's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

I'm getting $800 from Uncle Sam...WTF?(40 posts)

I'm getting $800 from Uncle Sam...WTF?ColnagoFE
Aug 7, 2003 6:15 AM
Just got a note that I'm getting a check for $800 from the gov because I have 2 kids. What is this? Is this another one of those early credits to my next year's tax refund or is it a true "gift" from the government? And is handing out $ to parents really in this country's best interest? Now don't get me wrong. I don't mind someone handing me money, but isn't this a bit much? I mean does Bush really think this is the way to stimulate the economy?
it's your moneyDougSloan
Aug 7, 2003 6:18 AM
It's an advance on your tax savings next April 15, that's all. If you end up owing, you'll have to give it back. If you would have received a refund, you're just getting it now. It's not a gift -- it's YOUR money.

Kind of disingenous though isn't it?ColnagoFE
Aug 7, 2003 6:40 AM
I'm guessing there are a lot of Joe Sixpacks who just think it's free money and will vote for Bush for giving them more money.
how is that disingenuous?DougSloan
Aug 7, 2003 6:57 AM
Sounds pretty smart to me. Will you be returning your check, I take it?

here's howColnagoFE
Aug 7, 2003 8:18 AM
i'm willing to be there are a lot of people who don't realize this is simply a credit against this year's taxes and when it comes time for their refund they might be in for a surprise.
Aug 7, 2003 8:00 AM
Joe Sixpack presently votes Democrat because of all the money they have sent him and his mother over the last 40 years. Dems send money in the form of (public, free) school construction, food stamps, Earned Income Tax Credit (welfare), and a hundred other vote-purchase plans.

Bush is doing the same thing, but more efficiently: just send cash.
If Joe Sixpack votes Democratic, how come....cory
Aug 7, 2003 11:29 AM
If Joe S. is a Democrat, how come the Republicans have both houses of Congress, most of the governors' mansions and (last time I checked) a majority of the statehouses? Jeez, man, you can't just throw those statements out there without SOME base in reality. And that's without even looking at your premise, which certainly could be debated.
Because Joe Sixpack cares about character...94Nole
Aug 7, 2003 12:55 PM
remember, character does matter to "most" American voters.

Oh, I am only assuming that you will admit, that the large labor unions, that a lot of Joe and Josephine Sixpacks are members of, strongly support the Dems?

Don't know if you have ever been affiliated with a labor union, but I have and have family members now that live their lives very conservatively but sill still vote the union party line. Just boggles the mind.
Just throw'n 'em out there53T
Aug 7, 2003 4:21 PM
Last time I checked roughly 50% of registered voters were Democrats. Sure they sometimes cross party lines, but that takes something bizar, like the President getting oral on the oval office from an intern, or something equally unimaginable.

Joe Sixpack is not a term used to describe the Ivy League crowd, who are predominatly Republican, despite the social sillyness that you read about in the papers.

By the way my premis is unasalable. Liberal candidates offer only one thing to the constituant: wealth transfer. That has been enough to sustain the two party system in this country since the depression, and to sustain socialist candidates world-wide for over a century.
Its very genuine.Kristin
Aug 7, 2003 8:06 AM
He genuinely wants your vote during the next election. Well, except he doesn't care about the childless masses. (Okay, we're not so massive that he thinks we will affect the next election...appearantly.)

I want some more money...
you want money? just have a kid or two! ;) (nm)ColnagoFE
Aug 7, 2003 8:19 AM
Okay, I see your point. nmKristin
Aug 12, 2003 6:22 AM
Though a dual income would be nice.
Guaranteed to put more money in your pocketmoneyman
Aug 7, 2003 8:42 AM
Work more, spend less.

The child care tax-credit, if memory serves me correctly, was a product of the 42nd president, not the 43rd.

Doug is right, you are getting it because you have children and94Nole
Aug 7, 2003 6:32 AM
because you paid taxes last year. A true rebate, not a gift. Congratulations and thanks for contributing. Seriously.
rebate the gov't has been taking interest on for 8 months (nm)JS Haiku Shop
Aug 7, 2003 6:42 AM
It's a mistake. Please send to me instead. nmmohair_chair
Aug 7, 2003 6:40 AM
Bush can't speak or do good grammerKristin
Aug 7, 2003 6:50 AM
But the little squirt sure can add. Not many childless adults in America, so screw us. He doesn't need out votes.
Okay... "our votes."Kristin
Aug 7, 2003 6:50 AM
And I swear to God I'm not related to the man!
"do good grammer"? Uhum! It may be correct, but ...Live Steam
Aug 7, 2003 3:26 PM
it sure don't sound great :O)

Now I don't want to hear about this any more. People everywhere get things they are "entitled" to, but you and I are not. That's the way the "system" works. Isn't that what we have been debating all of this time? Who gets what, who doesn't and why? :O)
His dad did the same damn thing.MR_GRUMPY
Aug 7, 2003 7:13 AM
Somewhere around 1988-1992 his dad started to give everybody more in their paycheck. The problem was that you wouldn't get a refund, or you might even owe money come tax time.
What a snake...
Wasn't in office in 1988Captain Morgan
Aug 7, 2003 1:32 PM
It couldn't have been 1988. He didn't begin his term until January 1989.
They ripped me off...rwbadley
Aug 7, 2003 7:32 AM
Our son is seventeen. They say we just missed the cut and won't be getting a dime. That sucks like our old hoover...

Me too...TJeanloz
Aug 7, 2003 7:40 AM
I don't have kids, so I don't get a tax break? That's B.S.

