get a rebate equal to the tax you paid, or $600, whichever is less.

Reply to this comment

avatar 49 Luke Landes

cdg: Thanks for providing a more accurate calculator. I’ve incorporated it in the post above.

Reply to this comment

avatar 50 Anonymous

Re “Number of dependent children”, are you sure that is the number that is going to be used? I heard that it was going to be the same number that is used for the child tax credit, ie, age 16 and under.

Reply to this comment

avatar 51 Anonymous

To: Dogberry

You are correct (although that is what I meant by “number of dependent children”). The text will be changed to read “Number of qualifying children (Form 1040 line 6c)” later today.

Reply to this comment

avatar 52 Anonymous

To: Dogberry

You are correct (although that is what I meant by “number of dependent children”). The text will be changed to read “Number of qualifying children (from Form 1040 line 6c)” later today.

Reply to this comment

avatar 53 Anonymous

Another thing to consider when trying to “guesstimate” your rebate is the term child as I understand it a child for rebate purposes is the same as for child tax credit purposes, can not be over age 16 dec. 31,2008. I have two dependent children that I claim for dependent exemption but they will not qualify me for the extra $300 per child. Just something else to think about.

Reply to this comment

avatar 54 Anonymous

I don’t understand why the calculators say we are getting back 1200.00 dollars. I thought it was 1200.00 per married couple plus 300.00 per child. So, I have 2 children so I should be getting 1800.00. Why is this?

Reply to this comment

avatar 55 Anonymous

To Shannon:

For a married couple file jointly, the rebate amount is the LESSER of your net tax liability or $1200. If your net tax liability is less than $600, and you have more than $3000 of qualifying income, you get $600. Then, we add $300 for each qualifying child.

So, if (my) calculator is giving a result of $1200, the net tax liability (that you entered) was less than $600, and you got a rebate of $600 plus $300 per child.

Reply to this comment

avatar 56 Anonymous

What a great calculator! I think this is just what a lot people have been looking for.

I wanted to embed it in my blog, but there were some problems with the HTML file and formatting. I hope it is OK, but I slightly modified the code so it would display correctly.

Thanks for posting such a great tool.

Reply to this comment

avatar 57 Anonymous

So … am I reading this correctly? It sounds like it would REALLY behoove me to make sure I am not over withholding in 2008.

If I am due a refund next April, they will reduce it for this year’s stimulus package

If I owe money, or owe nothing, then I will get to keep this year’s stimulus package?

Reply to this comment

avatar 58 Anonymous

CDG – how will this rebate affect our true tax rebates in 2009? For instance this year my husband and I recieved $6200 back on our income taxes. Does that mean if we get $1800 this year because we have 2 kids that we will only get $4400 next years rebate?

Reply to this comment

avatar 59 Anonymous

To: #56 by Jon

Thank you for your kind words. Ironically, I was looking for a calculator on Monday, so I WOULDN’T have to read the entire tax bill. I couldn’t find an accurate one, so I ended up reading the bill AND all the code sections it cites by reference, AND then writing my own calculator. I hope everyone finds it useful.

>What problems did you find with the HTML file and/or formatting? I would prefer to fix such problems then have multiple versions of the calculator out there. That way, if I need to modify something, it can be done in one place.

To: #57 by Jenn

I don’t know what you mean by “our true tax rebates in 2009”. The Tax Stimulus REBATE will not affect your income tax REFUND for ANY year. [Nor, according to the text of the law, will it be considered “income” for those who receive low-income-based benefits.]

The difference between a tax rebate and a refund (theoretically) is that a rebate is a return of taxes that you owed and paid, whereas a refund is a return of taxes that you overpaid.

If you compute your taxes for 2007, and find that you overpaid, you get a refund. [If you underpaid, you have to send the IRS more money.]

The same for 2008 and every year.

But, regardless of whether or not you overpaid or underpaid, whether you received a rebate or sent the IRS a check, you get a rebate if you qualify. It doesn’t affect your taxes for this year or next.

Reply to this comment

avatar 60 Anonymous


The changes I made were to fix the embed link so it would actually work, and to move the top and bottom text into the table and to change the background color of those cells to white.

That way it looks the way it was intended even on blogs like mine with a dark background. you can see what I did here:

Oh and one thing which I didn’t change but is broken is the link to Chateau Mezcal. It generates a 404 error now.

I hope I didn’t step on any toes by doing that, it really is a great tool.

Reply to this comment

avatar 61 Anonymous

thanks cdg!!

Reply to this comment

avatar 62 Anonymous

So if we owe money back to IRS because we didn’t have enough withheld we are still going to get this rebate?? I am so confused on all this, thanks to anyone who can help me. I appreciate it.

Reply to this comment

avatar 63 Anonymous

To #61 (Julie)

If you are eligible for the rebate, you should receive it whether you “owe money back to IRS because you didn’t have enough withheld”, whether you have a refund coming (because you had too much withheld), or whether you had just the right amount withheld (which would be a miracle).

The amount you owe the IRS (or the REFUND you have coming) does not affect the size of your REBATE.

The rebate is calculated based on your net tax liability (your computed tax bill plus AMT (if applicable) less certain credits), not the amount you paid or didn’t pay during the year.

Reply to this comment

avatar 64 Anonymous

Thanks cdg. Sorry about the terminollogy. But I think I understand this now. The REBATE we are going to get this year will not affect my REFUND next year. I was really concerned that is was just an advance on my REFUND for next year.

Reply to this comment

avatar 65 Anonymous

Thanks cdg VERY MUCH for your help! I keep hearing different things so I didn’t know what the truth was. I just assumed the IRS would automatically take it from me if I owe them money. So basically most people who work will get this rebate unless they earn more then 75,000 for single or 150,000 for married correct? I am so surprised, thought the IRS would for sure take that money that I owe them. Are you 100% sure on that?

Reply to this comment

avatar 66 Anonymous

To #63 (Jenn)

Your confusion is understandable. Congress (and the news media) have emphasized that this is (technically) an advance REBATE of (some of) your 2008 taxes (except for many people the rebate will be greater than the taxes they pay, and thus is a handout, not a rebate).

And, in fact, after you file your 2008 return, the IRS will re-calculate your rebate, and (possibly) send you another check. This would happen, for example, if you had an additional child in 2008, and thus qualified for another $300. However, the inverse is not true. If the re-calculation shows you be “entitled” to a smaller rebate, you will NOT be asked to return the “overpayment”.

Regardless, your REBATE will not affect your REFUND or your tax liability.

This is all assuming that Congress doesn’t change the tax laws again.

The “Red Queen” (in Lewis Carol’s “Alice in Wonderland”) said to Alice, “I could have done it in a much more complicated fashion”. She obviously had no experience with Congress (or HTML).

Reply to this comment

avatar 67 Anonymous

spend, spend, spend…

Reply to this comment

avatar 68 Anonymous

To: #64 (Julie)

>”I just assumed the IRS would automatically take it from me if I owe them money. So basically most people who work will get this rebate unless they earn more then 75,000 for single or 150,000 for married correct? I am so surprised, thought the IRS would for sure take that money that I owe them. Are you 100% sure on that?”

Do you mean that you have a balance due on this year’s income tax return, and are paying the balance due with the return? In that case, the IRS shouldn’t take your rebate from you.

However, if you owe money for previous years and are making installment payments and/or are considered “delinquent”, the IRS will most likely intercept your rebate, just as they would intercept a tax refund.

They may also “offset” your refund (and presumably your rebate) to pay various delinquencies to other federal and state agencies (for example, child support and student loans).

The original theory behind the tax rebate was to stimulate the economy by putting money into the hands of those who (theoretically) will go out and spend it right away. President Bush proposed to do this by returning some of the taxes that we had already paid. Congress decided to also give money to those who don’t pay taxes, and not give it to those who pay the most taxes. That’s why it is so complicated.

Even singles making more than $75,000, and married couples making more than $150,000 will receive a rebate. But the rebate amount is reduced by 5% of the amount exceeding the $75,000/150,000 threshold. So a single person with no dependents with an income of $86,500 would still receive a $25 rebate. The rebate amount wouldn’t become zero until he/she made $87,000. Of course, he/she will then have paid $15,000 in taxes — and received none of it back to “stimulate the economy”.

If the goal were truly to stimulate the economy, Congress would have done better to permanently reduce the tax rates for everyone, “rich” and “poor”. But they are not trying to accomplish anything but to “look good” in an election year. That is why they are more concerned about getting refunds to the masses, than to actually fix the economic problems they created.

Reply to this comment

avatar 69 Anonymous

To: #57 by KB

It doesn’t make one bit of difference if you are over-withheld or under-withheld in 2008. You will still get precisely the same rebate and precisely the same refund (or tax bill) as you would without the stimulus package.

Reply to this comment

avatar 70 Anonymous

Yes I am making installment payments for last year’s taxes so I will assume I am not getting the rebate and they will just intercept it and pay that. Thank you for all your help cdg!

Reply to this comment

avatar 71 Anonymous

My wife are in our 20’s and our income for 07 was $169,000 and we get a lousy $300???? I can’t imagine what it’s going to be like in 10 years.

It’s embarrassing to think only a few years ago I was a registered democrat (young, naive, college graduate)!

Can you say redistribution of wealth?

Reply to this comment

avatar 72 Anonymous

My earned income was $2663, but my AGI was 18881. I filed married with one child. My federal return was $4360. I was above with my AGI, but under with my earned income. Does this mean my and my husband will or won’t be getting a rebate? I filed a 1040a and the lines for the calculator don’t add up.

Reply to this comment

avatar 73 Anonymous

To: #72 by Samantha

I can’t compute your rebate from the information you provided. What do you mean “my federal return was $4360”? Do you mean your refund or your tax liability was $4360? The former is irrelevant, but you need the tax liability to compute your refund.

Based on the figures you provided, if your net tax liability was $0, you will not receive a rebate. If it was $1 or more, you will receive at least $900. If it was more than $900, you will receive somewhere between $901 and $1500 depending on the net tax liability.

[This brings up the possibility that NOT taking certain deductions and/or credits may increase your tax liability, but may increase your rebate by a great amount.]

I have modified the calculator to specify the line numbers for Forms 1040A and 1040EZ as well as Form 1040. Try it again, and see what you come up with.

Reply to this comment

avatar 74 Anonymous

I was confusing my earned income with my earned income credit. Line 7 was 18550, line 21 was 18550, but my tax liablity on line 37 was 0. I can’t get the calculator to work anymore but based on what you said I guess I’m not getting a rebate. Really wishing I could send the IRS that $1 now.:) Thanks for your help.

Reply to this comment

avatar 75 Anonymous

To: #74 by Samantha

Married filing jointly, 1 qualified child, earned income $18,550, AGI $18,550, tax liability $0. The calculator shows a rebate amount of $900.

