posted on July 21, 2001 04:18:48 AM
I just got a strange piece of junk mail. A notice about when I am going to recieve my tax relief check.
Do these people work for Publisher's Clearing House on the side? Watch for it in the mail! You have won if you are the winner!
All the effort that went into making this non-communication would have been enough to make the check and send it!
Do they think I am going to cancel my vacation and stay home waiting for my big $600 check so I can run back out and invest it in the stock market? Or stimulate the economy?
Or do they simply have to beat their chests about it to show how hard they are working for me? Seems it would be more effective about 2 weeks before an election.
The government makes money - has ever since it was not backed by anything. All it means when you get more money is you have a little bigger slice of the economic pie and these are you game chips. The numbers in the game change a little and the REALITY of what goods and services are available stays the same.
posted on July 21, 2001 04:21:21 AM
I agree, about 98% of the people already know they are getting one. If they just wanted to be PC about it, they could have just sent the noticed to those people who are NOT getting it.
posted on July 21, 2001 05:34:11 AM
Awwww, you guys are so cute when you're wrong. Seems that people on this board (apparently that 2% you are referring to) seemed to believe less than 2 months ago that there would be no tax refund for most people, or that it would be "about enough to take their kids to McDonalds with". Quickly now, wipe that egg off of your collectve faces, it tends to harden after awhile.
People that owe back taxes, or are delinquent in some way are quite aware that they will not receive any tax money until their back monies are paid. It probably would have cost the government more to look up everybody that was eligible for the refund, and cross reference that with the other departments databases of who all still owed the IRS something for whatever reason - child support, court restitution etc., and then extrapolate how many of those people will get part of that refund back, and how much, because they owed the IRS less than what their actual refund eligibilty is, blah, blah, blah. Seems to me that would take alot more manpower (excuse me - people power) and thus cost the tax payers even more money to do it that way. krs is right, if they wanted to beat their chests about it, they would have timed it with an election. They didn't, so apparently, what we actually have is a politician - albeit, not a very bright one, actually kept an election promise to the people of America - even the over half of them that did not vote for him. I didn't vote for him, and I'm only getting $300, but I must say, I do appreciate it. Thanks Dubya! And I don't plan to squirel away my $300 under my mattress, I actually plan to spend it. My $300 is very little, but when you add all of our $300, and our $600, and realize that we must multiply this by MILLIONS because of how many consumers got back checks of $300 and $600, what that equates to is a serious shot in the arm of this slugging economy. This can not be disputed by anyone with any knowledge at all of economics. Although I doubt we'll see a major change until Christmas, that's good enough for me. After inheriting a sluggish economy and high oil prices, this administration has managed to do quite well. After all, now I'm paying less for gas than I was at this time last year, and I'm $300 richer. Perhaps that $300 or $600 only offsets the higher prices we paid for gas over the last year and a half, but I guess we have to look to Slick Willy for answers to that. Not bad for only 7 months in.
You lost me. What in the world does your post have to do with this huge governmental expenditure...just to alert the populace they're about to get a check?
Sorry, but Dumbya's tax bill would never have gotten through to passage without the rebate. It wasn't his idea, it wasn't part of his bill as submitted to congress, and he resisted the payout right up to the time he realized that nothing would be passed without it.
It was a requirement of the democratic members of the senate, so thank them.
Sure, he's trying to take credit for it, but he'd have kept it from you if he could have.
Also, get your citations in order. It wasn't me who said anything about saving it for an election. My only post before this is a single line informing Gravid that the letter he received cost over $40,000,000 to get to him. Your boy Bush wasted that much money just to try to appear that he was doing the giving.
edited so that it won't be thought that I might ever address Toke.
posted on July 21, 2001 06:00:27 AM
Maybe I should repost the chart showing the price of oil in those 7 months - and back into Clintons reign? Current economic conditions are ALWAYS the effect of prior decisions made, but then again, I guess I did say that one would have to some understanding of Economics to comprehend somethin like that.
As to your post, toke, the reason is, is because they are required to tell a person in some form how much money they owe them before they send the check. Every year you do your taxes, you either know how much you owe them, or they owe you, long before the check is in the mail.
