~ Got My Tax Rebate Check

[Richard L]

Well, everybody should hurry up and cash their checks and spend the money immediately, so we can all get out of this depression/resession, or what everit is that we are not offficially in.



If and when I get mine, I will probably save it for the big round of tax increases coming next year, as soon as the democrats take office. :lol::lol::lol:



...Rich

 

[Brian Hasledalen 2]

Just remember it isn't free money... You will have to claim it on your taxes next year... if you really think about it 600.00 doesn't do jack s@$* for anyone, so all of us with st's will get 6 tanks of gas (if the prices stay where they are for a few weeks). This is just the governments way of making us think they are helping out. I call BS. If they wanna help out stop the price gouging on fuel. than all other prices will go down. I used to look at the gas prices as "oh its just another 4.00 to fill my tank, no big deal" But now i look at it as "now im paying 40.00 more per fill up for gas" Ok im done ranting.

 

[Les]

B, not qualifying for the "stimulus check" doesn't mean you got raped, it means you made too much money to qualify. I'm sure all of the people that did "qualify" would prefer your income to theirs...

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Les said:

B, not qualifying for the "stimulus check" doesn't mean you got raped, it means you made too much money to qualify. I'm sure all of the people that did "qualify" would prefer your income to theirs...

Would they also prefer the bills that someone making $150k a year has? Would they also prefer to do the work and make the life-long investment that it takes to get to a place in their life to make $150k a year? Would they also prefer to move, if necessary, away from family and friends to pursue employment in an area that allows them to make $150k/year?



BTW, I keeing saying $150k/year as that is the yearly AGI for phase-out, or beginning of phase-out of the rebate, if memory serves; and it is the same income strata that the government uses to phase out a number of items in the tax code.



I was under the cut-off this year, so my family is getting back the full $2100. But there have been years that AMT has hit hard, and that I couldn't contribute to Roths, etc, all because I crossed (sometimes just barely) that maximum AGI line.



So, as long as we are talking about preferences; I myself would "prefer" that there be no arbitrary phase-outs. A family of 5 making $50K/year getting $2100 back enjoys a 4.2% rebate. A family of 5 making $150k gets 0%...and it was the latter family that pays so much more in taxes....that all doesn't sound right to me. Unless of course you have the general, class-bias attitude that those making over $150k a year "don't need" the money.



Remember, when talking about taxes, it is the taxpayers money. The govt isn't "giving" us anything that isn't already ours. The so-called rich get the shaft on this one...again, IMHO.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

Unless of course you have the general, class-bias attitude that those making over $150k a year "don't need" the money.

I do not have the general class-bias attitude, but those that make over $150K a year do not need that money as bad as those that make $30K a year.



Someone that is making about $40K/year can safely afford a $130,000/house. Someone making $150K/year can afford a $450K/house.



Again, nothing against someone living in a nice house, but somone making $40K/year is going to have to work harder to live in a decent neighborhood than someone making $150K.



I do have an issue with someone making $150K/year saying I am overpaid.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen said:

I do not have the general class-bias attitude, but those that make over $150K a year do not need that money as bad as those that make $30K a year.

You can't possibly know who needs the money more. You can guess. You can make a judgement call, but we can never really know. The person making $30k a year might be sitting on a bunch of inherited money, or otherwise have little or no expense (a house fully paid for, etc), while the person making $150k/year could be living paycheck to paycheck.



The point is, we simply cannot know. Therefore there are those (not saying you are one, Caymen) that would make the judgement that the rich don't NEED the money as much. That again, is a judgement, a judgement about whether or not someone should be given back their own money by the government.



Again, I am not saying that is what you are saying, Caymen, but many have that attitude. What if we took that attitude in other areas. Say someone's house is broken into and robbed of a couple of thousand dollars in cash. Are the police supposed to NOT take the call and help the victim if they happen to be rich...all because they "didn't need the money?"



Yeah, I know, that's an absurd example, but as far as I can see, the govt is picking my pocket, everyone's pocket, and now we have people who don't think the govt should give back some of that that money taken from the rich people...mostly because the rich don't need it. What does need have to do with it?



TJR

 

[TomT]

Again, nothing against someone living in a nice house, but somone making $40K/year is going to have to work harder to live in a decent neighborhood than someone making $150K.

Well I didn't get the rebate either but I have worked 2 jobs (70-80 hours a week) for the last 30 years to get to that 150k. So is it fair that I have worked my butt off and paid taxes out of my ass and not get the rebate? Don't punish the people that work really hard for a living. If we weren't paying so much in taxes then your taxes would go up.

If the government wanted to be fair they would have just given everybody a 5% rebate based on the taxes they paid.

 

[Tom Schindler]

The person making $30k a year might be sitting on a bunch of inherited money, or otherwise have little or no expense (a house fully paid for, etc), while the person making $150k/year could be living paycheck to paycheck.

That is very true. That guy living paycheck to paycheck while making 150K/year has made some bad decisions.

Don't punish the people that work really hard for a living.

Every single person out there that makes $150K worked hard for it, but the guy making $40K in a factory that is 100 degrees in the summer and 50 degrees in the winter doesn't?

If we weren't paying so much in taxes then your taxes would go up.

The largest share of the tax's paid come from the middle class. If it wasn't for the middle class, your tax's would be high.





Tom

 

[Richard L]

TJR,

I'm inclinded to agree with Caymen on this issue. Most of the bills we pay are "Self Inflicted". If you make $150K a year and live a lifestyle like you are making $500K a year, they you will naturally have a lot of bills.