I'd be really upset if I paid taxes.
My children are worth less than othersPaulCL
Aug 7, 2003 7:54 AM
Therefore, I don't get the check. Sorry, but the whole tax credit thing for children pisses me off. Since my wife and I make a good living, we don't get the tax credit (hence no refund), we get our personal deductions (schedule A)severely limited -cut by nearly 15% each year, our personal exemptions for us and our children totally voided. Therefore, I am assuming that the government feels my children are worth less than other children.

No wonder I hate the f***ing IRS and the a****les in Congress.

End of rant. Paul
By what means do you manage to have no taxable income??128
Aug 7, 2003 8:18 AM
Just curious.
Don't mean to pry. None of my business is cool, but you did bring it up.
here's one way--form a corporationColnagoFE
Aug 7, 2003 8:23 AM
pay yourself $1 a year salary and appoint your relatives as board members. follow the letter of the law and the corportion pays taxes--not you. some other cool perks as well.
That actually doesn't work,TJeanloz
Aug 7, 2003 2:17 PM
In general, it would be most advantageous for you to form a subchapter S corp, which would obligate you to pay taxes at your regular bracket on all corporate income. If you formed a C corp. (the other possible option) you would have to take the income as dividend (unearned) income, you would end up paying about 40% on the profits in federal and state tax, at the corporate level, followed by a significant tax on the dividend at the personal level (the President's "double taxation" of dividends). Using this method, you would end up paying an effective tax rate in the neighborhood of 60%, which is why S corps came about in the first place.

So yes, the corporation pays more taxes than you, but if it's all your money in the first place, you'd pay a lot more.

I don't draw a salary at work, and live off income from municipal bonds, which is non-taxable at the Federal level. What I would draw in salary goes into a charitable trust, and is donated to various non-profits. So I pay no (Federal income) taxes.
interesting...where do i sign up?ColnagoFE
Aug 7, 2003 2:38 PM
now all i have to do is get enough $ together to buy the bonds so i can live off the interest! i imagine not needing to ask for a salary can be very freeing as far as career choices go. sounds like a good situation for you as well as the charities that are a beneficiary of your generosity.
Anywhere you wantTJeanloz
Aug 7, 2003 2:51 PM
It all depends on how much money you need to live on. I'm a cheap bastard, so it's not hard. Things may have to change if I ever get a wife and kids, but I'll cross that bridge when I get to it.

The charitable trust is also set up so that it can invest in equities, and pay me whatever I want (but I do have to pay tax on that).
Everyone gets ripped offCaptain Morgan
Aug 7, 2003 1:41 PM
If you recall, prior to the tax bill of 1986, all interest was tax deductible (since it sounds like you are older than me, you probably benefitted from this deduction). They did away with it beginning in 1987, which happened to be the year I graduated and had to start paying interest on my $30,000 student loans and new car loan.

Also, people nowadays get a much larger standard deduction in lieu of itemizing.

To boot, God gave Lance the legs I should have had. Life is so unfair!
I'll never forgetmoneyman
Aug 7, 2003 7:47 AM
Jimmy Carter wanting to send out $50 checks to every American to stimulate the economy. As an indigent college student at the time, I was all in favor of it. In fact, I had it spent before I ever got it! Wait - I never did get it. I did spend the $50, though.

The difference between Carter's plan and Bush's action is, as Doug said, its your money. That's the beauty of tax cuts and rebates. It's not a "cost" to the government in terms of actual handouts.

Take the money and save it for your kids college education. Believe me, speaking as a parent sending major money to a university in Pennsylvania, you'll need all the money you can get.

Carter was brilliantmohair_chair
Aug 7, 2003 8:16 AM
He got YOU to stimulate the economy by using YOUR own money! It cost the government nothing! If only Bush were one quarter as wise.
No - I was ignorantmoneyman
Aug 7, 2003 8:49 AM
At the time, in the death-clutches of the liberal academics polluting my young mind, I was naive enough to believe that the government's money and my money were two different things.

If Carter had planned on trapping young, ignorant, naive college students to spend their own money (isn't that what government money is, anyway?) with the promise of a check, all the while not intending to send out the check, that reeks of deceit. Not brilliance.

that's the brilliance of itmohair_chair
Aug 7, 2003 8:53 AM
Hey kid, if you spend $50, I might give you $50, ha, ha, ha. Psych! It's basically the ol' pigeon drop scheme. Simply brilliant.
What if you already sent your kids packing ?MR_GRUMPY
Aug 7, 2003 8:34 AM
You mean that I can't get any of that "free money" ?? Wait ! What if I call my bikes, dependents ? Will that qualify ??
Sure, as long as the bikes are under 17 years old at the end...94Nole
Aug 7, 2003 9:50 AM
of the year and you can get a SSN for them.
Do you think that they would catch it........MR_GRUMPY
Aug 7, 2003 11:04 AM
if I suddenly applied for three new dependents
1) Celeste
2) Gunnar
3) Giant
the last one might give me away.
colnago, bianchi, fuji, panasonic, giant, trek, gt, gary fisherColnagoFE
Aug 7, 2003 2:40 PM
I have two kids, wheres my check?firstrax
Aug 8, 2003 9:47 AM
Dates of checksCaptain Morgan
Aug 8, 2003 11:28 AM
July 25: 8.6 million checks are sent to taxpayers with Social Security numbers ending in 00-33.

Aug. 1: 8.4 million checks will be sent to taxpayers with Social Security numbers ending in 34-66.

Aug. 8: 8.4 million checks will be to taxpayers with Social Security numbers ending in 67-99.