The refund was Dubya's idea, or at least he claimed he would do it long before it got passed. Is there some other person you're thinking of? Perhaps you made a typo? It's ok krs, we'll walk you through this slowly.
posted on July 21, 2001 06:23:05 AM
Oil is a world market. The only thing that can be done is artificially raise the price through fraudulent practices such as those carried out by the texas companies that your boy sleeps with.
I wonder, concerning the economic factors that are mentioned why you don't read Allen Greenspan's comments such as he gave to the congress day before yesterday and which defined the drastic and recent declines in the marketplace in this country. I doubt that you could find a more knowledgeable reference than he has shown himself to be.
"Even though the president's original budget included no immediate tax relief,Bush said the checks would help stimulate the struggling economy by putting money into people's hands now".
"Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., was careful Friday not to criticize the refund checks - Democrats actually came up with the idea first - but said they should have been sent to everyone who pays federal taxes, including payroll taxes".
posted on July 21, 2001 07:01:20 AM
wrong again, of course, but don't take it so hard. The democrats wanted nothing at all to do with giving back tax money - if they did, it would have happened during Clintons reign. However, knowing that the American people would see their true colors, they decided to fight the republicans every step of the way in order to have the smallest tax refund possible without pissing off the public too bad. The democrats did not by anyone's account initiate discussion of tax relief. They simply realized it was unavoidable, and had to try not to seem to against it to the American people. So they couched their disgust at giving back our money with ideas such as, "It's too large" or "What programs will have to suffer", etc. I know we all remember these things well, it wasn't too long ago. The inevitability of tax relief was understood. The only difference in the Presidents original plan and the Democrats original plan, was that Bush didn't plan on sending the check right away - to sort of "guage" the economy, and the democrats original plan was No tax cut at all for anybody. To avoid looking like the bad guy, they turned around the fact that Bush relieved taxes on the poor and middle class by saying, "yeah but, look how much the rich get back" In fact, you've even made such ignorant claims. Not to be name calling - that is not my intention, but it was ignorance because of course common sense would dictate that those who pay more would get back more, and those who don't pay, or even get back money, would get less or nothing. At least we thought it was common sense. However, as I have seen so often on here, good sense is not so common after all.
Now of course we fast forward to a situation where, Bush kept his promise of tax relief, which was not by any stretch of the imagination a democrat idea, and yet the Bushwackers still insist on trying to paint their picture of what happened, completely unsupported by any facts. But then again, you never have been one for facts, now have you?
posted on July 21, 2001 08:07:02 AM
They send the notices, because there are some people that don't read the paper, watch the news, or listen to the news on the radio.
My daughter, for instance, came to me with hers. She is getting back damn close to $300.($259.49) and asked me what is was.
Now, can you imagine all the 19 and 20 year olds or older that has not kept up with all this, they are out enjoying summer, doing other things, her college is Veteranarian School, so they do not have current events etc.
Wouldn't you want to know if money was coming to you in the mail and when, well now she does.
BTW it was a Democrat that proposed giving tax credit back to the people, only they wanted to give it to every single person in this country, tax paying and non tax paying, is when the Senate said, no no no, lets just give this back to the tax payers. If we gave it to everyone, the money would be almost doubled being paid out.
posted on July 21, 2001 08:33:19 AM
I'll bet your daughter would have known what the check was when it arrived without notice--money with her name on it.
$33.9 million dollars spent on these notification letters is indeed a waste of money, IMO. I can't find much about it...terrible at searching. Here's an excerpt from a NY Times article:
"The mass mailing had been criticized by Democrats and a handful of Republicans
as a wasteful and politically motivated effort by the White House to promote the tax
cut. Votes to cut off the $33.9 million needed to print and mail the letters failed in
the House and the Senate by narrow margins.
The letters, which include a calculation of the size of the rebate check a recipient
can expect, have a promotional tone. "The new tax law provides immediate tax
relief in 2001 and long-term tax relief for the years to come," it promises.
Even members of the president's party complained. "Talk about confusing," said
Representative Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan. "This mailing was a
complete waste of taxpayer money and now, to correct this blunder, they need to
waste even more taxpayer money."
posted on July 21, 2001 08:41:01 AMMy $300 is very little, but when you add all of our $300, and our $600, and realize that we must multiply this by MILLIONS because of how many consumers got back checks of $300 and $600, what that equates to is a serious shot in the arm of this slugging economy.
