Guest U.N.BIAS Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 Something rather fishy occurred within the past few hours at CNN.com. Some time Friday, the cable network's website posted a piece entiitled "Treasury chief: Tax rebate checks to go out in May" which included the following (emphasis added, h/t NB reader Chandy): The package, which passed the Senate 81-16, will send rebate checks to 130 million Americans in amounts of $300 to $600 for people who have an income between $3,000 and $75,000, plus $300 per child. Couples earning up to $150,000 would get $1,200. 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. If you click on the link to the article, the above-bolded sentence is nowhere to be found. Yet, it certainly did exist, as CNN.com indicated the following blog linking to this piece asking: Story Continues Below Ad ↓ Can This Be True Does this mean what i think it means? From CNN: The (tax rebate) 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. If this is right, the vaunted "rebates" are in fact loans to be repaid on next year's taxes. So I'm going to get a check that I haven't asked for, and that check is going to increase my tax liability next year, and for this I'm supposed to be grateful? Can this possibly be true, or is it some kind of misprint? UPDATE: Sharp-eyed reader Teri notes that the curious sentence quoted above has been removed from the article. Hmm... Several other blogs have noticed this as well. This raises two interesting questions: Is this sentence true, and CNN just doesn't want readers to know about it, or; did the author get it wrong, and CNN did a fast delete rather than an update with a retraction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WolfMan Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 Yeah. I saw that too and it ticked me off for the very same reasons you stated. Wonder if they have it right on their correction right now. Seems so, but you never know. Wolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 Something rather fishy occurred within the past few hours at CNN.com. Some time Friday, the cable network's website posted a piece entiitled "Treasury chief: Tax rebate checks to go out in May" which included the following (emphasis added, h/t NB reader Chandy): The package, which passed the Senate 81-16, will send rebate checks to 130 million Americans in amounts of $300 to $600 for people who have an income between $3,000 and $75,000, plus $300 per child. Couples earning up to $150,000 would get $1,200. 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. If you click on the link to the article, the above-bolded sentence is nowhere to be found. Yet, it certainly did exist, as CNN.com indicated the following blog linking to this piece asking: Story Continues Below Ad ? Can This Be True Does this mean what i think it means? From CNN: The (tax rebate) 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. If this is right, the vaunted "rebates" are in fact loans to be repaid on next year's taxes. So I'm going to get a check that I haven't asked for, and that check is going to increase my tax liability next year, and for this I'm supposed to be grateful? Can this possibly be true, or is it some kind of misprint? UPDATE: Sharp-eyed reader Teri notes that the curious sentence quoted above has been removed from the article. Hmm... Several other blogs have noticed this as well. This raises two interesting questions: Is this sentence true, and CNN just doesn't want readers to know about it, or; did the author get it wrong, and CNN did a fast delete rather than an update with a retraction? It's entirely possible that CNN bothced the story and doesn't know what the real deal is with the rebates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 It's entirely possible that CNN bothced the story and doesn't know what the real deal is with the rebates. UMMMMMMM Could be. NOT!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gumby Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 It IS, theoretically, and advance. This same administration pulled the same crap years ago. People were quite surprised to discover the following year when they filed their taxes that they had to list the "rebate" they had received the previous year and that it automatically reduced their refund. Be smart -- don't be fooled again. Unfortunately, you are forced to take this ADVANCE on your refund. The best thing to do would be to NOT spend it on crap like the administration wants you to do. Put it in your savings or pay off a credit card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 Be smart -- don't be fooled again. Unfortunately, you are forced to take this ADVANCE on your refund. The best thing to do would be to NOT spend it on crap like the administration wants you to do. Put it in your savings or pay off a credit card. Even better if you have the means, put it in your IRA (if you have one). Or even use use it to help open one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmower71 Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 Its an advance against you 2008 taxes that would of been bigger than normal because of the change in the tax rate - heres the rest of the story on CNN Do I have to pay the rebate back? No. And here's why. Your rebate is a one-time tax cut - an advance on a credit you'll receive on your 2008 return. It's based on your 2007 income initially. If it turns out that your 2008 income and number of children would have qualified you for a larger rebate than the one you received, you'll be sent the difference. If it turns out your 2008 income was lower than in 2007 and you should have gotten a lower rebate, you get to keep the difference. "If you were supposed to receive a larger payment than you did, you will get the extra money," said Treasury spokesman Andrew DeSouza. "If you received more than what you should have gotten, you will not be penalized." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gumby Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 Exactly. For most people, it will end up being an advance in the hope that you will go out and spend it. The only people that truly win are the ones who wouldn't have received a refund next year. For them, it is free money. For everyone else, it is a partial advance on the refund you would get next year. Don't be lambs. Would you let your neighbor take money out of your bank account, hand it to you, and tell you to spend it right now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 Exactly. For most people, it will end up being an advance in the hope that you will go out and spend it. The only people that truly win are the ones who wouldn't have received a refund next year. For them, it is free money. For everyone else, it is a partial advance on the refund you would get next year. Don't be lambs. Would you let your neighbor take money out of your bank account, hand it to you, and tell you to spend it right now? just send it back. the gov't needs it more than we do.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 just send it back. the gov't needs it more than we do.. My DELETED I Will!!!!!!!!!! What the hell is the difference if I give it to the government and get it back in April next year they collect interest on my money and spend it. They give it to me now in this form I spend it now instead of as a refund in 2009. Quit your belly aching people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gumby Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 The difference comes down to choice -- the choice of whether someone WANTS an early refund or not. Again, how about I take money out of your bank account and tell you to spend it right this minute since I don't think it is doing you any good sitting in the bank? And it is also a matter of it not being made clear to everyone that, for most, it will be an ADVANCE on your refund. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 The difference comes down to choice -- the choice of whether someone WANTS an early refund or not. Again, how about I take money out of your bank account and tell you to spend it right this minute since I don't think it is doing you any good sitting in the bank? And it is also a matter of it not being made clear to everyone that, for most, it will be an ADVANCE on your refund. So then i'm to take it that you have no problem with the government over taxing you all year long and waiting till next spring to allow you to spend what YOU earn to begin with? You people talk like it is their money and they are giving you their money 7 months early. IT"S YOUR DELETED MONEY TO BEGIAN WITH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 So then i'm to take it that you have no problem with the government over taxing you all year long and waiting till next spring to allow you to spend what YOU earn to begin with? You people talk like it is their money and they are giving you their money 7 months early. IT"S YOUR DELETED MONEY TO BEGIAN WITH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Begin* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 republican money is dirty. send it back. if 600 dollars is a big deal to you, you arent a republican. if you make under 100,000 a yr. you arent republican. you are a democrat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 ask not what your government can do for you, but what you can do for government. help the republicans and their deficit. they need help. save your pennies and .5$ bottle returns for your 401k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 This DELETED coming from the liberals in the crowd that want pure socialism LMFAO!!!!!!!!!1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gumby Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 So then i'm to take it that you have no problem with the government over taxing you all year long and waiting till next spring to allow you to spend what YOU earn to begin with? You people talk like it is their money and they are giving you their money 7 months early. IT"S YOUR DELETED MONEY TO BEGIAN WITH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I choose to have more taken out during the year. That is correct. I prefer to be assured I will get a refund, as opposed to owing money in. I am willing to sacrifice the pennies in interest I would receive from having the money in a crappy bank account throughout the year. I prefer to get a lump sum back. IT IS MY CHOICE. Just as it may be your choice to no pay less in taxes throughout the year and not receive a refund. So, just to review, doo doo head -- most of us are fully aware it is OUR money. That is exactly the point. It is my money, and I would like to continue making the decision of what to do with MY money. If I prefer to NOT have a partial, early withdrawal of it shoved at me with the government's hope that I will spend it immediately, then that should be my decision. Now, why don't you use your early advance on your refund and take a few spelling courses and an anger management class? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kermit Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 I too prefer to let the government have my pennies in interest and get a bigger refund. I prefer to budget throughout the year knowing that I will get a decent refund than risk having to pay money back at the end of the year. I don't live paycheck to paycheck, but I'd rather get a lump sum in April than to cut a check to the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 I too prefer to let the government have my pennies in interest and get a bigger refund. I prefer to budget throughout the year knowing that I will get a decent refund than risk having to pay money back at the end of the year. I don't live paycheck to paycheck, but I'd rather get a lump sum in April than to cut a check to the government. Well thats nice glad for you but I would rather they quit running their damn social programs out of my DELETED wallet and stay the hell away from my DELETED money and stop taking it from me quarterly as they do now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest A Reasonable Atheist Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 Well thats nice glad for you but I would rather they quit running their damn social programs out of my DELETED wallet and stay the hell away from my DELETED money and stop taking it from me quarterly as they do now. Boo hoo hoo As a side note to other posters above, it is actually routine for news sites to change stories without leaving notice that they have. I've seen instances where one site will change a story 4 or 5 times. Sometimes it is minor editing, sometimes they are adding information, sometimes they are correcting information. Does anyone have any thoughts on the fact that our economy depends THIS MUCH on consumption as opposed to production. It used to be that when there was a possible recession, you had to ramp up production and find overseas buyers for American goods, now, we just have to buy more crap from China. Something seems fishy and it isn't my fishbowl soup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pahaa Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 Boo hoo hoo As a side note to other posters above, it is actually routine for news sites to change stories without leaving notice that they have. I've seen instances where one site will change a story 4 or 5 times. Sometimes it is minor editing, sometimes they are adding information, sometimes they are correcting information. Does anyone have any thoughts on the fact that our economy depends THIS MUCH on consumption as opposed to production. It used to be that when there was a possible recession, you had to ramp up production and find overseas buyers for American goods, now, we just have to buy more crap from China. Something seems fishy and it isn't my fishbowl soup. Yes -- that is an excellent, and very sad point. More and more, people have been losing their jobs due to the greed of fat corporations who salivate at slave labor available in other countries. The subsequent products produced are crap and sometimes actually deadly -- as we saw with the recent pet food horror and with toys made in China. Even at cheap prices, the unemployed and the overworked middle-class (what is left of them) cannot afford to buy the products. If they do, it is often by way of their credit cards. You didn't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the American economy would start to implode as a result at some point. And now, in desperation, the government tries to encourage people to spend their money ahead of time (the refund advance) in the hope they will buy the crappy, foreign-produced products for the ultimate benefit of the greedy corporations. Does anyone see an endless circle here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonsiesdrvgcat Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 Have tax cuts always resulted in higher tax revenues and more economic growth as many tax cut proponents claim? A: No. In fact, economists say tax cuts do not spark enough growth to pay for themselves. This economic theory is what George H.W. Bush called “voodoo economics.” We called it “supply-side spin” when we wrote about Republican presidential contender John McCain’s claim that President George W. Bush’s tax cuts had increased federal revenues. We found that a slew of government economists – from the Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation and the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers – all disagreed with that theory, saying that tax cuts may spur economic growth but they lead to revenues that are lower than they would have been if the cuts hadn’t been enacted. The supply-side theory that tax-cut proponents often espouse was demonstrated by the Laffer curve, named for economist Arthur B. Laffer. The curve suggests that a higher tax rate can generate just as much revenue as a lower rate. But most economists are not Laffer-curve purists. Instead, while they may believe in the power of tax cuts to create an economic boost, they don't say that growth is enough to completely make up for lost revenue. For example, N. Gregory Mankiw, former chair of the current President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, calculated that the growth spurred by capital gains tax cuts pays for about half of lost revenue over a number of years and that payroll tax cuts generate enough growth to pay for about 17 percent of what is lost. Corporate income taxes, however, may be an exception. There is some evidence that cutting the corporate tax rate can produce more revenue than was projected under the higher rate in the special case of multinational corporations, which can move their money and operations around to take advantage of lower taxes in certain countries. Economists with the pro-business American Enterprise Institute came to that conclusion in a study released in July 2007. They found that lower corporate rates attract enough growth in corporate income to produce higher government revenues. However, one of the authors, Kevin A. Hassett, told FactCheck.org that small countries, such as Ireland, had the most success and that "it may or may not be correct" to apply the study's results to the United States. -Lori Robertson Sources United States Congressional Budget Office. "The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal years 2008 to 2017" Jan. 2007. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.