Is the stimulus package a tax refund, or temporary lowering of the tax bracket?

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?
Reply to
jIM
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.
Reply to
kastnna
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:
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
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.
Reply to
Elle
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" wrote:
======================================= 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.
Reply to
cmadler
I just read an article on CNN about the finished stimulus package:
formatting link
"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.
Reply to
Bill Woessner
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.
Reply to
Bill Woessner
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.
Reply to
zxcvbob
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.
Reply to
Douglas Johnson
"zxcvbob" wrote
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.
Reply to
Elle
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.
Reply to
zxcvbob
"zxcvbob" wrote On how the government will "pay" for the impending tax rebates:
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.
Reply to
Elle
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
Reply to
xhoster
When in doubt, go to the source:
formatting link
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 snipped-for-privacy@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.
Reply to
Mark Freeland

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.