Still no answer... no one knows if the rebate will have to be paid back in full

[Iwasthere]

I have been posting all over. I have sent this question to KO, Cafferty, Larry King, and a bunch of others. No responses. In here either. I know this is redundant but I think they need to get the message before they hammer out the specifis so we won't be taken AGAIN!!!! No one seems to remember the sick/twisted joke on the poor in 2001. My wife and I couldn't afford to pay back the entire check in 2003. We were soooooooo pissed off!!!! Cruel joke AGAIN it appears.

[annabanana]

1. I'm just hoping we have an answer to this question by the time we

get any "rebate".. That will determine what I do with it.

[Iwasthere]

4. Why hope ???

Why not get out the message that we WILL NOT spend it ? Expose their scam. They will HAVE to adjust then, and say you won't have to pay it back... in order to get everyone to spend it.

[juajen]

2. I believe no answer is our answer. It's the same and we

are crazy to fall for this again. Only the rich will benefit, as usual.

[theoldman]

3. One way or another we will have to pay the rebate back to the

government. Where do people think the money will come from in the first place? I don't think the rich guys are going to volunteer to pay more taxes.

[rateyes]

5. From what I understand, it's not a "rebate"

It's an advance on the next year's refund. Of course, if you don't pay at least that amount above and beyond what you owe next year, you will have to pay back the difference.

You are correct. Therefore, if they pass this idiotic plan (which they will because of how it's been framed) it would be wise of you to deposit that money in a savings account (where you will at least benefit from what little interest it will gain) and use it to repay the government next year when they will want it back.

[Iwasthere]

6. Yes, that would be the wise move... exactly what I am planning

Now if they knew most of us were planning to handle it this way they would make adjustments would they not? They want the money spent !!!! In fact I heard they could give credit cards out instead of checks so it would HAVE to be spent on goods. YIKES !!! Why are my messages falling on deaf ears. Keith Oberman, HELP ME!!!!!

[rateyes]

8. Nothing surprises me anymore.

Very few of our elected leaders possess backbones.

[NMDemDist2]

12. I never get a 'refund' I carefully set up my deductions so I pay them

throughout the year and am within $50 either way on both State and Federal Taxes.

I hate owning and I hate give them a interest free loan all year.

this is gonna mess me up bigtime if it's an 'advance'

guess I'll wait until the last minute to cash it then stash it in the savings account until March/09

[kath]

28. You are smart. People who get large refunds each year are total chumps.

the IRs has a very good Withholding Calculator on their website. Makes it easy to do as you do, and make your withholding come out VERY close to what you will actually owe. You can tell your employer to adjust your withholding multiple times during the year, so that you can make it come out just right.

[sinkingfeeling]

7. Maybe because the 'stimulus package' hasn't passed either house of Congress yet.

[Rex]

9. No idea BUT it shows how little our fed government understands

capitalism. I think we are watching the worst group of administrators since after the Civil War. Maybe even worse, we will NOT KNOW FOR YEARS.

[mainegreen]

10. Well, at least with inflation the way it is you will give them back less than they gave you.

In adjusted dollars anyways.

:shrug:

[NMDemDist2]

13. good point n/t

[Wanet]

11. This will be an issue right after the new Dem President takes office

One of the first national events after the Inaguration will be that people realize that their tax refund will be much smaller than they expect, or they will owe much more than usual. It's a time bomb waiting to blow up for the next President. Ha, ha.....

[alfredo]

14. Operate under the assumption that it will be. Put it in savings.

When in doubt, assume the worst from them.

[Iwasthere]

15. That is my intention

Sad, we could REALLY use it right now

[alfredo]

16. If I get one, I will put it in savings.

[alfredo]

20. Same here, I have over a thousand dollars of repairs waiting

until I have the cash.

[Igel]

17. In principle, yes and no.

If it's like it was last time, there's a silent income tax reduction that accompanies the tax rebate, but they're separated in time.

My wife and I, for the last go-round with the rebate, met the IRS' expectations. When I crunched the numbers for the tax return for the rebate year, I worked out tax liability under two tax tables--the new, lower tax rates, and for the rates before the rebate. The difference was just about $600, I forget if it was a few dollars above or below.

Between the two years, pre-rebate and rebate, our income was about the same. Our deductions were about the same. And our deductions didn't put us in the bottom non-zero tax bracket or in the de facto zero-taxes bracket. If we had kids, or perhaps mortgage payments or medical expenses, then our take-home pay would say 'they pay taxes' but our deductions would have wiped out our tax liability or at least sharply reduced it. Then we'd have gotten a rebate but had no real income tax liability reduction for it to have offset, and we'd have been screwed ... and we'd have had to repay it. Of course, it could have worked the other way 'round--if we had started working in January of the rebate year, we'd have gotten no rebate but would have settled accounts under the lower tax rates a year later when we filed our tax return.

In short: If the tax rate decrease means that the difference between your tax liability under the old and new rates is greater than or equal to the rebate, you won't have to pay it back, assuming the scheme works like the last one. If the difference in tax liabilities is *less* than the amount you get in the rebate, you'll have to pay at least some of it back: it constitutes early overpayment of a portion of your tax refund (or a loan, if you'd have wound up the year underpaying your taxes).

[CK_John]

18. No package has even been passed by both houses. The Senate will

make major changes. How can you make a decision on a proposal, everything is on the table.

[alfredo]

19. Joel Pett on the "stimulus"

[MANative]

21. Saw something on MSNBC.com that addressed this

with at least a little more clarity:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22847238/

[NoSheep]

22. Thanks. The fact sheet at the Treasury Website helped.

[MANative]

23. You're welcome! n/t

[librechik]

24. Heres' an answer from WH.gov, via yahoo answers 'your refund next year could be more (or less!)

The proposed rebate is based on your 2007 income.

However, while the rebate depends on your 2007 income, it is actually a rebate toward your 2008 taxes. According to the proposed plan, in 2008, taxes would be cut from 10 percent to zero percent on the first $6,000 dollars of taxable income for individual taxpayers. This relief would be available to everyone with adjusted gross income less than $75,000 for singles and $150,000 for married couples filing jointly. It will be phased out for taxpayers above those income thresholds.

Because this is an advance payment on your 2008 taxes, your refund next year could be more (or less!) depending on your 2008 income.

Nothing has passed Congress yet, so all details are subject to change.

* 22 hours ago

Source(s):
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/...

[truth2power]

26. That link is not available. n/t

[Johonny]

25. I want to know what happens to those without checks

If it's a refund advance and you don't get the refund because you make too much. Do you still get the pay back part? If so, then it's really a back door tax increase.

[FATCATs]

27. Oh We will Pay and Pay Dearly

Barrowed money remember.

I know one thing for sure. If not us, Then our children and grandchildren,