Upcoming Tax Rebates

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
Are speaking of the tax rebates as opposed to a commission rebate? A rebate is not tax language for anything.<p>


The recently passed dollar devaluation bill, ($600 rebate), is, in tax language, a non-refundable tax credit. It will not be considered income for the year received. It is a refund of taxes already paid and just as you do not pay federal income tax on federal income tax refunds, so you will not incur federal tax liability on your $600 rebate.<p>


Don't let the non-refundable phrase confuse you. That is congressional tax code language for a refund which you receive <b>ONLY</b> if you have a tax liability, (you pay fed tax). A refundable tax credit is a refund that you receive even if you have no tax liability and pay no taxes.<p>


But it may be refundable for certain elderly social security recipients. I don't know.
 
<p><em>"Why does everyone think rich people should pay more? Do rich people use more government services?"</em></p>

<p>I would argue that, yes, they do get more from the government than the poor do. It may not be given as directly as food stamps though. For instance, if you have money, you have lots of opportunities that the less wealthy do not have. You can afford tickets to a football game. You can drive on freeways and not worry about the cost of gas. You actually have money to invest in a Roth IRA without having to forgo health care for your children to do so. You can send your child to college even if he has C average. You don't need your child to work while in high school to help pay the bills, thus allowing her more time to study and get better grades and have a better chance to get into a good college. Your child is far less likely to serve in the military and pay the ultimate govt tax, his life, and can instead become an unqualified President. You can donate money to politicians, have them listen to you and pass govt contracts your way. You can eat at the nice restaurants the poor people work in. You can afford to go the best doctors. You can have a housecleaner instead of being one.</p>

<p>The government provides the infrastructure, regulations, and stability that are needed for these things. Without the government, you are back to some type of feudal system, I guess.</p>
 
<p><em>"In 1991 a 10% excise tax went into effect on luxury boats costing more than $100k. Sales plummeted and an entire industry was nearly destroyed because the "rich" decided not to buy new pleasure craft."</em></p>

<p>So, if we instituted a consumption tax, it sounds like our whole economy would go into the toilet as sales would plummet in every industry.</p>
 
The idea is that since you are not paying any income tax you would buy less crap and use the extra money and invest/save it. Consumer good sales could go down the toilet I guess, but other sectors would be propped up with the extra liquidity in the market. At the end of the day, the economy as a whole is supposed to benefit from this. At least, that is how I understand it but apparently I'm an idiot so don't take my word for it.
 
<p>As for my rebate, it's going to be used to make the last 3 payments on my car. No more car payments for me. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>As for consumption tax, I am all for it but can it actually ever happen? For an economy that relies on what was it.... 60 or 70% of it's GDP on consumer consumption, wouldn't this be the death blow to our economy? </p>

<p>Who am I kidding.... Americans will still blow their money at Best Buys, drive their gas guzzling mammoth vehicles, buy homes they cannot ever repay back, and ask the rest of the world to take on even more of our debt. </p>
 
<p>T!m, </p>

<p>FYI, us "rich" folks make too much money and are therefore precluded from participating in Roth IRA's....and that long list of things you jotted down in your previous post are not government services. </p>

<p>To answer awgee's question, no.</p>
 
<i>"For instance, if you have money, you have lots of opportunities that the less wealthy do not have. You can afford tickets to a football game. You can drive on freeways and not worry about the cost of gas. You actually have money to invest in a Roth IRA without having to forgo health care for your children to do so. You can send your child to college even if he has C average. You don't need your child to work while in high school to help pay the bills, thus allowing her more time to study and get better grades and have a better chance to get into a good college. Your child is far less likely to serve in the military and pay the ultimate govt tax, his life, and can instead become an unqualified President. You can donate money to politicians, have them listen to you and pass govt contracts your way. You can eat at the nice restaurants the poor people work in. You can afford to go the best doctors. You can have a housecleaner instead of being one.





The government provides the infrastructure, regulations, and stability that are needed for these things. Without the government, you are back to some type of feudal system, I guess."</i><p>






I don't get it. Is it our educational system? What in the world has brainwashed the next generation so severely and taken away their ability to think critically? Do others out there seriously think that governement provides the infrastructure, regulations, and stability for these things, and without the government, we are back to some type of feudal system? I want to know. How many of you think this?
 