BTW, if you did need to send the IRS that $1 (which you don’t), you could always file an amended return. :)

Reply to this comment

avatar 76 Anonymous

Thank you so much for your quick help! I know some people are mad that low-income people like me are getting a rebate, buy every little bit helps. 3 years ago my husband and I worked at a plant and made very good money, but that plant is now in mexico. We are both going to school and trying to keep our heads above water. To us “low-income” people, this is kind-of to little to late.

Reply to this comment

avatar 77 Anonymous

i recieve disability, i made only 9000 dollars last year and dont have to report it, will i get any money?

Reply to this comment

avatar 78 Anonymous

Interesting that a commenter is providing more in-depth information and answers than Flexo…

CDG: do you have a pf blog? Because I’d be interested to read if you do. You write very clearly.

Reply to this comment

avatar 79 Anonymous

Here’s where I’m confused.
I was laid off in 2007 and most of my income was in Unemployment.

I paid $651 into taxes, but line 37 on my 1040A says “0”.

Earned Income – 3011
AGI – 9004
Married Filing Jointly, with 1 child dependent.

I’m just curious and wanting to make sure that, even if our Liability is $0, we’ll still get the rebate.

Reply to this comment

avatar 80 Luke Landes

Sam: I have no problem allowing the blog to be a conduit between those who have questions and someone who is happy to answer them. CDG provided the calculator; I’m happy he’s also willing to provide explanations for those who request.

Reply to this comment

avatar 81 Anonymous

To #78 by Sam: I don’t know what a “pf blog” is. I do have a website (www chateaumezcal com), where I express my opinions on a variety of subjects.

To #79 by Bernard: Unemployment benefits are not considered “earned income”.

If you “paid $651 into taxes, but line 37 on your 1040A says 0”, I assume that you received (or will receive) an income tax refund of $651 (or more if you had a refundable credit). If this is the case, you actually paid $0, not $651, since you get back what you had paid in advance.

WIth an Earned Income of $3011, AGI of $9004, Married Filing Jointly, and 1 QUALIFIED child dependent, you should receive a “rebate” of $900, even though you paid NO taxes. Say “thank you” to the Democratic Senate for their generosity with other people’s money.

To Everyone: Regrettably, I will be unable to answer any further questions on this subject, as I simply don’t have the time. If you discover any errors in the calculator, please report them to me at taxrebate @, and I will try to fix them. Thank you.

Reply to this comment

avatar 82 Anonymous

I think it sucks. Putting the country further in debt. I won’t be getting a cent, but even if I was I think it is stupid to indebt our children.

Reply to this comment

avatar 83 Anonymous

If it gets people to start dumping the money into the economy, it should prove effective, I’d imagine.

In any case, the calculator is quite useful for estimation.

Reply to this comment

avatar 84 Anonymous

I have a question: I had enough income to, normally, have tax liability, however we adopted a child last year and due to the Adoption Tax Credit our tax liability was zero – the full amount paid was refunded. If I understand your calculator correctly, we (married couple with two kids) get $1200 instead of $1800 because of the zero tax liability. Is that really how the policy is written, that if your tax is zero due to special credits rather than low income, then it reduces your rebate?

Reply to this comment

avatar 85 Anonymous

I know this has been answered, but I was still confused for a bit so I figured someone might find this helpful.
In reply to Samantha, I was confused about the $1 as well and actually started doubting that we would get a rebate.
It’s not stating that you had to pay a dollar to get the rebate, the way I understood it, but rather that $1 is the minimum liability to receive the $600/person rather than $300.
If you had no tax liability, but earned income was $3000+, You are entitled to $300/person(Single/Joint + Children)no matter what.

Reply to this comment

avatar 86 Anonymous

To #85 by Bernard:

You still have it a little confused. :(

If an “eligible” (see definition in the calculator footnotes) “taxpayer” has more than $3000 of (earned income and/or social security benefits and/or veteran’s disability benefits), they will receive the minimum “rebate” of $300 ($600 for married couples filing jointly) PLUS $300 for each qualified child. In this case, it doesn’t matter whether or not they have a net tax liability.

Alternately, if an “eligible taxpayer” has a gross income that is greater than the basic standard deduction ($10700 in 2007) plus the exemption amount ($3400 in 2007) plus a second exemption amount for married couples filing jointly, AND they have a net tax liability greater than zero, they will receive the minimum rebate described above. This is where the Net Tax Liability is very important.

And finally, if a taxpayer’s net tax liability is higher than the minimum rebate amount, or they don’t qualify for the minimum rebate amount, their rebate will be the smaller of their net tax liability or $600 (or $1200 for married couples filing jointly). So the Net Tax Liability is important here as well.

Reply to this comment

avatar 87 Anonymous

Thank you for clearing that up.
It doesn’t change what I can expect either way, and I’ve gotten the same answer in every place I’ve input the information($900).
Some of the verbiage used gets confusing.

Also, thanks for making the calculator and taking time to answer questions.

Reply to this comment

avatar 88 Anonymous

I don’t understand if a person didn’t pay taxes but made the $3,000 how can they get money back since? Where is the record that they worked at all. The IRS doesn’t even want you to send in paper work if you don’t owe them or they don’t owe you. Makes sense as it would be just a waste of time.

Reply to this comment

avatar 89 Luke Landes

Cathy: You’ll have to file the paperwork in order to receive the credit.

Reply to this comment

avatar 90 Anonymous

They’re actually telling a lot of people to file whether they’re required to or not, just in case.
For instance, I had to file because of the unemployment benefits I collected anyway because it raised my Adjusted Gross Income.
However, everything I paid was refunded so I had no Net Tax Liability, which means I’m only eligible for the $600 for Married Couple and $300 for eligible child.

Reply to this comment

avatar 91 Anonymous

I got married Dec 25 and managed to file JOINT for that year…

so i’m on the opposite side of the fence…i was married for 5 days in 2006, yet got to file joint and reap the benefits…

but i don’t know if the IRS has a way of verifying ..

Reply to this comment

avatar 92 Anonymous

People asking why more of the rebate doesn’t go to people earning more than 87000 are fools. If you had $600 to give to somebody to stimulate the economy would you give it to bill gates or a poor family with kids? Who is more likely to spend the money? I a pretty rich guy. If you give me $600 im going to put it right in the bank on top the pile of money I already have in there. Im going to use that pile of money to buy a German car or Japanese electronics, not the america products the poor family is going to by.

Reply to this comment

avatar 93 Anonymous

Overall, it is a good calculator even though I disagree with using the number of dependents on line 6c since that line can include dependents 17 and older. I think an easier way to figure out net income tax liability is to take line 10 on the 1040EZ, or lines 32+37 on the 1040A, or lines 52+57 on the 1040. Another problem I have with the calculator is that it always shows me a rebate of $0 if there is $0 tax liability, even though it should show at least $300 if earned income, social security, or veterans disability benefits is $3,000 or more. Here is an example from the IRS website.
1) Married couple with two children, wages of $4,000, no federal income tax liability before child tax credit.
Individual rebate is $600
Qualifying child credit is $600
TOTAL is $1,200
If I plug this into the calculator, it says the rebate is $0. Either the calculator needs work, or running IE7 with an adblocker on Vista is messing up the numbers.

Reply to this comment

avatar 94 Luke Landes

Toby: When I enter the information you list, I get $1,200 as a result in both Firefox and IE. Also, if you scroll the calculator down, you’ll see that the instructions specify the age limit for dependents.

Reply to this comment

avatar 95 Anonymous

I just found something interesting. If I enter the information from my list and leave the net income tax liability blank, I get $1,200. If I enter $0 in net income tax liability, I get $0. I saw that the instructions specify age limits, I was just thinking of people who look at the calculator and enter the number from 6c without reading the instructions. Overall the calculator will spit out the right answer most of the time. I just noticed that in some scenarios you have to enter $0 into a field and in other scenarios, you have to leave certain fields blank to get the right answer.

Reply to this comment

avatar 96 Luke Landes

Toby: Thanks, I’ll look into that.

Reply to this comment

avatar 97 Anonymous

My only income is Social Security and I was instructed, years ago by the IRS not to file a return anymore. So do I get any “refund” and do I have to file?

Reply to this comment

avatar 98 Anonymous

My brother is on SSI. He doesn’t files tax returns as he says he never owes or get any money back. He tells me thier are no taxes taken out if his SS checks. He makes about 12K a year via SSI and has no other income. Would it benefit him to file anyway this year? That is, would he get the economic stimulous check if he did or would this be opening a can of worms?

Reply to this comment

avatar 99 Anonymous

Correction, my brother is on SSDI, not SSI. That is, he paid into SS for years and was disabled and now using his SS disability benefit. Not SSI when someone never paid into it. Not sure if that makes a difference.

Reply to this comment

avatar 100 Anonymous

Good job on the calculator. The flaws I found with the zeroes and blanks seem to be gone. Just a couple more flaws I found. With Married Filing Jointly, if there is no earned income, no social security, and no veterans disability, the calculator gives a correct answer if AGI is $17,501 or above. If AGI is $17,500 or below the calculator says the rebate is equal to net income tax liability and doesn’t count $300 per child. Same thing single except that $14,101 or above gives the correct rebate and $14,100 or below gives an incorrect rebate. Here is an example.
4) Individual with no wages, no social security benefits, no veterans’ benefits, AGI is $10,000, federal income tax liability is $125.
Individual rebate is $300
Calculator says the rebate is $125. The way I understand it, even if your tax liability is only $1 and you have no earned income, social security, or veterans benefits you get $300 single or $600 married filing jointly plus $300 per kid under 17 unless your AGI is less than your standard deduction plus exemptions. Unless I’m missing something, if your AGI is less than your standard deduction plus exemptions, you shouldn’t even have $1 of tax liability. Anyways, the rebate will never be $125. If you correct this, your calculator will be pretty close to flawless.

Reply to this comment

avatar 101 Anonymous

China will really appreciate this. It will help their economy

Reply to this comment

avatar 102 Anonymous

To #91 by checho:
If the IRS audits you, they can request proof of your marital status, and the date of your marriage. Failing that, they can always look at the county records. Never assume that the IRS won’t find out. They have extra-constitutional investigatory powers, because they can always bully a bank manager, doctor, country clerk, etc. into violating privacy laws, lest he/she too be audited.

To #93 by Toby:
I added line number references because many people were misunderstanding the various terms. Note that I don’t say the number of dependents from Line 6c, but rather the number of qualified children from Line 6c. There is a check box for qualified children. I assume that you have the instructions for Line 6c in your 1040, 1040A, or 1949EZ booklet. Furthermore, I explain this line in more detail in the insructions.

Thank you for the suggestion regarding simplifying the computation of net tax liability. I think I may incorporate it. Check back later.

The calculator yields $1200 when I enter the figures you mention. There may have been a bug in an earlier version.