Actally, surveys show that instead of going out & spending the money, most are going to either bank it or use it to pay off some debt. So, not much of a "shot in the arm."
And speaking of debt, if they really wanted to do something for this country, they could have put those BILLIONS they are dribbling out toward paying off some of the National Debt. Much better for the country in the long run.
posted on July 21, 2001 08:43:58 AM
She may have, but now she has made plans for it.
And so have I
Gravid when you go on a vacation, don't you put a vacation hold on your mail, or have someone get your mail for you, you wouldn't have to cancel your vacation over this chump change of $600.
Doesn't the gov't spend big bucks in sending out your tax forms and tax books each year?
Anyone who doesn't like getting this, can send it back, then it goes into 'Unclaimed' money, or they can donate it to the DNC, or just donate to whatever charity they choose.
posted on July 21, 2001 08:45:30 AMEnclosed is an important message from the IRS on the status and amount of immediate tax relief. Do not throw away!
People at the post office gave me some strange glances when I laughed out loud at that one... I guess the IRS knows what we tend to do with their mail....
Looking inside, my lovely new bride and I will be receiving a grand total of $76.80....
Not bad, considering this year is the first time I've paid Federal Income Tax in over 10 years (marriage penalty )
posted on July 21, 2001 09:01:08 AM
While these are indeed tax "rebates", do remember, it is an advance rebate on this year's taxes. That is, your refund next April will be $300-$600 less that anticipated, and if you owe, you can add that $300-$600 to the total when you write out your check.
posted on July 21, 2001 09:12:16 AM
With-out the government mail-outs and the rate hikes, those top postal employees would not be getting their 25% bonus again this year!
posted on July 21, 2001 09:15:40 AM
"Actally, surveys show that instead of going out & spending the money, most are going to either bank it or use it to pay off some debt. So, not much of a "shot in the arm."-bunnicula
No kidding. And what do you think those banks will do with that money, or those credit card companies? Spend it, of course. Investments are very good for the economy, or did you not know that? What did you think banks did with your money? Stick it in the vault and let it sit? Learn, dear, it's the only way to improve yourself.
posted on July 21, 2001 09:24:34 AM
Learn that $1.599 is very nearly $1.60 for a full GALLON of gas, not what you spewed out at 9/10 of a gallon. Learn to be quiet dear you never learn anything when your brain is not in gear and your fingers are busy typing nonsense! Your truth??
I also feel the 'merican public would have been better served if the mass mailing was eliminated (adding that savings to the refunds) and include a little note with the check when it finally arrives!!
If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?
posted on July 21, 2001 10:22:06 AM
Zilvy-I think the notices were explaining it simply....
Deuce
I don't think so, the part about it being subtracted from next years taxes.
Here's what it says:
Dear Taxpayer: We are pleased to inform you that the United States Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed into law the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, which provides long-term tax relief for all Americans who pay income taxes. The new tax law provides immediate tax relief in 2001 and long-term tax relief for the years to come. As part of the immediate tax relief, you wil be receiving a check in the amount of $300.00 during the week of 08/20/2001. Your amount is based on information you submitted on your 2000 federal tax return and is just the first installment of the long-term tax relief provided by the new law. The amount of the check could be reduced by any outstanding federal debt you owe, such as past due child support or federal or state income taxes. You need to take no additional steps. Your check will be mailed to you. You will not be required to report the amount as taxable income on your federal tax return. On the reverse side of this letter is information on how your check amount was calculated. If you need additional information, please visit the IRS web site at www.irs.gov or call 1-800-829-4477. Please keep a copy of this notice with your tax records.
So they want you to keep this, not throw it away, because 'You will not be required to report the amount as taxable income on your federal tax return'
So when your doing your taxes next year, no, you don't report this.
[i]"I think people think what they're getting is a refund of taxes they paid in 2000," said Gary Dudley, the tax partner-in-charge at Deloitte & Touche's Denver office. "If they think their taxes were going to show up lower April 15 (from this change), they're not."
The "immediate tax relief," as the Internal Revenue Service calls it, was designed by Congress and the Bush administration to give taxpayers the benefit of a 2001 tax-rate reduction as soon as possible. Rather than wait for next April, you'll get the tax cut now. [/i]
I can't find much about it...terrible at searching. Here's an excerpt from a NY Times article: