yeah, that's it bail out the banks for making fraudulent loans
that will help alot
so next time they think about making fraudulent loans they'll say
"I'm sure the Government will bail us out, go ahead."
The banks deserve all the crap they get. It didn't take a genius to figure out these loans were not going to get repaid. And then they get bailed out by the government, or worse....foreign countries.
You can probably trust it then. Otherwise, I copied the applicable section in my previous post. If you still can't read it, I can't help you. But I'm right.
I am a CPA who works specifiically in taxation (not audits). Hell, I'm doing this 70 hours a week now. This law is not complicated by any means.
The banks deserve all the crap they get. It didn't take a genius to figure out these loans were not going to get repaid. And then they get bailed out by the government, or worse....foreign countries.
I was agreeing with you. By "crap" I means losses and stock devaluation.
I don't know that this money will bail out the banks though. Most people will spend it on stuff they don't need which is why they can't make their mortgage payments. I don't think this money will do much for the banks at all, or the economy. It is a public relations ploy.
where's the loss when the stock was overvalued to begin with and the losses are picked up by us, the taxpayers?
i really don't see how you can be right about this tax rebate thing but i will read that website in a minute
if you are right then this is still a fraud because they are just printing money, that's all they are doing (devaluing the dollar)
the way i see it is they are stealing from the poor and giving to the rich
(btw, how much do you make a year?)
The loss is the billions of dollars they lost on loans they had to write-off because they would not be paid back. Those are real dollars. Also, a few heads rolled. I think at least one CEO was fired.
I think you have to look at the intent of the Congress. The intent is to get money to the people to spend and pickup the economy. It was not intended to be a 'loan'. This is what the committee reports indicate as well. The government is printing money, but I do not think it is a "fraud", or at least a fraud in the sense that the author of the article you posted is saying. This is not a fraud against the American people. The government use monetary policy all the time to try to improve the economy. It has happened for decades and decades. It is just right now the debt is getting big and the dollar is falling, so it is catching up to us. That said, I am no expert on monetary policy, but I can tell you how the new tax law functions.
Just look at the tax issue this way. You either get your $600 when you file your 2008 return in 2009, or you get it sometime in 2008. When they say "credit" against your 2008 tax, it means that you would lower your 2008 tax DUE (not total tax liability) by $600 or $1,200. If you get the refund before you file your return, you just don't get the credit on your return since you've already received the benefit of it. Your 2008 tax liability will not change, just what credit you have available to offset it (see my scenerios 1 and 2 in my previous post). The net cash flow is the same, and the 2008 cash flow to the government is lower with the new law in both scenerios.
I don't want to say exactly how much I make, but I am not a partner (I'm only five years in). I will say that accounting is a great field to go into as jobs are plentiful and the recruits are low. The money is good as well comparatively. But the real money comes when you make partner.
how can this be true when our Nation is already in debt and actually needs more cash flow to make up for the shortfall every year?
I may just wait to get my money in january of 2009 just to be on the safe side
and anyway if the economy is gonna crash, whether it's now or later a major crash is coming
isn't this just putting off the inevidable?
Look at it this way, if they give the rebate to you in 2008 or lower your tax due in 2009, it is still free money that the government is giving you. So why not cash in on it now instead of waiting until 2009?
It sounds you are trying to debate the effectiveness of these rebates on the economy. I am just trying to show the point as to the effect of the rebates on you. You can either take the $600 now and have that money in your pocket for the next 10 months, or take control of it in January of 2009 when it lowers your tax due since you never took the rebate. Trust me, if you take the rebate now, you'll have $600 now, and your 2008 tax return will look like this new law never happened since you can't take the credit. So, with this new law, you'll have $600, and you'll pay the same tax in 2008 that you would have regardless of whether the new law was enacted or not.
In 2008, you'll have tax due of $5,000. If you don't take the rebate now, you'll only owe $4,400 as you'll get he $600 credit. If you take the money now, you'll pay $5,000 because you can't take the credit since you received the refund already (can't take it twice). Either way your net payments to the government will be $4,400 (rebate of $600 in 2008, $5,000 payment in 2009). If the new law wasn't enacted, your cash flow would be your $5,000 tax liability with no credit in 2008 or 2009, so you are $600 worse off.
But again, you can debate the effectiveness of the rebates on the economy.
Look at it this way, if they give the rebate to you in 2008 or lower your tax due in 2009, it is still free money that the government is giving you. So why not cash in on it now instead of waiting until 2009?
It sounds you are trying to debate the effectiveness of these rebates on the economy. I am just trying to show the point as to the effect of the rebates on you. You can either take the $600 now and have that money in your pocket for the next 10 months, or take control of it in January of 2009 when it lowers your tax due since you never took the rebate. Trust me, if you take the rebate now, you'll have $600 now, and your 2008 tax return will look like this new law never happened since you can't take the credit. So, with this new law, you'll have $600, and you'll pay the same tax in 2008 that you would have regardless of whether the new law was enacted or not.
In 2008, you'll have tax due of $5,000. If you don't take the rebate now, you'll only owe $4,400 as you'll get he $600 credit. If you take the money now, you'll pay $5,000 because you can't take the credit since you received the refund already (can't take it twice). Either way your net payments to the government will be $4,400 (rebate of $600 in 2008, $5,000 payment in 2009). If the new law wasn't enacted, your cash flow would be your $5,000 tax liability with no credit in 2008 or 2009, so you are $600 worse off.
But again, you can debate the effectiveness of the rebates on the economy.
look I already feel guilty enough as it is
i paid in $1400 this year but i received over $6000 on my refund
i don't see how they can keep doing this too much longer
The rebates do not lower what you pay on your 2007 tax return in 2008. These are checks mailed out separately. Your 2007 tax is only used to compute what your advance rebate check should be.
Yes I know...that's why I said, "In terms of cash flow." In order to show the full effects of the rebate on cash flow, one has to think of it in terms of reduction of liability for 2007.
i paid in $1400 this year but i received over $6000 on my refund
i don't see how they can keep doing this too much longer
The refund you received this year is for taxes paid last year. If you paid only $1400 into your taxes this year, that's because this year is far from being over.
It's true that the government is in debt and is issuing this rebate with little ground to stand on. But, tax credits as well as deductions are a part of filing taxes, so it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to point to some conspiracy every time the tax payers get a break.
Comments
The banks deserve all the crap they get. It didn't take a genius to figure out these loans were not going to get repaid. And then they get bailed out by the government, or worse....foreign countries.
Here is the link to the website:
http://www.house.gov/jct/pubs_byyear_2008.html
You can probably trust it then. Otherwise, I copied the applicable section in my previous post. If you still can't read it, I can't help you. But I'm right.
I am a CPA who works specifiically in taxation (not audits). Hell, I'm doing this 70 hours a week now. This law is not complicated by any means.
all this money is going to bail out the banks
what crap are they getting?
a free ride?
PEARL JAM~San Antonio, TX. 4~5~03
INCUBUS~Houston, TX. 1~19~07
INCUBUS~Denver, CO. 2~8~07
Lollapalooza~Chicago, IL. 8~5~07
INCUBUS~Austin, TX. 9~3~07
Bonnaroo~Manchester, TN 6~14~08
I was agreeing with you. By "crap" I means losses and stock devaluation.
I don't know that this money will bail out the banks though. Most people will spend it on stuff they don't need which is why they can't make their mortgage payments. I don't think this money will do much for the banks at all, or the economy. It is a public relations ploy.
where's the loss when the stock was overvalued to begin with and the losses are picked up by us, the taxpayers?
i really don't see how you can be right about this tax rebate thing but i will read that website in a minute
if you are right then this is still a fraud because they are just printing money, that's all they are doing (devaluing the dollar)
the way i see it is they are stealing from the poor and giving to the rich
(btw, how much do you make a year?)
PEARL JAM~San Antonio, TX. 4~5~03
INCUBUS~Houston, TX. 1~19~07
INCUBUS~Denver, CO. 2~8~07
Lollapalooza~Chicago, IL. 8~5~07
INCUBUS~Austin, TX. 9~3~07
Bonnaroo~Manchester, TN 6~14~08
The loss is the billions of dollars they lost on loans they had to write-off because they would not be paid back. Those are real dollars. Also, a few heads rolled. I think at least one CEO was fired.