To #95 by Toby:
You say that when you “enter the information from my list and leave the net income tax liability blank, I get $1,200. If I enter $0 in net income tax liability, I get $0.” I cannot reproduce your results. However, there was a “bug” in the earlier version (fixed Friday) that if you entered commas, everything following the comma would be ignored. Thus the calculator saw “1,200” as “1”. That is why it said in BOLD type at the top of the calculator to NOT enter commas. I have fixed this problem, and you may enter commas now — if you are using the current version of the calculator on my web page. If you are linked to an older version (copied to someone else’s web page), you may get different results.

Because I was requested that the calculator fit in a small frame size, there is a limit to the amount of line number reference and other instructions that can be provided next to the input fields. I assume that someone who doesn’t know what “qualified child” means will “see below” as instructed. Furthermore, there is considerable additional criteria to being a “qualified child” than just being under 17 at the end of the calendar year.

To #97 by Grandmother:
If you want to get a rebate, you will have to file a return. You will not get a refund, but you MAY get a rebate.

To #98 by Helper:
For purposes of the rebate, SSI benefits are NOT qualified income, as stated very clearly in the instructions. If that is your brother’s only income, there is no reason for him to file a tax return, as he will not received a rebate. It would be a waste of time, but it would only “be opening a can of worms” if he filled out the tax return improperly, for example by declaring his SSI benefits as taxable income.

To #99 by Helper
SSDI benefits ARE qualified income for the rebate. Your brother should file a tax return showing the $12,000 SSDI income, and showing NONE of it as taxable. He will not have to pay income tax, nor will he receive a refund (since nothing has been withheld), but he will qualify for a $300 rebate.

Supposedly, the IRS will co-ordinate with the Social Security Administration, and send rebates to those receiving social security benefits without them having to file a return, but it is probably safer to file the return, and be on both “rebate” lists. You won’t get two rebates, but you will be assured of getting one.

To #100 by Toby:
Your examples of what you term “flaws” indicate the calculator is performing correctly. The rebate amount is the LESSER of net tax liability or $600 ($1200 for married couples filing jointly). If and ONLY if, the “taxpayer” has $3000 in qualified income (earned income, social security benefits, veterans benefits) OR (an AGI GREATER than the basic standard deductions plus one exemption (two exemptions for married couples filing jointly) AND net taxable income greater than $1), they qualify for the minimum rebate amount ($300 or $600) plus $300 per child. If they do not meet the aforementioned criteria, they do not qualify for the minimum rebate, or the additional $300 per child. See IRC Section 6428(b)(2) as modified by HR 5140. This is also clearly stated in the instructions.

Reply to this comment

avatar 103 Anonymous


Reply to this comment

avatar 104 Anonymous

To #103 by SANDA B (reply)

The latest information from the IRS indicates that low-income taxpayers who are not otherwise required to file taxes, MUST file a 2007 tax return to receive the rebate. There was some talk earlier about them coordinating with the Social Security Administration so that beneficiaries would not have to file returns, but they IRS decided it was less work (for them) to make the “taxpayer” do all the work.

This is actually quite a reasonable position. It will cost the IRS (and thus the taxpayers) billions to issue these refunds. If they can save a few billion dollars, it will benefit everyone.

Conversely, low-income taxpayers will be getting a “rebate” of (at least) $300, even though they paid no taxes! So why not have them file a return, even if they have to pay a tax preparer to fill out the return?

I’m certain that there will be many volunteer agencies to help senior citizens prepare their first tax return in many years, so it won’t cost you anything but time, and a postage stamp. You can even e-file online for free and save the stamp (if you want to spend 10 times as much time doing your return).

Reply to this comment

avatar 105 Anonymous

I thought you needed to earn at least $3000 dollars of wages or Soial Security to get a rebate. I checked other in the calulator for being single and left everything blank except for the AGI line 57 form 1040, and entered $14,000 dollars. I put $525 in the Tax liability and it calulated a rebate of $525. The $14,000 dollars is interest income from bank CD’s

Reply to this comment

avatar 106 Anonymous

In the above comment #105, I meant line 37 form 1040 for the AGI

Reply to this comment

avatar 107 Anonymous

To #102 by cdg
Single with $10,000 AGI and a tax liability of $125 meets the requirements of AGI being greater than the standard deduction of $5,350 plus one exemption of $3,400 with at least $1 of tax liability and would qualify for a minimum rebate of $300. The calculator spits out $125 if you plug those numbers in.

To #105 by Jim
For single the standard deduction is $5,350 and one exemption is $3,400 for a total of $8,750. Since your AGI meets the requirement of being greater than this with a tax liability greater than zero your rebate would be your tax liability of $525.

Reply to this comment

avatar 108 Anonymous

To #105 by Jim:

The computation of the “rebate” is described in the footnotes. A link to the “rebate” legislation is also provided. Read it.

You paid $525 in taxes which is less than the $600 maximum for single individuals, so you get the entire amount back.

The $3000 only comes into play when your tax liability is less than $300, in which case you would receive a government handout of $300 of someone else’s money.

Reply to this comment

avatar 109 Anonymous

cdg, it looks like your were counting $10,700 as the standard deduction for both single and married filing joint. The standard deduction is $5,350 single or $10,700 married filing jointly. If you think about it, tax liability, or line 57 on a 1040 won’t ever be above 0 if AGI is less than the standard deduction plus exemptions. Since the minimum rebate is $300, it seems like the calculator should change any rebate under $300 to zero.

Reply to this comment

avatar 110 Anonymous

To #107 and 109 by Toby:

Good catch. I was using 10,700 for everyone. I am working on it now, because it is different for all 5 filing status, and I have to change “other” to each status. Give me about an hour.

To Flexo:

Why do I get a “page not found” for about ten minutes after I post a message? This prevents me from posting another right away, as in the above case.

Reply to this comment

avatar 111 Anonymous

I wasn’t trying to rip your calculator, I was just trying to help you get it to where it will give the right rebate for all 28 scenarios on the IRS website. It’s cool if you want to create an option for each filing status, but it seems to me no matter what filing status you have, if you have any tax liability, you meet the requirement of AGI being greater than standard deduction plus exemption.

Kiplinger is trying to say that tax liability is line 57 of Form 1040, line 35 of 1040A or line 10 of 1040EZ; add to the amount on that line the total you claimed for the child credit or earned income credit.

That doesn’t seem right. As far as I understand you only add the child tax credit to line 57, not earned income credit or additional child tax credit.

Reply to this comment

avatar 112 Anonymous

To #111 by Toby:

I said good catch and I meant it. I didn’t notice it, and neither did over 332 CPAs who have used the calculator so far (or if they noticed, they didn’t bother to inform me).

The data on the IRS website is not necessarily accurate. They just posted it recently, and the IRS tends to make a lot of mistakes, and (sometimes) correct them later.

Your premise (that if you have any tax liability, you meet the requirement of AGI being greater than standard deduction plus exemption) may be true, but I would rather do the computation the way it is specified in the tax bill than rely on a premise that might overlook something. I already made that mistake several times :)

I believe Kiplinger is in error. The definition of “net tax liability” that I am using was based on discussions with several CPAs.

Reply to this comment

avatar 113 Anonymous

Well darn those folks that made over $97,000 in 2007! They paid no Social Security Taxes on anything over that amount while the rest of us paid on 100% of our incomes! Let the majority of us who do not earn anywhere near $97,000 benefit for once!

Reply to this comment

avatar 114 Anonymous

To Toby:

The calculator now gets the same results as the 28 IRS examples, so I guess the IRS got it right. :)

The IRS website also defines net taxable income the way we do (Line 57 + child tax credit). Thus Kiplinger is in error.

Reply to this comment

avatar 115 Anonymous

This is definitely the most accurate rebate calculator on the Internet. The only reason I can think of that none of the CPAs caught this is because it’s probably not common to have an AGI greater than the standard deduction plus exemptions when your earned income is less than $3,000.

Reply to this comment

avatar 116 Anonymous

My wife & I had no wage income in 2007 (1040, line 7)but did have Pension (line16) and rental income (self storage Business), line 17. Are these sources of income considered “earned income” for the purpose of receiving rebates?

Reply to this comment

avatar 117 Anonymous

I am deeply concerned that we need to borrow money from China to have this so called rebate, and but yet we can send 1.4 billion dollars to Mexico to help them secure their borders, now, I am rocket Scientist, but it seems to me that 1.4 billion dollars would employee a lot of American people to guard our own borders and to complete the fencing that they say we don’t have enough funding to complete. Look at the retirement benefits a person receives for being a Congressman who approved that, not you or I , we didn’t even get to vote on it. Remember the year they raised their income by 33%, when was the last time you or I got a raise who 33%? The average person annual raise is usually 3 to 5 percent, look at the retirement of the average person. When are we going to have the correct people in our Congress and the White House who is really looking out for our best interest? I can answer that for you. It will be when we the people of the United States take the monetary value out of being a Politician. Then and only then will we have the kind of people who care about this Country in control again. My parents taught me that I do not borrow from Peter to Pay Paul. Putting your needs before your wants is the way to keep control over your financial situation. I don’t think our government is doing the will of the people any more, and I don’t think they have for a very long time. 1.4 to Mexico to help control the border? I say it’s a pay off to the drug cartel to keep them out of the US.

Reply to this comment

avatar 118 Anonymous

Rick I believe pension and rental are not considered earned income. Even with zero earned income, you should receive a rebate if you AGI is above $17,500 and you had at least $1 on line 57 of the 1040.

Reply to this comment

avatar 119 Anonymous

To #116 by Rick:

What part of “Earned Income (see definition below)” or the instructions that appear under “earned income” below are unclear?

Pension income is NOT earned income.

Rental income MAY be earned income or investment income, depending whether or not it is your “business” or simply an investment. This is discussed in detail in the 1040 instructions, and in several of the IRS publications.

However, if property rental IS your business, you should be paying self-employment tax (the equivalent of the 7.65% FICA tax imposed on an employee AND his employer, for a total of 15.3%) on your rental income.

When the IRS calculates your “qualified income” to determine your “rebate” amount, they will include business, farm, partnership and rental incomes only if you include them on Schedule SE.

You should consult your tax adviser to help determine if your rental income is earned income.

Reply to this comment

avatar 120 Anonymous


Reply to this comment

avatar 121 Anonymous

To Amanda:

You obviously don’t know what you are talking about. Just because someone makes more money than you doesn’t give you the right to take their money or property. Perhaps they work MUCH harder than you. Perhaps they are more talented. Perhaps they are smarter. Perhaps they contribute more.

And perhaps, as you apparently assume, they inherited their money, never worked a day in their life, and spend all their time finding ways to spend other peoples’ money (in which case they are probably hypocritical rich Democrats, like the Kennedy’s, Kerry’s, Edwards’, Gores, and most of Hollywood).

