Tax Refund??

[Ecdubfan]

I do not consider myself rich, comfortably middle calss instead. I look forward to the $600 for which I qualify. While I understand the purpose of taxes and the need for maintaining a society, I do feel upset each payday at the amount that is taken out. Getting some back is just dandy.

As far as I see it, this credit will not vastly change yout taxes when compareed to previous years. Sure, if you get the credit now, you won't be able to collect it again in April, so your possible rebate will be lower then...BUT, this credit DID NOT exist last year. So, in comparison, you will face a similar fate next year on your taxes as you did this year. Your year to year refund should not be drastically altered by this.

Some other benefits of this act...

1) Most tax rates for 2001 were reduced by .5%. Since most companies won"t start changing withholding amounts until after June 30, this should iincrease likely refunds in 2002.

2) The child tax credit is increased to $600

3) The alternatice minimum tax limit has been raised to $49,000 married, $35,700 singled or head of household, $24,500 married filing separate.


Personally, I have already earmarked my $600 for my next DIsney trip. This will pay for most of my park hoppers.

 

[Bearybad]

I can not believe the cold comments being made on this thread. Some one even posted that they "are the working class" and the refund is suppose to help them. My husband is a Correctional Officer - he risks his life eveyday to protect society. Does that not make him a part of the "working class"?
It was even said that if you didn't pay taxes, then why should you get a refund. We do pay taxes just like everyone else.
I posted on here to make sure that I understood how the refund would be figured. I also posted to help others understand that they also may not get $600 as everyone thought in the beginning.
I had no idea that people could be so cruel. I didn't ask for a hand out-- I just asked if I understood the tax refund.

 

[Here'sTigger2U]

If you listen to news, and read the papers, how could ANYONE assume that if you paid no taxes you would be getting anything back? My wife and I are a family of 4 (we were a family of 3 at 2000 filing time) and are completely thrilled with the extra cash we will be getting back. Even with the extra $600 back, we still paid a chunk to Uncle Sam, and no we didn't come close to 6 figures either. The system isn't perfect, and IMHO the truly wealthy have it made w/ the US tax system (but that's a debate board issue ). But I'll take my money and run. For those w/ difficult situations as mentioned above, my hearfelt sympathy and lots of pixie dust your way!!
Bob.

 

[6_Time_Momma]

Actually, things I read called it an advance payment of 2001 refund (overpayment) I pay taxes every single week, therefore I would certainly assume that I would get some too. NOTHING I saw on the news, read in the papers, heard on the radio said anything about last year's taxes, if you recieved child tax credit, etc. All it said was if you had taxable income over $12000 (I did) you would recieve the rebate of the 2001 taxes.

 

[DisDuck]

alemankc.. Like you I understood the media reports that this was a refund of 2001 Tax Year money not an additional (or new) refund of 2000 Tax Year. Yet when reading the linked site the rules as outlined by the IRS indicate that everything is based on 2000 Taxable Income. So it is not an early refund of Tax Year 2001 as we were led to believe.

This is a scam, plain and simple. What someone earned last year has nothing to do with how much is paid in Taxes this year. I would suspect that a lot less people are getting the 'refund' then originally thought. Also, I heard that some states will be taxing this money (for this year) reducing it even further.

If you earned any kind of tax credit that brought your taxes paid down below 'refund' level, tough luck, even though you may not be eiligible for same credits this year.

Scam is a Scam is a Scam.

 

[steph73]

I'm sorry if you took any posts as being "cruel" - and I surely didn't mean for my post to sound uncaring. Believe me, I know all about "working class" - my DH did 6 years in the military serving his country and every year not only did we make so little we qualified for the EIC every year, but we were also considered poverty level and qualified for food stamps (which we didn't use) and WIC (which we DID use). I do feel for those that will be receiving no refund or a reduced one when they anticipated the full $600.

However, this isn't really a hand out. We made nearly $39,000 last year - comfortable, yes but in MI anyway not even near upper middle class for a family of 4. Our taxable income (after deductions and the $1000 Child Tax Credit) was nearly $21,000. Even with our other refund and the $600 "refund", we still paid in over $2000 that we didn't and won't get back. I think many mistakenly thought that the refund would fall under the same rules as receiving EIC - that it doesn't matter how much you paid in, but based on income. Like another poster mentioned, this bill initiated an "advance payment" since most tax brackets were lowered 5%. If you had ANY taxable income, you will get back 5% of that. If you had 0 taxable income, well you got back all of the income taxes you paid in with your original refund. I know that EIC didn't come to play in this scenario, but my thoughts were that anyone who received the EIC wouldn't have $12,000 or more of taxable income - and I wasn't meaning to imply that everyone who won't get a full $600 received the EIC. Sure, the government earned interest on all of our tax money - but the bottom line is the entire taxing system didn't change, the tax brackets we're lowered.

I think that the government should have sent out notices to all tax payers right after the bill was signed explaining in layman's terms what it meant for everyone. Unfortunately, alot of people will be really disappointed when they don't receive what they thought they would.

BTW: I'm not sure on other states, but I heard on the radio that the State of Michigan already decided NOT to tax the refund checks.

 

[mickey7861]

We are not even close to being a six figure income family and we certainly are not in the same category as George W. Bush but we are receiving the whole $600 as we paid alot more than that in taxes. How could you get a rebate on something you didn't pay?

 

[6_Time_Momma]

But, see....NoBODY has actually paid their 2001 taxes yet, per se. I mean we are paying taxes in 2001, but nobdy has figured the final 2001 taxes yet, like at tax time. And I am paying taxes in 2001, have been all year. All people are saying is that they are basing this rebate of 2001 taxes on what was made in 2000. The taxes I paid in 2000 should have nothing to do with this rebate check for 2001.