However, if you make $150K and live like you only made $75k per year, you wil not have nearly as many bills and you can probably still live a very nice life style. The same rule applies to people who make $50k per year, If they live like they make $75K or $100K a year, they are going to have a lot of bills.



We have created a nation wallowing in debt and encourage people to mortgage their homes to pay credit card debt, etc. The emphasis is always on spending money to het us out of debt or boost our economy ??? That is assinine !!



Also, the thought that E85 fuel is going to be so great to take this country off it's dependancy on foreigh oil is rediculous! We are taking foods our of our mouths to feed our oil habit, and now food prices are going through the roof. I don't object to using E85 as long as they are not using a viable food source to produce the alcohol, but that is exactly what they are doing. It already been shown that Sawgrass (a non-food source) is better for producing alcohol since it yeilds more alcohol per achre, grows in poor soil without the need for fertilizer, and they can grow and harvest 2-3 crops per year.



The United states has become a nation of excesses, and it is now starting to turn around an bite them.



...Rich

 

[Tom Schindler]

Richard L.,



The issue is if you make $150K/year, you would find it easier to live a nice lifestyle on half of what you make than someone making $30K/year on douyble what they make.



I understand some area's cost more to live that others. I also know just because someone that makes $150K/year does not mean that they are rich. I do know making $150K/year, somone can live a nicer lifestyle on less money than someone making $30K/year on more money.





Tom

 

[LoriMaury Kimbrough]

We also got raped by them again this year. They will keep my rebate to help pay what they think I owe them.

 

[Richard L]

Caymen,

Sorry, but you completely lost me on that last post???? I was actually commenting more on TJR's comment about people wanting the $150K salaries and paying the bills acquired by those who make $150k.



My point was that it make no difference as to how much you make, it's how much you spend. Or put another way, It's how much you end up with after you have paid all your bills. That's called "Disposable income". The problem is peopld of all income brackets spending like they are making twice their actual income and they have no disposable income because it's coing to pay off the credit card debts and other bills accumulated by living beyond their means.



if a person who earns $150 per year only spent money like someone who earned $30K per year, they could live for about 5 years with no job or income.



...Rich

 

[Dreman]

I'm not poor, I'm broke.



I make enough money to live. We just spend it all. I've been trying to get our family on track to live below our means for a change, but it's not there yet.



Although I do expect the tax rebate check to arrive in my account soon!

 

[Tom Schindler]

Rich,



That is exactly what I said. It is easier for someone to live a nice lifestyle using less money if they make $150K/year than someone making $30K/year.



We, as a society, have been brainwashed that anyone can be rich,m just bad decisions keep those that are down, down. That is only partly true.



Someone that is making $150K/year can live a great lifestyle if they lived like they made only $75K/year. They could afford anything they wanted at any time.



In my area, if you made only $75K/year, you could live in the suburbs on 1 acre of property in a 4000 sq foot home driving 2 new cars.



Someone making $30K/year in this same area gets to sleep with the soothing sounds of stray cats, screaming adults, gunshots, and gang fighting.



Yea, we in the upper-middle class, see those in the lower ghetto neighborhoods that have PS3's, XBox 360's, big screen TV's, etc. That may be true with some peple, but it is not the norm. Most people that live in area's like that do not have that. They do not have an XBox, Playstation, or many of them do not have a TV.



How do I know? I grew up in those neighborhoods.



Someone making $30K/year will have a hard time making ends meet.



So, yes, those that make $30K/year need that money to help feed thier family. Those that make $150K/year could spend half of what they make and still live a better life than someone making $30K/year.





Tom

 

[Robert Thomas]

Don't make much money. Don't really mind paying my fair share of income taxes. Don't complain when I get a check in the mail. Son has a good job and doesn't need any help. Trying to work it out so the check to the undertaker bounces. LIFE IS GOOD

 

[user 62394]

Trying to work it out so the check to the undertaker bounces.

I like that.



Rocks

 

[Dreman]

Don't make much money. Don't really mind paying my fair share of income taxes. Don't complain when I get a in the mail. Son has a good job and doesn't need any help. Trying to work it out so the check to the undertaker bounces. LIFE IS GOOD

I like that, too. So why are you jaded?



It's always been amazing to me how much people can spend on things they don't need, so they can't afford the things they do need! We don't have a big screen TV, any kind of video game system, or even cable TV. We don't even know what we are missing, either!:lol:

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen said:

The issue is if you make $150K/year, you would find it easier to live a nice lifestyle on half of what you make than someone making $30K/year on douyble what they make.

Once again, I guess I am so misunderstood.



That is NOT the issue. The issue I raised is that it shouldn't matter how much someone makes when it comes to the tax rebate as the rebate in question is the government giving the people back their own money.



Why in this rebate process do SOME feel the need to pass judgement on those making lots of money! Some would say because it isn't "fair" for the wealthy to get money back because they don't need it! Again, "need" has little to do with right and wrong, and "fair", in this equation, IMHO.



Heck, if our government wanted to be fair they would simply give everyone back 10% of what they paid in 2007 in fed taxes. I'd take that deal.



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

RichardL, Caymen,



The whole $150K issue *SHOULD* be moot when it comes to the tax rebate. The question of whether someone NEEDS a rebate more than someone else given how much they make should ALSO be moot, IMHO.



It's the people's money...give it back to them. Once we start judging need, then it becomes some sort of class-bias, divisive, pity-party of a program. Screw that.



TJR

 

[Robert Thomas]

Once upon a time I was a happy Redfish swimming in the internet sea. Someone came along and classified me as "Jaded". Hince, forever more I am "Jaded Redfish":