This “rebate” (as the media calls it) is NOT a rebate at all. It is primarily a hand-out of other people’s money to people who pay little or no taxes. Nor is it an “economic stimulus” package, as it is too little and too late to prevent a recession, and Congress knows this.

The ONLY purpose of the “economic stimulus payments” are to make stupid people such as yourself think the politicians are doing something good for you, so you will vote for them again even during the recession they caused with their misguided economic policies. In other words, “the “rebate” is nothing but payola, bribery, and chicanery.

If you think someone making $40,000 a year is rich, you need a reality check. Even your fellow commies have defined “being rich” as making over $75,000 per year ($150,000 if married filing jointly).

Maybe you can live on less in North Dakota, but that won’t even pay your rent in a slum tenement in New York City. Furthermore, if you are making less than $40,000 with a spouse and 3 children, I suspect you are getting food stamps, perhaps welfare payments, and subsidized medical care (which us “rich folk” have to pay a fortune for).

So how can you compare **your** cost of living with someone who lives elsewhere and actually works for their money?

Furthermore, the person living in high cost-of-living areas such as NYC, San Francisco, Los Angeles, etc. pays much higher income and property taxes than the person living in ####### ND, thus increasing his/her cost of living even more. Would you like to pay $10,000 a year property taxes or lose your home?













To paraphrase your closing sentence, TRY TO BE **US** FOR A DAY. UNTIL THEN **YOU** SHUT UP FOR GOOD. PLEASE.

Reply to this comment

avatar 122 Anonymous

The minimun of $3000 is for a single person to get $300, so would a married couple filing jointly need a combine total minimum of $6000 in order to get $600?

Reply to this comment

avatar 123 Anonymous

To #122 by Jim:

The $3,000 “qualified income” threshold is the same for single *and* married taxpayers, as stated clearly in the legislation, and even more clearly in the footnotes to the calculator — which I included so you wouldn’t have to ask questions that have already been answered. :)

To Flexo: Perhaps you could put a note above or below the calculator stating: “Please read the footnotes to see if your question has already been answered.” :)

Reply to this comment

avatar 124 Anonymous

Your #121 comment was very well put. I don’t make much , but I buget my expenses and get along fine. I don’t buy things that I can’t afford, and usually save and pay cash for things I want. I agree with you 100%

Reply to this comment

avatar 125 Anonymous

Meh, I think people just need to calm down about the whole thing.
I kind of take offense to the whole thing being called a handout, but mainly because 2007 was the first year I had no tax liability because I was having trouble finding a job after being laid off by a major banking corporation(that happened to lose $10 Billion in the last quarter of 2007).
My tax year of 2008 will be MUCH different, but the amount we’ll be getting will help out with residual bills and everything.

Either way, this type of “Discussion”, or rather attacking, isn’t what this whole thing was meant for. It was meant to help out people trying to figure out if they’ll be eligible for the “Tax Rebate” and if so, how much they’ll get.
Please take the bickering to a different arena.

I understand the calculator-maker(cdg) getting a little upset that people come here and just immediately go to asking what they’ll get instead of reading, but then again you have to expect the questions and take them with a grain of salt. I’m not sure sarcastic responses are conducive to the point of this page.

Reply to this comment

avatar 126 Anonymous

Does anyone know how the credit effect those of us that only get to claim our dependent children every other year?
I get to claim my child in 2008 but the ex gets to claim him in 2007.
If they go by the 2007 for the number of dependents how will that work for me? Do I have to wait until 2008 tax to have it adjusted?
Humm I wonder if the goverment thought this one through?

Reply to this comment

avatar 127 Anonymous

To #125 by Bernard:

1) I simply responded in kind to a very vicious attack (on those who pay taxes by someone who doesn’t) with a few facts that are conveniently ignored by such people, and by the politicians who foment and capitalize on class envy.

2) No one is calling “the whole thing a hand out”. For those who have been paying taxes, it is a well-deserved return of some of their hard earned money that has been confiscated from them in the form of “income taxes”. But for those who have not been paying taxes, it is quite definitely a hand-out.

3) If your company didn’t go belly up until the last quarter of 2007, why don’t you have income for at least 3/4 of the year, and thus qualify for a rebate? And if you were laid off earlier, where is the relevance of the company’s later financial troubles?

4) If your 2008 tax year “will be MUCH different”, you will receive your “rebate” then. As clearly explained above, the “rebate” is an additional (refundable) credit against 2008 taxes that is being payed approximately one year in advance. For this reason, it is initially based on your 2007 return. However, if your 2008 return qualifies you for a higher credit than your 2007 return, you will receive a payment for the difference. If your 2008 return qualifies you for a smaller credit than your 2007 return, you get to keep the difference.

So, if 2008 will be a better year for you, you will get your refund then. Say thank you to the Senate for their generosity with other people’s money.

5) I’m not sure what “this whole thing was meant for”. If you examine the various posts in this thread, people have expressed their various opinions pro and con throughout.

6) I spent a great deal of time tailoring and perfecting the calculator to be easy to use **and** produce the correct result (unlike all the other calculators that have appeared on the internet so far).

I spent even more time providing instructions and answering questions for those who are unable or unwilling to read and understand the tax bill, or even the previous explanations in this thread, and/or who have relied on inaccurate media explanations.

7) Defending those who pay taxes against vicious attacks by those who don’t is not “bickering”. It is essential.

8) I’ll tell you what Bernard. YOU spend your entire day answering questions that you’ve already answered, instead of getting your work done, and then you talk about grains of salt. OK?

9) I’m not sure there’s anything sarcastic about pointing out that instructions have already been provided, and asking what, if anything, was unclear (so that the instructions can be improved). Try to give others the benefit of the doubt, please.

To #126 by Dlphnnmom:

Your question raises a very interesting point. The “rebate” is technically a credit against your 2008 tax return. Your 2007 return will be used initially to compute the rebate, but the IRS will recompute it when you file your 2008 return. If you are “entitled” to a larger “rebate” you will get it in 2009. If not, you will not have to repay the excess.

Since your ex gets to claim the children for 2007, he will get a larger rebate because of the children (assuming they are qualified). But when the IRS recomputes *your* 2008 tax return, you will be entitled to a larger rebate (and receive a payment for the difference) because of the children, but your ex will NOT have to repay the difference even though his 2008 return shows he deserves less of a rebate.

That’s what the literal interpretation of the tax law seems to indicate. The IRS may take a different position, when and if they discover the problem.

I doubt the “government” thought this (or anything else) through. They just write up the legislation, and let the regulatory agencies and the courts sort out all the details and ambiguities.

Reply to this comment

avatar 128 Anonymous

I don’t think it’s fair to the folks that pay taxes and won’t be getting anything! I will further say that I am happy that I will be getting one but then again… I really wish the active duty military pay checks would go up so we wouldn’t qualify for it!

I wish the government wouldn’t be so “spend happy”! They are teaching the poor to go spend..go ahead… spend some more, don’t save, go to the welfare line after you bought your new HDTV and no food for your kids.. here is your bonus for getting your food stamps and not working to your potential!

Reply to this comment

avatar 129 Anonymous

Greed, greed, greed. From the cooments here it is easy to see what is wrong with this country. Everyone is suffering from the “Imperial I syndrome”. What an “I” getting back? Why don’t “I” get a rebate? Why do “I” have to pay more than the other guy? “I” want mine no matter what it costs the country in the long run. You live in a country that 99% of the rest of the world would give anything to live in and by comparison you are some of the richest in the world so give it a rest people and thank God for what you have !!!

Reply to this comment

avatar 130 Anonymous

I love what people think and how they express themselves in this matter.

The larger picture is — if our government didn’t waste so much money fighting for oil in Iraq we wouldn’t be in this fix. A trillion dollars expended and what did we gain? A trillion dollars could have bought our freedom from oil in the mideast.

I’m worried that our country is going to be another India with millions of homeless on the streets and a handful of rich with a small middle class. There appears to be an economic evolution of sorts.

The money needs to flow down to the least of our citizens. I say — the poor always have to spend. We should always support policies that give some wealth to the poor even if they don’t accomplish anything. It all trickles up anyway.

Reply to this comment

avatar 131 Anonymous

To #130 by Kam:

What a load of liberal, socialist, alarmist nonsense.

If Benevolent Big Brother didn’t spend so much money trying to regulate our every move, and trying to protect us from every possible abuse — except violent crime, terrorism, and the government itself — THEN we wouldn’t be in this fix.

If the Democrats, beginning with the Carter Administration, and other card-carrying liberals, hadn’t seriously curtailed oil exploration and drilling operations in this country, THEN we wouldn’t be dependent on foreign oil.

If the State Department and every administration since World War I wasn’t so concerned with kissing Ahab’s backside to obtain oil, THEN we wouldn’t be paying so much for foreign and domestic oil, and wwe wouldn’t need to bow to Arab oil blackmail.

Furthermore, we are not “fighting over oil in Iraq”, but rather fighting for the freedom and democratization of a culture
that despises freedom and democratization, whilst trying to protect our vital interests (and those of our allies throughout the globe) against those who would destroy our way of life, and our very existence, if they were given free rein.

There is no tangible evidence that “a A trillion dollars could have bought our freedom from oil in the Mideast”. If pouring money into such a project would necessarily gain the desired result, believe me — BIG BUSINESS would have spent the trillion dollars, and profited from the results, long ago. We wouldn’t need the government to do so.

In fact, the only time we “need” the government to do anything is when there is no profit in it, and thus no logical reason to undertake something that will cost far more than any potential gain.

As you point out, the government has poured a vast amount of money into the war with Iraq, and the (supposed) war on terrorism (while at the same time supporting the very regimes that finance and foment terrorism, e.g. Saudi Arabia, the “Palestinian Authority”, and (yes!) Syria and Iraq), with nothing to show for it.

Similarly, our government has poured trillions into the “war on drugs”, only to wind up with more wide-spread drug usage than before the “war” began.

**In fact, no government ever solved any problem without creating a worse one!**

So what makes you think the government pouring a trillion dollars (or more) in alternate energy sources would accomplish anything? If there is a viable alternative, free enterprise and capitalism will discover it all on their own, and the research that will eventually accomplish this is going on right now.

For example, there is a company in Israel that has discovered how to burn sea water (sic!) and obtain energy from it (at least in the laboratory). If this can be done economically (and safely, of course), we can stop bowing to Arab oil blackmail, as sea water is the most abundant resource on the planet, and it is a renewable resource!

Don’t worry. This country is NOT going to be another India with millions of homeless on the streets and a handful of rich with a small middle class — unless the liberals get their way and turn us into another socialist state.

The money ALWAYS flows down to the poor. It NEVER trickles up, at least in a free society.