 

[perdidobay]

help me out here, what is your definition of "rich". Obviously, someone making 90k a year is not on the same level as Bill Gates or even George Bush with his millions. But according to the government they are all "rich". so, is there rich, super rich , filthy rich, and out of this world rich? How much do you have to make to be lumped in with billionaires?

 

[Humpbacks1962]

Oh My...

Guys, bottomline is, da Bushman said: depending on what your taxable income is, you may see some money by the end of the year. Yes, the government keeps a substantial amount of it, makes a profit in interest earned that we never see.

I was misled myself, understanding the amount was fixed. Our governor issued fixed tax rebates in our state years ago, based on taxable income and filing status. Why would I think it was a ridiculous alternative to receive a fixed amount based on the same stipulations?

I have seen couples making over $100,000/yr and hosting tupperware parties. Bad management, if you ask me. I have also seen lower income families with clean credit card debts. "Rich" is a relative term.

And yes, it is true, there will be many disappointed people who thought they were getting more money. Doesn't it happen every year around tax time anyway?

Wanda

 

[wdwobsessed]

So let me get this right...

If my taxable income was more than $1200 (we file jointly) .... it is

And my tax liability listed on line 51 of the 1040 is at least $600 (it its)....

I will be getting back $600 in August according to the chart?

???????????

 

[steph73]

wdwobsessed: I assume you meant $12,000 - not $1,200 - if so, yes you will!

 

[wdwobsessed]

yes 12,000

oops!

Wow, surprise for me!

WDWO

 

[lmmollohan]

I am sorry if anyone thought any of the comments I made were cruel, I certainly did not mean them to be. I did not mean to be insulting I just did not understand the complaint about not getting more back when you already got everything you paid in back. I now understand what you were thinking.

The bottom line is that communication is the main problem...isn't it always. Who knows if the govn't was telling the media the correct thing and we certainly know that most likely the media was not telling us the correct thing. I think we all know with taxes nothing is a sure thing accept that fact that we will owe them.

I am sorry for those people who were hoping for some money and are not getting it but maybe there is hope for next year! Imagine all of those people out there (like me) who live in caves and this refund is coming as a total surprise to. At least someone gets Christmas in July.

Once again I am sorry if I offended anyone, it was never my intent.

Lisa

 

[tink2dw]

wdwobsessed- thank-you for cutting thru the gobbly-guck to make things clear!! Finally!! That was the info I needed!! Thanks

 

[DisneyKidds]

It is always difficult when someone learns that something doesn't meet their expectations. For those who thought they would get this rebate and won't I can understand your disappointment.

However, if you didn't pay any taxes last year, or paid very little - it is reasonable that you won't get a rebate. And if your income goes up and you have a tax liability in 2001 you will get whatever portion of this rebate you are entitled to through your tax return.

This rebate does not help the wealthy only - nor does George W's tax cut plan. Simply put - if you paid taxes you get relief, if not you don't. What could be fairer than that.

 

[6_Time_Momma]

Let me ask this hypothetical, if anyone knows the answer. Okay, Mr. Joe Happy paid taxes of, oh...say..., $800 last year. In July, he happily gets his rebate of $600. THe next day, Mr. Happy loses his job. He can only find a job flpping burgers at McDonald's, but since he has to support his 2.5 chldren, so he takes it and keeps it the rest of the year. Now, so far this year, at his previous job, he had paid, oh....., $500 out of his check in taxes. Next year at tax time, he finds, much to his delight, that becasue of his lower income, and thanks to his 2.5 children, he does not have to pay taxes this year, and will get a refund of the whole $500 he had paid in prior to his job loss, and then probably some on top of that to.)!!!! Now, will Mr. Happy have gotten an extra $600 or not? (I know, it is a completely ridiculous scenario, but hey, I'm curious!)

 

[lmmollohan]

Kristi,

I think it would be easier to tell you where two trains would meet if one left Chicago traveling 55 mph and one left San Francisco.....

I am not sure what exactly you are asking but I do know that what you get is what you keep. You will not be penalized next year for your refund this year...at least that is what they (the govn't) are saying. Don't know if that helps or not??!

Lisa

 

[6_Time_Momma]

Ummm......somewhere in Idaho???? So theoretically speaking, it is possible for this to turn out as "extra" money for someone over and above what they paid in for taxes. That is what I was trying to ask.......in a round about way, since in that scenario, Mr. Happy got ALL of his taxes back that he paid in PLUS the $600 rebate. I know, I make no sense do I???? (Just still trying to figure out where to get that $600 to put into our trip fund now that we won't be getting it!!)

 

[DisneyKidds]

Regarding the Mr Happy question I wish I knew the answer. But I have to believe that Mr. Happy's refund in 2001 will have to take into consideration the "advance payment" he will get based on his 2000 tax info. The info regarding the rebate states that if someone doesn't qualify for a rebate check now but has a qualifying tax liability at tax time they will get the benefit when they file their return. This will probably somehow work in reverse as well. I'm sure my 2001 refund will be less than it would be if I didn't get the rebate. It would be quite a problem if they gave Mr. Happy a rebate now and told him he had to pay it back next year if he doesn't have a tax liability.

There has been some questioning in this thread on why 2000 imcome and tax liability should be the basis for determining the 2001 rebate. The gov't needs some sort of a guide to determine what people's income and tax liabilities will be in 2001, and 2000 info is the best available. For the majority of people, their 2001 income and taxes will be similar to their 2000 numbers, adjusted for inflation. It is not perfect, but what else could they have used?