Refund Checks ~ 'advance on next year's refunds' 'will be deducted in 08 return'
- Thread starter Chapdog
- Start date
Blackflag
Junior Member
Yeah it was because i looked it up and sent it to someone then later I looked again and it was gone.
Little-Acorn
New member
I have no idea. Why do you ask? That statement didn't appear in the article you cited.
Did you make it up? Or did it come from some other article having nothing to do with these "rebate" checks? Or.....??
Little-Acorn
New member
So I see. I've since found a number of blogs citing that statement in the CNN article, so I assume it was indeed there at first. Now it's not.
Glad we have such reliable reportage going on here.
It does make one wonder, though. My guess is, CNN probably wouldn't have included it intheir article in the first place, unless they had heard some fairly high-placed person say it. And maybe that person immediately called them back and said, "No, no, you idiots, don't print that!" Followed by either "It's not true!" or "We don't want that to get out!". The second add-on is rather intriguing, if it was said.
I wonder who the original quote came from, and what exactly he said, both before and after.
Chapdog, do you happen to remember who the original statement was attributed to?
Glad we have such reliable reportage going on here.
It does make one wonder, though. My guess is, CNN probably wouldn't have included it intheir article in the first place, unless they had heard some fairly high-placed person say it. And maybe that person immediately called them back and said, "No, no, you idiots, don't print that!" Followed by either "It's not true!" or "We don't want that to get out!". The second add-on is rather intriguing, if it was said.
I wonder who the original quote came from, and what exactly he said, both before and after.
Chapdog, do you happen to remember who the original statement was attributed to?
Last edited:
How Americans in different financial situations would fare under the rebate plan proposed by House leaders and the White House.
_An individual with $2,500 in earned income in 2007: Disqualified because income fell below the $3,000 threshold. No rebate.
_A married couple with no children, with adjusted gross income of $100,000 in 2007: Would qualify for the full $1,200 couples. A $1,200 rebate.
_A worker with one child, who earned $9,000 and owed no taxes in 2007: Would qualify for the $300 rebate available to individuals who pay no taxes but earned at least $3,000, plus an additional $300 for the child. A $600 rebate.
_A couple with income of $145,000 in 2007, with three children: Would qualify for the full $1,200 for couples, plus $300 for each child. A $2,100 rebate.
_A couple with income of $160,000 in 2007 with two children: Would qualify for a partial rebate, reduced by $50 for every $1,000 in income above the $150,000 threshold. An $1,800 rebate — $1,200 for the couple plus $300 per child — would go down by $500 for this family. A $1,300 rebate.
_A couple with income of $200,000 and four children: Disqualified because their income exceeded $174,000, the phase-out limit. No rebate.
_An individual with adjusted gross income of $23,000 and no dependents would get a rebate of $600.
_A couple with adjusted gross income of $184,000 and two children would get a $100 rebate.
_An individual with $2,500 in earned income in 2007: Disqualified because income fell below the $3,000 threshold. No rebate.
_A married couple with no children, with adjusted gross income of $100,000 in 2007: Would qualify for the full $1,200 couples. A $1,200 rebate.
_A worker with one child, who earned $9,000 and owed no taxes in 2007: Would qualify for the $300 rebate available to individuals who pay no taxes but earned at least $3,000, plus an additional $300 for the child. A $600 rebate.
_A couple with income of $145,000 in 2007, with three children: Would qualify for the full $1,200 for couples, plus $300 for each child. A $2,100 rebate.
_A couple with income of $160,000 in 2007 with two children: Would qualify for a partial rebate, reduced by $50 for every $1,000 in income above the $150,000 threshold. An $1,800 rebate — $1,200 for the couple plus $300 per child — would go down by $500 for this family. A $1,300 rebate.
_A couple with income of $200,000 and four children: Disqualified because their income exceeded $174,000, the phase-out limit. No rebate.
_An individual with adjusted gross income of $23,000 and no dependents would get a rebate of $600.
_A couple with adjusted gross income of $184,000 and two children would get a $100 rebate.
i believe that is true.. so we will lose a % back.
Little-Acorn
New member
" 'Curiouser and curiouser', said Alice." - from "Alice in Wonderland"
Well, apparently CNN put an article on their website about the newly-passed-and-signed Economic Stimulus Package of 2008, which will send checks of $600 or $1200 to most households this summer. And it contained a statement saying, "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."
Readers were surprised, to say the least. But when they went back to check on the article a short time later, that sentence had been removed, though the rest of the article still remains. The article (without that intriguing sentence) can be seen at http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/08/economic.stimulus/index.html . Better look fast, in case CNN decides to remove the entire article next.
That sentence made it sound like if you got a $600 check this year, you would merely owe $600 more in taxes next year. Its fast removal, has made some people think it was a mistake, that in fact this is a true tax cut you don't have to pay back. Maybe the CNN reporter just goofed, okay?
Well, not so fast. Let's just have a look at the actual legislation.
The bill that was passed in Congress and signed today by President Bush, can be found at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h5140enr.txt.pdf .
Near the bottom of the first page, it says:
Elsewhere in the same bill, it is referred to as an "advance credit" and an "advance refund".
Sure sounds to me like the legislators are basically "giving" us $600 (or $1200) from the refund that we would have gotten from next year's taxes anyway... and reducing next year's refund by that amount. From this, I would guess that people who weren't getting a refund on their 2008 1040 form, will now find themselves paying $600 (or $1200) more, after getting this "rebate" this year.
Did the CNN reporter inadvertently let the cat out of the bag... and then get his hand severely slapped by the Powers That Be???
This should make for some interesting news shows tonight.
Well, apparently CNN put an article on their website about the newly-passed-and-signed Economic Stimulus Package of 2008, which will send checks of $600 or $1200 to most households this summer. And it contained a statement saying, "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."
Readers were surprised, to say the least. But when they went back to check on the article a short time later, that sentence had been removed, though the rest of the article still remains. The article (without that intriguing sentence) can be seen at http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/08/economic.stimulus/index.html . Better look fast, in case CNN decides to remove the entire article next.
That sentence made it sound like if you got a $600 check this year, you would merely owe $600 more in taxes next year. Its fast removal, has made some people think it was a mistake, that in fact this is a true tax cut you don't have to pay back. Maybe the CNN reporter just goofed, okay?
Well, not so fast. Let's just have a look at the actual legislation.
The bill that was passed in Congress and signed today by President Bush, can be found at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h5140enr.txt.pdf .
Near the bottom of the first page, it says:
Elsewhere in the same bill, it is referred to as an "advance credit" and an "advance refund".
Sure sounds to me like the legislators are basically "giving" us $600 (or $1200) from the refund that we would have gotten from next year's taxes anyway... and reducing next year's refund by that amount. From this, I would guess that people who weren't getting a refund on their 2008 1040 form, will now find themselves paying $600 (or $1200) more, after getting this "rebate" this year.
Did the CNN reporter inadvertently let the cat out of the bag... and then get his hand severely slapped by the Powers That Be???
This should make for some interesting news shows tonight.
Last edited:
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
It's obviously a liberal conspiracy Acorn.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Why should online sources edit out mistakes? Ridiculous! They're hiding something. Probably Joos.
What about a Couple with 3 kids who earned around 70k?
i dont know. id guess if both salaries then 1200+300+300+300. if 1 salary then 600+300+300+300
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
What about a poor family in the Mississippi Delta living off of 2999 a year?
Nothing.
Nothing.
They won't know they are being gypped, they don't even have flush toilets, let alone a television set otherwise they might know that there is welfare available. Trillions spent on the "war on poverty" and we can't even get people toilets...