Reply to this comment

avatar 132 Luke Landes

Let’s keep this civil and on topic. There are other avenues for arguing betweeb liberal and conservative ideologies. Let’s stick to the tax rebate rather than ideological debate.

Reply to this comment

avatar 133 Anonymous

the calculator says my husband and i are eligible for the full rebate amount….but my income tax lady says we are not because i did not have any income for 2007???

Reply to this comment

avatar 134 Anonymous

wow , never thought id see so many people complain about getting more money back… weird. You dont need this calculator to figure what your getting back, its easy. If you paid NO taxes, your getting nothing back, if you make more than 150k you get a little less back. if you made more than 3k you will get 600 per person, 1200 per couple 300 per kid. come guys its not rocket . science!! they say its not “free money” but in a way it is. this is from a tax cut, it is YOUR money , correct, but its money you normally paid in taxes, now your getting it back, hence the word “Rebate” now quit cryin and buy AMERICAN!!! USA USA!!!

Reply to this comment

avatar 135 Anonymous

To Samantha

If your husband’s income and tax liability is enough for the full rebate, it doesn’t matter if you didn’t have any income. A joint return treats both of you equally no matter which one of you earned the income.

Reply to this comment

avatar 136 Anonymous

I’m suggesting an additional line of javascipt code for the calculator for a situation that probably won’t be common, but could happen. If you file married filing separately and are forced to itemize because your spouse itemizes, you could end up itemizing for less than the standard deduction. So if your only income is $8,000 unemployment, and you itemize for $2,000, you would end up with taxable income of $2,600 and a tax liability of $260. This scenario shows a rebate of $260 in the calculator. In reality, you would fail to meet the requirement of qualifying income of at least $3,000 or net income tax liability which is greater than zero, and gross income which is greater than the sum of the basic standard deduction plus the exemption amount. That would mean that the rebate would be zero. If you add the following line of code after the if statement in the section of the program that applies the special rules, the calculator will show a rebate of 0 in this scenario.

Is this correct, or do the earned income and gross income requirements only apply for getting the $300? In other words, can your gross income be below the standard deduction plus exemption and you still get a rebate for whatever tax liability you had, but not get bumped up to $300? If this is the case then the calculator is correct as is.

Reply to this comment

avatar 137 Anonymous


Reply to this comment

avatar 138 Anonymous

People asking if they qualify for the rebate should really believe the calculator. The IRS gives 28 different scenarios on their website and the calculator gives the correct answer for each one. If you want to ask anyway, please leave more details like AGI, tax liability,earned income, social security, etc.

To Sherrie
There is not enough information in your post to answer your question. You can get an earned income credit on earned income of less than $3,000, and in that case you won’t get the rebate. If your earned income is $3,000 or more, you will get a rebate. The earned income credit isn’t part of the criteria for qualifying for a rebate, so it won’t help you get a rebate and it won’t stop you from getting a rebate.

Reply to this comment

avatar 139 Anonymous

What is net tax liability?

Reply to this comment

avatar 140 Anonymous

In my opinion, they are just giving a rebate to try to postpone the recession until Bush is out of office.

Reply to this comment

avatar 141 Anonymous

I have a good question that the specialist in the IRS could not answer. On their example line 4 for a single person without children, if they have an AGI of $10,000 that does not come from any of the incomes that they say you need to qualify, ” wage income, social security benifits, veterans benefits, etc.”; than on form 1040, what line is this income coming from to have a $10,000 AGI to let you qualify to get the rebate which they say is $300? It looks to me like something is missing.

Reply to this comment

avatar 142 Anonymous

To Jim:
Here is a link to the 1040. Here are some of the lines that this income could be coming from: 8a,9a,10,11,13,14,15b,17,19,21. These are all lines where you could have income that isn’t considered qualifying income. If you don’t have qualifying income of at least $3,000, then you have to take the second part of the rule into consideration.

Even without $3,000 in qualifying income, if the “taxpayer” has gross income greater than the basic standard deduction plus one exemption (two exemptions for married couples filing jointly) AND the “taxpayer” has net taxable income of at least $1

then the “taxpayer” qualifies for the minimum “rebate” amount of $300 ($600 for married couples filing jointly) plus an additional $300 per child.

If a single person had $10,000 in unemployment and a tax liability of $125, they would meet the requirement of AGI being greater than the standard deduction($5,350) plus one exemption($3,400). They would also meet the requirement of tax liability of at least $1 and thus, would get a $300 rebate.

It amazes me that an IRS “specialist” can’t answer this.

Reply to this comment

avatar 143 Anonymous

To Toby
I didn’t know they had a second part. They aren’t very clear on their web site about how everything adds up. I know about the income from the lines you mentioned, but in one sentance they say one thing and the next they say something else. They say that interest income doesn,t count, but you say if it is large enough that after the standard and personal deduction, if you oue taxes on it, than it does. (Example) Do the math on $18,000 dollars in interest. That would be a tax liability of $1,000. For a single person this would be a rebate of $600. if this is ture.

Reply to this comment

avatar 144 Anonymous

Interest income doesn’t count towards the $3,000 in qualifying income to get a $300 minimum rebate without any tax liability. So $4,000 interest income with 0 tax liability would get you no rebate. $4,000 qualifying income with no tax liability would get you a $300 rebate. Since your interest income of $18,0000 is high enough to generate a tax liability of $1,000 you will get a refund of the tax liability up to $600 for single. If your interest income was $8,850 with a tax liability of $10, you would get a rebate of $300 because your AGI would be greater than the standard deduction plus exemption and you tax liability would be at least $1.

Reply to this comment

avatar 145 Anonymous

I am kinda disgusted with this whole idea in general. People making $14,000 a year, have a couple of children and get a tax ‘refund’ of almost $7,000, didn’t pay IN any taxes (Zeroed out on line 57) and the tax rebate calculator says they get $1,200?? They have already ‘taken’ $7,000 of money that they didn’t earn! How in the heck do they get more and the people who paid in get less?? This is the stupidest thing I have ever seen!

Reply to this comment

avatar 146 Anonymous

I’m a widow filing as head of household with one child. My part-time wages totaled $2917.00, but my 6 yr old daughter received Social Security Survivors Benefits of about $8000.00. Our only other income was interest income of $11,000.00 Will we qualify for a rebate? I’m confused about whether the Soc Sec counts toward the $3000 minimum earned income because our Soc Sec doesnt come from Dept of Veterans Affairs.

Reply to this comment

avatar 147 Anonymous

tax rebates may be a short term stimulus but in the long run,if Americans bought 50% less foreign made goods then the economy would come back on its own!!!

Reply to this comment

avatar 148 Anonymous

Yhis is my situation Married Filing Joint 2 dependents both OVER 17, one is in college 4 exemptions in all Do we get anything? Thanks

Reply to this comment

avatar 149 Anonymous

Seems to me, the best economic stimulus would be to no longer grant any bennies to illegals and terminate their employment, let Americans move into those jobs ( including my son and two of his friends who were displaced because they wouldn’t work for one half of our $7.50 minimum wage ) have them pay their taxes as well as getting an income to spend and their medical and dental restored through the private sector there by restoring a few jobs in the medical field and not adding more government jobs. Make it attractive for corperations to bring their jobs back to the U.S.A. and costly to import goods. THERE’S YOUR STIMULUS PACKAGE !!!

Reply to this comment

avatar 150 Anonymous

This rebate program has a lot of loopholes in it if the situation falls right for you. Example; If you file single and have a qualifying dependent and have a non qualifying minimum income, but an AGI of $14,000, you get a $600 rebate, but if the same as above applies to you and you file as head of household , you get nothing.
I can think of some other things that would also benefit some people with no income and taking an IRA distribution. If they are over 55 and want to withdraw some of their money without paying taxes on some of the amount above their deductables.
That is, if all of this is correct.

Reply to this comment

avatar 151 Anonymous

my mother is 82 years old and is only drawing social security. Can she file taxes in order to get the stimilus rebate?

Also my sister is on social security and a state supplemental check. Can she file to receive a rebate?

Thank you for the help

Reply to this comment

avatar 152 Anonymous

Can you respond to #146 about Soc Sec survivors benefits?
Thanks- Gena

Reply to this comment

avatar 153 Anonymous

Flexo- can you respond to #146 about Soc Sec Survivors benefits for me?
Thanks- Gena

Reply to this comment

avatar 154 Luke Landes

Gena: On every location where the IRS mentions survivors’ benefits, they are very specific in saying that benefits *received from the Department of Veterans Affairs* are the benefits that will be included in the qualifying income calculator. Did you receive these benefits from a private insurer? My guess is that they would not be included… but you should always check with an *informed* tax professional — which I am not.

Reply to this comment

avatar 155 Anonymous

To 146
I’m not sure if they are including Social Security Survivors Benefits since the IRS site says survivors’ benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs. However, without seeing your return, your earned income of $$2,917 plus your interest income of $11,000 should give you an AGI of $13,917. If that leaves you with a tax liability of at least $1, you should get a $600 rebate. Let me know what form you used, what your AGI was and what your net tax liability was. If you don’t know your net tax liability, I can tell you what numbers to look at based on what 1040 you used.

Reply to this comment

avatar 156 Anonymous

Is self-employment tax figured into the calculation at all? (married filing jointly, no kids, over $300 qualifying income)

Looks like I have a $0 taxable income, but also $1200 in self-employment tax (line 58). I will only get the minimum rebate rather than a larger one based on the self-employment taxes paid, correct? If those self-employment taxes were seen as standard tax (line 44) then we would get the full $1200. Seems like an oversight to me.

Reply to this comment

avatar 157 Anonymous

The self-employment tax is your contribution to Social Security and Medicare. It has no bearing on the rebate. It works the same with a regular job, the Social Security and Medicare you pay doesn’t factor into the rebate. You need $3,000 qualifying income, not $300. If you have the $3,000 you will get the minimum rebate.

Reply to this comment

avatar 158 Anonymous

Making six figures and can still find something to complain about. If cost of living is so high in your area then it is quite simple,,, MOVE…. Do Any of you think that we choose to be single mothers with little to no income? I never dreamed that my husband would cheat on me and run off leaving me (a stay at home mom for the last 14 years) to care for my children, but he did and i am doing the best i can.. I thank God for any money that comes my way right now, but i do not think it is owed to me. I am trying to support my family the best i can, but it is a struggle every minute.

Reply to this comment

avatar 159 Anonymous

I havent seen anyone mention the filing status of Head of Household. The rebate for this status is supposed to be $600.00. When i use the calculater it gives me a rebate amount of only $900.00 because i used my only option of single but when figuring it using the Head of Household amount i should get back $1200.00, if my information is correct. I have been reading info all night, and on all the other sights it is giving the $600.00 figure for that status. Please let me know?

Thank You!!