"Why does everyone think rich people should pay more? Do rich people use more government services?"



This is unequivocal. Just one example:



National defense. If you were a homeless poor living in abject poverty, you could care less if Mexico invaded our country. You'd still be poor. If you were a billionaire and Mexico invaded our country, you'd be scare s___tless because you know you might lose it all. You have a lot more to lose.



I think most reasonable people would agree that progressive taxation is appropriate in a society like ours. The debate is the degree applied.
 
<em>"I think most reasonable people would agree that progressive taxation is appropriate in a society like ours. The debate is the degree applied."</em>





Hey ocpop, don't be too sure about that ... you might be called some bleeding heart Marxist for that.



 
<p><em>"I don't get it. Is it our educational system? What in the world has brainwashed the next generation so severely and taken away their ability to think critically? Do others out there seriously think that governement provides the infrastructure, regulations, and stability for these things, and without the government, we are back to some type of feudal system? I want to know. How many of you think this?"</em></p>

<p>awgee, what makes you think I am the "next" generation? For that matter, "next" to what? Would the next generation be the one that isn't born yet? Is it our educational system that teaches people to write in a condescending manner like you?</p>

<p>If you don't think the government provides infrastructure, regulations, and stability, then you can tell us who provided the troops for WWI and WWII? I think not being overrun by a foreign country provided some stability. What do the FDA, NASA, FTC, ATF, CFTC, CPSC, DARPA, DEA, FAA, FCC, Fed Reserve, IRS, NHTSA, NIH, NOAA, NPS, NSF, NTSB, NRC, PTO, SSA, and the USPS do?</p>

<p>If the government does not provide infrastructure, regulations, or stability, why does it matter what type of government we have? Why even have one?</p>

<p>Here's a quote I found that seems to summarize it nicely, "The fundamental purpose of government is the maintenance of basic security and public order — without which individuals cannot attempt to find happiness."</p>
 
T!m, I have no idea what you are trying to say. You still aren't validating your argument that I, as a "rich" person, utilize more government services than anyone else. Government services to me mean: police, fire, libraries, roadways, Medicare/Medicaid, USPS...and the whole list of acronyms you posted above....things I gladly pay my fair share of taxes to subsidize. Tell me how it is you think I utilize or benefit more from these services just because I make more money ?
 
<i>"What do the FDA, NASA, FTC, ATF, CFTC, CPSC, DARPA, DEA, FAA, FCC, Fed Reserve, IRS, NHTSA, NIH, NOAA, NPS, NSF, NTSB, NRC, PTO, SSA, and the USPS do?"</i><p>


Get in the way and steal from everybody, especially the poor.
 
Man I don't know where I would be without my microwave from NASA...kidding.





T!M....the rich already account for the majority of the tax burden in the US and as Mr. Bush himself has said "if they want to give more to the govt, the govt has turned away free money yet". It's just like when Warren Buffet said he felt bad that he was not taxed more...well guy just add a few zeros then when filing your taxes.



As for the FairTax (consumption tax) it is aligned in a way that it helps eliminate inefficiencies in the tax code...ie simplify it. Many economist say it is revenue neutral, you can argue either way, but the idea that consumption would stay flat or increase is that consumers will have more disposable income. I am a proponent of the FairTax...anything to give me more money and the govt less is always a good thing. Neither party can manage money as effective as the people earn it can.
 
Microwaves are a civilian use derivative from technology developed at Raytheon. You can argue that the research cost of getting us there was not worth it (don't even start quoting the million dollar pen or toilet). Then again, you could also argue that certain technological leaps would not have happened if it weren't for these funding boosts. Of course, there probably are more efficient ways of getting research done in the private sector. I believe it didn't hurt to have a good funding apparatus to get us where we are today.
 
>(don't even start quoting the million dollar pen or toilet)





Your reputation for accuracy is already dubious enough that you really don't want to go there. Of, and just for your information, Raytheon is a company in the private sector. (Well, they are a public corporation, but they most certainly are not a government entity)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top