"Bill Woessner" <woessner[at]gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1e6080c1-1d78-41a0-a786-166288e7868d[at]p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
- quote -

When in doubt, go to the source:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR05140:

The bill reduces next year's taxes by $600/$1200. (More precisely, by the
amount of the check you're getting*). The bill calls this reduction a "tax
credit".

The check you are getting now is an advance against that _reduction_ (tax
credit). Since you're getting the reduction in advance, next year you'll be
billed for the usual amount - you're already getting the credit now. So, if
you simply estimate your taxes as though nothing had changed, you should be
fine.

Sec. 6428 (a) generally describes the 2008 tax reduction.
Sec. 6428 (f)(1) generally describes how this advance payment eliminates the
credit (i.e. voids the 2008 reduction)

(*) People's whose 2008 taxes (due in 2009) are less than the rebate amount
still get the full rebate, even though their 2008 taxes are not reduced
below zero.

Mark Freeland
BnetOnewsX[at]sbcglobal.net

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

Bill Woessner <woessner[at]gmail.com> wrote:
- quote -

They changed the tax law so you will most likely owe $1500 (or whatever
it is) less in taxes for this tax year. Come April 2009, you would be due
a $1500 refund, if it weren't for the fact that you already received it
around May 2008.


Xho

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the
payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked
advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate
this fact.

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

"zxcvbob" <zxcvbob[at]charter.net> wrote
On how the government will "pay" for the impending tax
rebates:
- quote -

I'd add one more general one: Enough stimulus takes place
that federal revenue increases. I think this is not likely,
but I am noting it for the sake of more completeness.

Aside: I think threads like this are important to soothe the
beast of weary, less experienced investors, planning for
retirement. The government is not the Mob when it comes to
the economy, though some may argue, humorously or cynically
or even with religious fervor, it seems like it at times.

Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

Elle wrote:
- quote -


They'll either raise taxes, borrow the money, or reduce spending.
There's not a whole lot of options. And since the borrowed money has to
be paid back eventually, there's really only 2 options -- borrowing just
postpones the day of reckoning, unless they are counting on paying back
the bonds with worthless inflated dollars.

(I'll probably use my check to make an estimated tax payment, and
encourage Wife to use hers to pay down her credit cards. She's gonna
hate that.)

Bob

Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

"zxcvbob" <zxcvbob[at]charter.net> wrote
- quote -

Of course the above is a falsehood.

More importantly, you really can't imagine ways the
government (and so taxpayers) will ultimately pay for these
rebates?

Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

zxcvbob <zxcvbob[at]charter.net> wrote:

- quote -

The government will cover it by borrowing the money (increasing the deficit),
they don't need to print it.
-- Doug

Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

Bill Woessner wrote:
- quote -

I can't find that in the article you linked -- although I can't imagine
anything else that the checks would be, unless the treasury is just
going to print more money to cover the checks and let resulting dilution
of the money supply (inflation) pay for it. You *know* they are not
going to reduce spending by that amount.

Bob

Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

On Feb 8, 1:06*pm, Bill Woessner <woess...[at]gmail.com> wrote:
- quote -

Correction. That's what the article USED to say. Honestly, I copied
and pasted the text straight from CNN.com (you didn't expect a lazy
bum like me to actually TYPE all that text, did you ;-)). But now
that line is omitted. So maybe we won't have to pay back the money
after all.

--Bill

Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

On Jan 25, 10:13*am, jIM <noreplysoc...[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
- quote -

I just read an article on CNN about the finished stimulus package:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/...lus/index.html

- quote -

"The checks are an advance on next year's refunds, and most, if not
all of the money, will be deducted from taxpayers' refunds in 12
months' time."

This is discouraging to me. I spend a good amount of time every
December working on our tax withholding. The goal, of course, is to
set things up so that we don't get a refund (or end up owing more
taxes) come the following April. But now it sounds like I'm going to
get a $1500 check in May and end up owing $1500 next April.

Well, I guess I can earn some interest on the money in the mean time.
Savings accounts and money markets are returning, what, 3% now?
Hopefully that'll be enough to keep up with inflation. :-)

--Bill

Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

"Elle" <honda.lioness[at]nospam.earthlink.net> wrote:
- quote -

Which should do a good job of stimulating the economy of China.
-- Doug

I seem to recall that last time around they added a refundable tax
credit for everyone. If you recieved the check in the mail, then it
just cancelled out, but if for some reason you didn't get the check
(perhaps you hadn't previously filed taxes), this gave you the extra
credit when you filed.

If it's done this way again, it really does translate into $300, $600,
$1200, etc. above and beyond any tax refund you would normally recieve
(and therefore also an extra burden on the federal budget).

On Jan 25, 10:36*am, "Elle" <honda.lion...[at]nospam.earthlink.netwrote:
- quote -


======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Please trim the post to which you are responding. "Trim" means that except for a FEW lines to add context, the previous post is deleted.

I do not know about your sources. The several I have read
say the government will literally be sending checks out. You
should have yours (if you qualify, and I am betting you do)
by summer's end. Just a few of many articles reporting on
this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/wa...l?ref=business

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/wa...l?ref=business

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/op...ml?ref=opinion

I can't remember how this is reported on 2008 tax returns. I
do know that it's not a bait and switch maneuver. That is,
the gov. is not going to take the money right back when your
2008 tax return is due. You will keep most or all of it, tax
free.

It's technically a tax rebate, by the way, not a tax refund.
Meaning you pocket the check the fed gov is going to send
you. Or, preferably, you spend it, according to Congress and
the President.

On Jan 25, 9:13*am, jIM <noreplysoc...[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
- quote -

How does the media suggest the gov't is going to take it back on the
2008 tax return? Are there going to be changes in deductions, credits,
or tax rates as a result of this stimulus package (not a rhetorical
question)?

P.S. - I have chosen to wait for the dust to settle before really
jumping in, so I am, admittedly, not up to speed on the issue.

Assuming a person qualified for the proposed stimulus package, how
will that affect

2007 tax returns?
2008 tax returns?

I understand it will not affect tax returns- my interpretation is the
gov't is temporily adjusting the tax brackets so everyone has $1200
more to spend (married) or $600 more to spend (single) assuming they
are under the income cap.


Some media is reporting this is an advance of the 2008 tax return. If
this is the case, someone which only gets a $200 refund would then owe
the government $1000 6-8 months later.

In addition, some reports suggest this is deficit spending, which
implies they are lowering taxes, not giving an early tax return. What
do the people here understand this stimulus to be?