Reply to this comment

avatar 160 Anonymous

What I don’t understand is, my daughter is 17 years old and in 12th grade, but I can’t take a credit for her anylonger. I thought the legal age was 18? I still have to fully support her. She has a part time job that she made 4,000 last year, but because I claim her as a dependent she won’t get rebate and I won’t get the rebate for her because she’s 17. This does’nt make sense to me.

Reply to this comment

avatar 161 Anonymous

I see some problems with this calculator with giving an accurate answer with what the real results would be on a tax form. If a single person with a child made a non-qualifying income of $8751 but an AGI above $8750 and claimed themselves and the child as dependents, this would be $6800. The standard deduction would be $5350. That’s a total $12150.
With an AGI of $8751 and a deduction of $12150, there would never be a tax liability. So with no tax liability, there wouldn’t be any rebate. This would appear in all the filing status, so in order to have a tax liability your AGI would need to be higher than your deductions to qualify under the AGI. Filing as head of household would make the deductions even higher
Hope this didn’t confuse anyone.

Reply to this comment

avatar 162 Anonymous

I think as long as your child is in school and you are suppoting them through college, you should be able to take a tax credit for them. If not completley at least a partial credit. I still have to cloth, feed and house them.

Reply to this comment

avatar 163 Luke Landes

Jim: The calculator is accurate based on the bill that was signed into law. Certain inputs are calculated differently than they would be for other purposes, so please check the explanations by scrolling down in the calculator window. If you are still unsure, let me know. Based on your description, I entered Single, 1, 0, 0, 0, 8751, and 0 into the form and the result is 0.

Reply to this comment

avatar 164 Anonymous

Anyway you look at it, if you have a non-qualifying income you will need to have an AGI larger than your deductions to have a taxable income that will generate a tax liability of at lease $1. Examples; single with one child, ($12155); single with one child filing head of household ($14655); married without children, ($17505); Married with one child, ($20905)
Some people may be better off not claiming their child. Example; single with AGI of $8755 has a tax liability of $1, gets a rebate of $300.A single claiming one child and an AGI of $8755 will get nothing unless their AGI is at least $12155, then they would get $600.
If you are single claiming one child, the calculator does allow you to enter an AGI of less than $12155 and enter a tax liability of $1. Doing so shows a rebate instead of an error. Like you say, if they enter it right than it does work.

Reply to this comment

avatar 165 Anonymous

Im on SSI (social security income ) .I dont pay taxes on it.I could use the money.Im not able to work because of a mass in my brain.I will not get any of this money.Ive paid my share of taxes through the years.The people who need and could use it the most,will be left out.Those who have a comfortable life (Bill Gates,ball players,rock stars,and yes gang bangers ) will be getting some money.Life’s not fair this isnt either.

Reply to this comment

avatar 166 Anonymous

Info about if you owe taxes from past year. I took this right from the IRS.GOV website.

Q. I’m eligible for a payment but I still owe federal income tax from a prior year. Will my payment be reduced?

A. Yes. For this purpose, the stimulus payment is treated like any other tax refund. This means that part or all of your payment can be used to pay past-due federal or state income taxes or non-tax federal debt such as student loans and child support. If this occurs, you will receive a letter explaining how the stimulus payment was applied.

Reply to this comment

avatar 167 Anonymous

Child Support is never taken from federal taxes, only from State taxes. But, yes they will take the rebate if you owe back federal taxes. But they definetly will not touch the rebate for child support.. Just went through this..

Reply to this comment

avatar 168 Anonymous

What if a person passed in July of 2007 and normally would not be required to file taxes, as the only income was $9523 in Social Security. Should the Estate file for the $300, or as I read is this only for next years taxes based on 2007 income and not eligible?

Reply to this comment

avatar 169 Anonymous

The Federal Government does hold refunds for child support.

Reply to this comment

avatar 170 Anonymous

Untill the IRS gets their own calculator up yours does great job. I have two links to this on my site.

Reply to this comment

avatar 171 Anonymous


you should definitely file the tax return for the deceased taxpayer. Though it would only qualify for a $300.00 rebate.

Reply to this comment

avatar 172 Anonymous

i was told that i would only recieve this if i was over the age of 25 is that true?

Reply to this comment

avatar 173 Anonymous

As long as you made at least 3,000 dollars and no one has claimed you on there tax return, then you qualify….as long as you file a return. If you were claimed for the year then do not worry about it. There is always next year.

Reply to this comment

avatar 174 Anonymous

ben, file a return as long as you have more than 3,000 in ssi benefits you still qualify for at least 300.00

Reply to this comment

avatar 175 Anonymous

Amber i belive this is me.I get SSI i cant get the rebate since i dont pay tax on the money i get.Found this in IRS bulletin. Certain Benefits Count toward Qualifying Income
Social Security benefits reported on the 2007 Form 1099-SSA, which people would have received in January 2008. People who do not have a Form 1099 may estimate their annual Social Security benefit by taking their monthly benefit, multiplying it by the number of months during the year they received the benefits, and entering the number on Line 20a of Form 1040 or Line 14a of the Form 1040A. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) does not count as qualifying income for the stimulus payment

Reply to this comment

avatar 176 Anonymous

Supplemental security income (SSI) payments are not considered Social Security benefits and thus cannot be included. Because SSI is not taxable, it is not reported to you on Form SSA-1099. [New 2/27/2008]

Reply to this comment

avatar 177 Anonymous

It appears that this is more of a foward on next years taxes than a handout as many have called it. I’m I missing something? It says that it will apply to next years rebate and that if it is more than what your rebate would be then you wouldn’t owe any of it back. But if you owe more than the rebate then you have to pay the difference. That was just reading the fine print on this page. Not official.

Reply to this comment

avatar 178 Luke Landes

Coastie: It’s a forward on next year’s *new tax credit,* not next year’s taxes. There’s a slight difference, but it’s important. The law creates a *new credit* for 2008’s taxes only and allows tax filers to receive it this summer. This credit is separate from the refund due to overpayment or bill due to underpayment of your tax liability, and it will affect neither.

Reply to this comment

avatar 179 Anonymous

Any rebate that is recieve that exceeds the amount anyone is eligible for on there 2008 return will NOT have to be repaid.

The tax rebates are NOT TAXABLE.

The IRS Will not be contacting anyone by phone or e-mail….so don’t give out information

And Please remember to keep the letter stateing how much of a tax rebate you receive this year and take it to your local tax associate next year. They WILL NOT already have this information and it is needed to determine if you are eligible for more of the credit next year. as this is an advance on a new credit they are implementing on the 2008 taxes.

Reply to this comment

avatar 180 Anonymous

Geez firefly814, you’ve just got all the answers don’t you? I’ll bet the original poster never ever realized they could just MOVE! Did you miss the part where the person said it costs 2x as much to live in Manhattan as anywhere else? So let me explain this slowly…if they make $100,000 in Manhattan and your cost of living is $110,000…is it really worth moving to somewhere cheaper, where you’ll get paid $50,000 and your cost of living is $55,000? I guess you’d be up $5K plus the $300 rebate, and spend $6K relocating…As to your situation…well, if it’s so hard being a single mother…just GET MARRIED! If you don’t like having little to no income…GET A BETTER JOB! So simple, isn’t it? Glad I could help. Nothing quite as fun as being a judgmental a** on Internet bulletin boards, I always say.

Reply to this comment

avatar 181 Anonymous

when they give a ‘rebate’ to someone who does not pay any federal tax other than FICA, lets call it what it is : WELFARE.

Reply to this comment

avatar 182 Anonymous

Honestly, I myself can more than take care of my family and probably the family next door as well. No one hears me complaining about the fact that I won’t get this rebate.

This “rebate” would not be happening at all if the economy wasn’t in such a rut. Perhaps some of us that are more fortunate should spend more money. Then, we wouldn’t have to worry about the “poor” getting free money.

And since when did those of us with 6 figure incomes become better than the single mom that’s waiting table trying her best to provide for her family. Isn’t that what any parent is doing? Trying to give their family everything they can?

And when did everyone forget that $$$ does not equal happiness or love?

Reply to this comment

avatar 183 Anonymous

tax rebate ? Bull****. If 1200 will stimulate the economy, why not give out 12,000 wouldn’t that do 10 times the good. Ridiculous idea all around. And my wife and I will not be getting any of this so called rebate. So sick of working my tail off so that my tax money can go to disincent people to work harder or smarter for themselves.

Reply to this comment

avatar 184 Anonymous

Amen to that!

Reply to this comment

avatar 185 Anonymous

Comment # 181 , I agree wholeheartedly.

Reply to this comment

avatar 186 Anonymous

Anna, we don’t mind a single mom that works hard, nor does wanting to keep the money we earned make us out to feeling superior to anyone. We DO mind the rampant redistribution of wealth going on in this country.

As long as my money is being handed to others, how about I get to intrude into the way many on the dole live THEIR life. Specifically, how about before you receive any redistribution of wealth, you take a drug test. How about if you have a child out of wedlock, you have to take birth control in order to receive public funds.

Loss of freedom? Yes, but so is the government taking from those who have done nothing but work hard and in too many cases, giving to those whose only effort has been to TAKE TAKE TAKE, be lazy, abuse drugs, or spread their legs and squirt out wards of the state??

Author: anna
“And since when did those of us with 6 figure incomes become better than the single mom that’s waiting table trying her best to provide for her family…”

Reply to this comment

avatar 187 Anonymous

By the way, if you think I was stereotyping, I was in a convenience store standing next to a mother with a baby in her arms, another young child at her side, obviously pregnant again, looked no older than 18, and she is bitching to her counterpart “It’s not fair! Married couples will get their (stimulus) check first!

BTW Anna, I’ll spend my money or NOT as I see fit. You telling me I should spend more is yet another intrusion into my freedom.

Reply to this comment

avatar 188 Anonymous

How fair is that to collect taxes from non-resident aliens but treat them as dirt when it comes to paying them back? Democracy at its best?

Reply to this comment

avatar 189 Anonymous

“By the way, if you think I was stereotyping, I was in a convenience store standing next to a mother with a baby in her arms, another young child at her side, obviously pregnant again, looked no older than 18, and she is bitching to her counterpart “It’s not fair! Married couples will get their (stimulus) check first!”

No…not stereotyping at all. You know, forming your opinion based on a select few individuals in the group you choose.

I think it’s been pointed out once in this discussion, but what makes me sad is the constant “Me, Me, Me…” going on. So what you mean to tell me is that you wouldn’t like to help out in near-depression conditions? That’s extremely selfish, sir or ma’am.

I work every day(Yes, 7 days a week) to provide for my family. We had a hard time last year due to big layoffs at the company I was working for.
If you’re going to put those types of stipulations onto people who didn’t have to pay taxes, such as my family, to get their “Stimulus Payment”, why not put the same stipulations on the wealthy in order to keep their money?