I think you have to look at the intent of the Congress. The intent is to get money to the people to spend and pickup the economy. It was not intended to be a 'loan'. This is what the committee reports indicate as well. The government is printing money, but I do not think it is a "fraud", or at least a fraud in the sense that the author of the article you posted is saying. This is not a fraud against the American people. The government use monetary policy all the time to try to improve the economy. It has happened for decades and decades. It is just right now the debt is getting big and the dollar is falling, so it is catching up to us. That said, I am no expert on monetary policy, but I can tell you how the new tax law functions.
Just look at the tax issue this way. You either get your $600 when you file your 2008 return in 2009, or you get it sometime in 2008. When they say "credit" against your 2008 tax, it means that you would lower your 2008 tax DUE (not total tax liability) by $600 or $1,200. If you get the refund before you file your return, you just don't get the credit on your return since you've already received the benefit of it. Your 2008 tax liability will not change, just what credit you have available to offset it (see my scenerios 1 and 2 in my previous post). The net cash flow is the same, and the 2008 cash flow to the government is lower with the new law in both scenerios.
I don't want to say exactly how much I make, but I am not a partner (I'm only five years in). I will say that accounting is a great field to go into as jobs are plentiful and the recruits are low. The money is good as well comparatively. But the real money comes when you make partner.
how can this be true when our Nation is already in debt and actually needs more cash flow to make up for the shortfall every year?
I may just wait to get my money in january of 2009 just to be on the safe side
and anyway if the economy is gonna crash, whether it's now or later a major crash is coming
isn't this just putting off the inevidable?
PEARL JAM~San Antonio, TX. 4~5~03
INCUBUS~Houston, TX. 1~19~07
INCUBUS~Denver, CO. 2~8~07
Lollapalooza~Chicago, IL. 8~5~07
INCUBUS~Austin, TX. 9~3~07
Bonnaroo~Manchester, TN 6~14~08
Look at it this way, if they give the rebate to you in 2008 or lower your tax due in 2009, it is still free money that the government is giving you. So why not cash in on it now instead of waiting until 2009?
It sounds you are trying to debate the effectiveness of these rebates on the economy. I am just trying to show the point as to the effect of the rebates on you. You can either take the $600 now and have that money in your pocket for the next 10 months, or take control of it in January of 2009 when it lowers your tax due since you never took the rebate. Trust me, if you take the rebate now, you'll have $600 now, and your 2008 tax return will look like this new law never happened since you can't take the credit. So, with this new law, you'll have $600, and you'll pay the same tax in 2008 that you would have regardless of whether the new law was enacted or not.
In 2008, you'll have tax due of $5,000. If you don't take the rebate now, you'll only owe $4,400 as you'll get he $600 credit. If you take the money now, you'll pay $5,000 because you can't take the credit since you received the refund already (can't take it twice). Either way your net payments to the government will be $4,400 (rebate of $600 in 2008, $5,000 payment in 2009). If the new law wasn't enacted, your cash flow would be your $5,000 tax liability with no credit in 2008 or 2009, so you are $600 worse off.
But again, you can debate the effectiveness of the rebates on the economy.
look I already feel guilty enough as it is
i paid in $1400 this year but i received over $6000 on my refund
i don't see how they can keep doing this too much longer
PEARL JAM~San Antonio, TX. 4~5~03
INCUBUS~Houston, TX. 1~19~07
INCUBUS~Denver, CO. 2~8~07
Lollapalooza~Chicago, IL. 8~5~07
INCUBUS~Austin, TX. 9~3~07
Bonnaroo~Manchester, TN 6~14~08
Yes I know...that's why I said, "In terms of cash flow." In order to show the full effects of the rebate on cash flow, one has to think of it in terms of reduction of liability for 2007.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
The refund you received this year is for taxes paid last year. If you paid only $1400 into your taxes this year, that's because this year is far from being over.
It's true that the government is in debt and is issuing this rebate with little ground to stand on. But, tax credits as well as deductions are a part of filing taxes, so it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to point to some conspiracy every time the tax payers get a break.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825