There are people that take advantage in every race, class, etc. Whether it’s taking advantage of the system to be lazy, or taking advantage of those below you to gain more for yourself.

I agree that too many young people are having children way too fast without realizing the responsibilities, personal and financial, first. However, maybe the education system has something to do with that(Abstinence vs. Protection) however that’s another issue.

I just wanted to reply to this, but in all honesty I wish this discussion had been kept to questions regarding the actual Stimulus Payment and not personal opinions based on class as had been requested by the mods. I say delete all the posts, if able, and start over.

Reply to this comment

avatar 190 Anonymous

What is the epitomy of greed. Wanting to keep more of the money that you worked hard for, or wanting more of someone elses money ? I think it is the latter. That is all this “rebate” is, by capping the level of income that is eligible to recieve it and offering it to people who payed no taxes they are just taking money from one class of people and giving it to another. If it were to be at all fair it would simply pay out a set percentage of ones income, available to all earners. And even at that I would posit that it is a lot more eficient for the government to not take the money in the first place, rather than to take it and then have to spend a portion of it trying to figure out a way to give it to someone else. How wastefull is that? Paying additional money to Uncle Sam so they can waste some of it while trying to decide how we should have spent it and then giving a small portion of it back in services that some want and others dont is just a plain bad and wastefull way to do business. ( power to the people )

Reply to this comment

avatar 191 Anonymous

I’ll agree with you, again, on low income people that sit around and take advantage of the system. However, I’ll also say that the wealthy side of “the epitome” of greed are those that have all the wealth and keep it only to themselves.
Maybe I’m different than a lot of people, but if I were so well off, I would help people that needed it as much as possible.

And if you really, REALLY want to get into why we’re in this situation in the first place and talk about irresponsible spending…
…Maybe it stems from the fact that our current administration has run our country, as a business, into the ground. We have burned bridges with most of our allies as well as going into a war to occupy a nation without a well thought-out plan, based on lies. Spending a projected total of $3+ trillion on this war is not a responsible way to spend our country’s money. Especially not when the current administration took office and inherited the highest national surplus our country has seen.

You also have to take into account the tax breaks that big business has gotten while still taking jobs overseas, as well as the lack of punishment for those top few that get away with murder.
Chuck Prince, for example, under whom Citigroup lost $10 billion in less than one year and was still paid more than 100x the average household income.
Take into account in the $10 billion loss the lay-offs that occur, and maybe you can understand why there are a LOT of people in a situation where this stimulus package can help them out quite a bit.

I have no problem with people wanting to live out their ‘American Dream’ and be well-off to give their families everything they want. What I have a problem with is the old phrase “The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.”
You have extremely wealthy people who are able to help out and choose not to. Why do they choose this? Greed.

**I’m not debating the War in Iraq, and tried to keep it to the monetary side of the argument. So don’t start that here. Again, why not bring this back to what the forum was meant for?

Reply to this comment

avatar 192 Anonymous

I thought everyone was suppose to be eligable. not so! I have a son that is disabled and that lives with us. he gets his social security and his ssi. he has been disabled since he was 2. when we file our taxes, we file him as a dependent. we dot not get a credit for him just as a dependent. now we were told today that he can’t get the tax rebate. and we won’t get one for him either. other people on s.s is getting it.It’s not right. people that live on only $623.00 a month realley need it.

Reply to this comment

avatar 193 Anonymous

My wife and I have been married for 20 years and we have two children, both still in high school. Our youngest is 15. He will qualify for the $300 rebate. Our oldest is 17, still in school, eats more/costs more, ect. He does not qualify for the rebate. What’s up with that. If he is still a minor isnt’ he a child? The legal wording should read “under 18” and not “under 17”.

Reply to this comment

avatar 194 Anonymous

i was told that the time you get your stimulus payment is based on the last four digits of your social security number. Can someone please tell me where this can be found out on the internet? I would love to know when to expect my stimulus money. Thankyou All.

Reply to this comment

avatar 195 Anonymous

My son,is my qualifying dependent age 18, full time student. Why is the cutoff age 17? Will he get the rebate later when filing taxes on his own in 2009? I saw several comments but no real explaination.

Reply to this comment

avatar 196 Luke Landes

MS: He will get the rebate on his own next year if he qualifies, but you can not claim him as a dependent (for the purposes of this rebate) this year. As far as *why* the cut-off age is 17 rather than 18 or why they didn’t make things much simpler by linking the two definitions of a qualifying dependent together, I really can’t say.

Reply to this comment

avatar 197 Anonymous

Just to verify…..a MFJ return with one dependent and a 175,000 AGI will have a 2007 rebate check reduced by 5% of the excess of AGI over 150,000 x .05 (1,250), and thus will receive only 250 in 2007.

BUT, if the 2008 MFJ return has an AGI of 150,000, the rebate will be recalculated and an additional credit of 1,250 will be applied toward the 2008 FIT due.


Reply to this comment

avatar 198 Anonymous

MS: If you claim your son as a dependent on your own tax return, then he will not get a rebate this summer. However, if you do not claim him as a dependent on your tax return next year and he files a return, then he should be able to recieve the Credit on his tax return next year. I hope this answers your question. The reason for the age 17 limit is because in the year a dependent turns 17 they are no longer a QUALIFYING CHILD for the child tax credit.

Reply to this comment

avatar 199 Anonymous

In regaurds to the 2008 tax rebate. My husband and I filed joint with injured spouse form and we have 2 children together. He owes back child support from a previous marriage. I understand that his portion will more likely be offset, but will they take the $300 rebate for each child owed to us for our children to payback his back support?

Reply to this comment

avatar 200 Anonymous

I don’t see where the ‘calculator’ above takes into account self employment tax paid. I may not have had taxable income, but I paid ‘taxes’ via Schedule SE – self employment tax. This should ? mean that I get the base tax of $600, but it looks like I only qualified for the two $300 taxes for my children…

Am I correct?

Reply to this comment

avatar 201 Luke Landes

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 202 Anonymous

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 203 Anonymous

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 204 Anonymous

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 205 Luke Landes

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 206 Anonymous

Move to the middle of the country, your choice!

Reply to this comment

avatar 207 Anonymous

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 208 Anonymous

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 209 Anonymous

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 210 Anonymous

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 211 Anonymous

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 212 Anonymous

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…

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

Reply to this comment

avatar 213 Anonymous

For some reason the 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 214 Luke Landes

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 215 Anonymous

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:,,id=179201,00.html,,id=179096,00.html

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 @

Reply to this comment

avatar 216 Anonymous


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 217 Anonymous

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 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 218 Anonymous

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 219 Anonymous

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 220 Anonymous

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 221 Anonymous

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 222 Anonymous

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 223 Anonymous

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 224 Anonymous

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 225 Anonymous

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 226 Anonymous

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 227 Anonymous

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 228 Luke Landes

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 229 Anonymous

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 230 Anonymous

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 231 Anonymous

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 232 Anonymous

I was wrong in calling canada a democracy

Reply to this comment

avatar 233 Anonymous

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 234 Anonymous

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 235 Anonymous

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 236 Anonymous

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 237 Anonymous

**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 238 Anonymous

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 239 Anonymous

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 240 Anonymous

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 241 Anonymous

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 242 Anonymous

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 243 Anonymous

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 244 Anonymous

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 245 Anonymous

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 246 Anonymous

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 247 Luke Landes

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 248 Anonymous

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 249 Anonymous

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 250 Anonymous

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 251 Anonymous

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 252 Anonymous

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 253 Anonymous

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 254 Luke Landes

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

Reply to this comment

avatar 255 Anonymous

heheh… why not?

Reply to this comment

avatar 256 Anonymous

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 257 Anonymous

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 258 Anonymous

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 259 Anonymous

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

Reply to this comment

avatar 260 Anonymous

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 261 Anonymous

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 262 Anonymous

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 263 Anonymous

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 264 Anonymous

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 265 Anonymous

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 266 Anonymous

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 267 Anonymous

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 268 Anonymous

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 269 Anonymous

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 270 Anonymous

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 271 Anonymous

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 272 Luke Landes

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 273 Anonymous

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 274 Anonymous

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 275 Anonymous

To confused, if you go to 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 276 Anonymous

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 277 Anonymous
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 278 Anonymous

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 279 Anonymous

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 280 Anonymous

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 281 Anonymous

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 282 Anonymous

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 283 Anonymous

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 284 Anonymous

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 285 Anonymous

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 286 Anonymous

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 287 Anonymous

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 288 Anonymous

Has anyone received a paper check yet?

Reply to this comment

avatar 289 Anonymous

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 290 Luke Landes

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 291 Anonymous

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 292 Anonymous

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 293 Anonymous

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

Reply to this comment

avatar 294 Luke Landes

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 295 Anonymous

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 296 Anonymous

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 297 Anonymous

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 298 Luke Landes

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 299 Anonymous



Reply to this comment

avatar 300 Anonymous

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

Reply to this comment

avatar 301 Anonymous

Just got Economic check for $403.00. Im single, no kids and made about $23500.00 last year and I do not owe the IRS a dime. I am totally confused by this check being $197.00 short of $600.00, Does anyone have an explanation to this?, Im clueless. I have friends at work that got their $600.00, $1200.00 etc. Please HELP!! Times are tough a SHORTFALL?


Reply to this comment

avatar 302 Anonymous

Are you sure you didn’t underpay your taxes by $197? Do you owe any back taxes or have debts, such as unpaid student loans or child support obligations? I filed for Direct Deposit of my rebate check which should have arrived by May 9th and have received nothing as of yet. I paid my taxes with a paper check attached to the paper 1040 and filled in the DD info but maybe if you pay taxes by paper check, the rebate must be made by paper check.

Reply to this comment

avatar 303 Anonymous

My stimulus payment has been denied just because of the fact that the last name does not EXACTLY match the last name per SSA. per SSA my wife has a name(A), an initial(B), and another name(C) ALL has part of last name. But in the 1040, I put in only (C) as the last name. The same issue happened during my tax refund but they were able to fix it over phone. But for this IRS says they do not have the authority to do this … I think it is tough to lose out on the money just because of this. Especially since this is the first time I am filing returns in the US (I have been here only since April 2007). Really dissapointed.

Reply to this comment

avatar 304 Anonymous

where is the logic? “free” money to the underemployed… and no comp for a dependent child,over the age of 17, who is a full-time student at university paying $17,500 to attend!

Reply to this comment

avatar 305 Anonymous

Please can someone explain to me while me and my other friends all filed ourselves and were not claimed as dependents by anyone else, and we all make around the same amount the 19,000 20,000 range why everyone got $600 back and yet i only got $300 i just dont get it……. why didnt i get $600 im so lost on this!!!!

Reply to this comment

avatar 306 Anonymous

We received a notice that we owed extra money for 2006. We haven’t sent the paperwork back yet, because we don’t know if they will deduct this from our $1200.00 rebate check. When I check online with the IRS it says that information regarding our stimulus check is not available but we did receive out 2nd notice stating we are suppose to get $1200.00. I called the IRS twice and got two different answers. One tells us that we will still get the $1200.00 and the other says they will deduct what we owe. Since we haven’t sent the paperwork back agreeing that we owe, can they hold our stimulus check? What a mess!

Reply to this comment

avatar 307 Luke Landes

Mandy: THere are a number of reasons why you didn’t receive the same amount of your friends. You didn’t provide enough information for anyone to be sure. Try the calculator at the top of this page. There are explanations below the calculator which explain why someone may qualify for only the minimum payment ($300).

Nancy: The IRS will most likely use your stimulus payment to pay any outstanding tax bills if you haven’t paid your taxes on time. There’s a slight possibility that they won’t catch it, but according to their official stance, your stimulus payment will be applied to your outstanding tax owed to the government.

Reply to this comment

avatar 308 Anonymous

I have a 19-yr old daughter/full time student for whom I get no comp because she is >=17, and she gets no stim payment for herself even though she works, pays taxes and meets the liability requirement because I can claim her as a dependent. Doesn’t seem fair.

Reply to this comment

avatar 309 Anonymous

It’s an economic stimulus plan folks! The logic of the plan makes sense to me. You pay folks who are poorer because they are the ones that are effected the most by the current economy. They are the ones most likely to spend the money. Why give money to people who already have money to burn? The richer folks are spending it anyway because they can! I’m not saying it will work as intended. I for one, thought it would pay down debt, but I have car repair, etc. coming up and I’m damned grateful for a little extra money.

Reply to this comment

avatar 310 Anonymous

My wife and I filed a Married Joint tax return for 2007 and also paid an additional $1,700.+ amount.. The last two digits of my social security number are 13. Today we have heard nothing.

When should we receive our Tax Stimulus refund?

Reply to this comment

avatar 311 Anonymous

I’m chiming in very, very late, but I just had to say AMEN! Could not have said it better myself., it’s the way to go.

Reply to this comment

avatar 312 Anonymous


I filed my taxes Feb 1. I received my refund a few weeks later. According to the stimulus refund scedual, I should have recived the refund on May 15. As of June 9th I still dont have it. Anyone know if theres anyone i can talk to about this or email? I tried the 800 number but its all automated. thanks

Reply to this comment

avatar 313 Anonymous

This is ludicrous…

I know for a fact that my boss makes $30K-40K more than I do. He has a stay-at-home wife (who does so even though all the kids are at school all day) and four kids. He owns a swanky McMansion; I own a small suburban condo unit. His car is much nicer than mine. I’m engaged to be married (so still filing single) and childless.

I should get more stimulus than him, right? Wrong. I just barely got phased out ($0 for me) by the caps, and my boss gets a whopping $2,400.

Our tax system is killer to young, hard-working professionals. We pay more for not having kids. We pay more for marrying other people like ourselves who also want to have a career (oh, the horror!).

We need to stop treating industrious childless middle-class professionals like hedonistic thrill-seeking moochers. Our system rewards people for using public goods & services and penalizes those who expand the GDP. If people choose to have children because it brings them joy, then they should be willing to pay for it.

Reply to this comment

avatar 314 Anonymous

Thought I’d add one more comment to my previous post…

In China, people essentially DO pay more to the government for kids (they pay fines for having more than one child). I’m not advocating that the U.S. do the same, but last time I checked, China’s economy has been outperforming us lately and quite frankly may be kicking our butt soon.

Reply to this comment

avatar 315 Anonymous

yeah I should have recieved this garbage more than a month ago now and I’ve seen people who don’t even work get theres. WTF!!!

Reply to this comment

avatar 316 Anonymous

Well I finally got an answer to my ? posted a zillion posts ago and after finally getting thru to the IRS – but the real answer arrived in the mail yesterday – even though I worked out an installment agreement to pay 2007 taxes I owed and already made 2 payments – the IRS took our total 1,200 and applied it to our installment agreement – Part of me feels this is unfair cause if you don’t even have to claim it on your taxes for 08 it should be considered separate from the IRS – it is supposed to be free and clear $ to help the economy – do they really have a right to keep it cause we owe them and they control the funds- I owe credit cards and mortgage too – just cause they don’t have access to it they can’t grab it. I don’t think this is fair at all. It should be treated separate from the IRS.

Reply to this comment

avatar 317 Anonymous

News today announced all time high defecit in part thanks to stimulus payouts and record unemployment. Everyone I know used their check to pay credit cards or they banked it. Gas prices also at an all-time high. No summer vacation this year for this family of four. Travel is becoming a big-time luxury.

Reply to this comment

avatar 318 Anonymous

To the one with the boss with 4 kids and a stay-at-home wife:

Your boss probably isn’t further ahead than you making $30-40K with four kids. It’s not like people with children make out like bandits in the scheme of things when it comes to taxes….$1,500 deduction per child is NOTHING . Save your contempt for those who choose to sit on their behinds, collect welfare and not contribute to the economy. Oh, and exactly what is wrong with being a stay-at-home mom? I was never busier than when I was at home with my two boys. It’s funny how those who have never experienced raising children think of it as a cush job. Where should the kids go to afterschool…daycare? After school programs while mom chases a career? Please……….

Reply to this comment

avatar 319 Anonymous

Question: I am 23 years old, a college student, worked in 2007 and made over $3000. I can still be claimed as a dependent by my parents. Here is the question: since I am a dependent I will not get a stimulus payment; however, since I am 23 (over 17) I am too old for my parents to get money for me as a dependent – is this right? Are we just in a situation, not unlike many other families, that forbids a payment to/for me?

To further complicate things, for the 2008 tax year, I will no longer be a dependent. Does this mean that when I file in 2009 (when the stimulus requirements are apparently revisited and recalculated) that I will get the money which I did not receive in 2008 given that I will no longer be a dependent?

Any information or suggestions of where to receive answers is appreciated.

Thank You.

Reply to this comment

avatar 320 Anonymous

The way I understand it, you will get the rebate in 2009. They are going to recalculate the rebate in 2009 and subtract what you received this year. I’ve heard conflicting things about how they are going to handle the rebates in 2009. I read somewhere that the rebates will be handled the same way, and I’ve also read that they are going to be a credit on the tax return in 2009.

Reply to this comment

avatar 321 Anonymous

This so-called economic stimulus has got me furious. I know I cant be the only one owe taxes/government loan. This money should be free and clear of any obligations to the government–after all, isn’t it suppose to try and stimulate the economy?

First they tell me “Oh you have this much coming back to you!” In practically the same breath, “Oh wait! You owe us, so we’re just going to take this money back from you!”

Why the hell even bother notifying I’m getting money I wont see a dime of? How stupid–and a waste of taxpayer bucks to print and mail the form–is that?

Reply to this comment

avatar 322 Anonymous

I don’t understand the IRS at all. I don’t understand how they calculate anything. This stimulus plan is ridiculous. My wife and I used the calculator provided on the IRS website. It indicates we should be receiving $1200. According to my social security number, it should have been direct deposited by May 16. I understand the IRS is supposed to have sent a notice indicating the amount that will be received (we have never received one). We have no outstanding payments.

We received a direct deposit yesterday, June 20, for $157.
I do not know the rationale and cannot fathom what it might be for us to receive less than 10% of what the IRS calculator indicated.

Reply to this comment

avatar 323 Anonymous

sorry…more like less than 14%…

Reply to this comment

avatar 324 Anonymous

Something doesn’t compute in your story. Did you use the estimator at the top of this page and arrive at the same $1200 rebate? Are you sure you have no loans, back taxes due, anything like that? Can’t remember exactly what they have a right to withhold but it’s somewhere on this page. I got the statement in the mail a few days after I received the direct deposit so you still may get it this week. If everything else checks out and you still think you are in the right, I think you can appeal or apply it towards next year’s taxes. Check with your accountant or contact IRS.

Reply to this comment

avatar 325 Anonymous

I recieved a tax bill for $318.00 which I paid & the check was paid. I had recieved a notice that I was to recieve a stimulus check for $413.00. The check I recieved was for only $93.41.
How can I recieve the balance?

Reply to this comment

avatar 326 Anonymous

What a joke! My husband and I make approximately $50,000 (-/+) and owe each year. We are making installment payments, and now $1200 is supposed to be credited to that. We received no notification and of course nothing is ever said on news. Neil Cavuto – Fox News – had it right. Keep the $$ — ones getting it will probably just use it to go deeper into debt.

Reply to this comment

avatar 327 Anonymous

My husband receives social security and a pension with no taxes taken out. I work part time. We rec’d a stimulus check for $600. I was under the impression that we would receive $1200, so it that because he has no taxes taken out of his income (pensions & ss

Reply to this comment

avatar 328 Anonymous

social security retirees and veterans and railroad retirees could get the payment, but what about the civil service federal retirees? someone forget about us getting a payment –

Reply to this comment

avatar 329 Anonymous

We got $600. and were suppose to get $1500., so I forwarded a letter to them and within one month the other $900. was in the mailbox. I didn’t get a letter from them, so we didn’t know the check was coming until I saw it in the mailbox. They corrected their mistake as soon as they received my letter.

Reply to this comment

avatar 330 Anonymous

My husband and are retired. He received $ 600, while I did not. My SS benefits are greater than his. Why I did not receive $ 600? Thank you. I will look for answer. Sincerely

Reply to this comment

avatar 331 Anonymous

Well, I have news. We owe back taxes back in 1996 and 1997, and have a Federal Lien against us, since we never had enough money to pay it all back, even though we struggled to pay 800 to 1000 monthly until we finally ended up filing bankruptcy. We did not receive the stimulus check because we owed the IRS back taxes.

Reply to this comment

avatar 332 Anonymous


Reply to this comment

avatar 333 Luke Landes

Becky: Your son doesn’t owe the rebate back — he’s just not getting it twice. This has been explained here.

Reply to this comment

avatar 334 Anonymous

My husband and I filed jointly. We did not receive any money last year. We have rental income (we rent units to tenants), and is shown on our tax return as Rents, partnerships, etc. We did pay taxes, yet the line that says taxable income is $0.

In our case, Form 1040 Line 37 is around $17,000

We don’t have forms 1040A or 1040EZ

Why didn’t we get any money from the stimulus check and is there something we could do different this year?

Thanks a lot for your help!

Reply to this comment

avatar 335 Anonymous

I only rec’d $300 in 08. I entered that. The feds rejected and said i rec’d $600? Dropped my return$200. WTF?

Reply to this comment

avatar 336 Anonymous

I receive ssi, And i would like to know how much i will get back from the Obama Economic Stimulus Package?

Reply to this comment

Leave a Comment

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.