I'm Going To Use My Tax Rebate To:
Displaying poll results.50398 total votes.
Most Votes
- By the end of 2026, how useful do you think agentic/multi-agent AI systems will actually be in your daily work or personal projects? Posted on March 11th, 2026 | 14488 votes
Most Comments
- By the end of 2026, how useful do you think agentic/multi-agent AI systems will actually be in your daily work or personal projects? Posted on March 11th, 2026 | 40 comments
Re:Dear /. Editors (Score:2)
But I can think of better ways to spend it than give it back to us. Like how about we pay down the national debt?
A taxing fable (Score:2, Flamebait)
Yes, but who ate what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Before accusing the poor of getting a free ride, consider who is riding inside the limo and who is being dragged behind it. Progressive taxation is a defining characteristic of civilazation. It says, "I cannot fully enjoy what I have if there are others who have not."
Mig (Who, predictably, donated his $300 to the NY Green Party and sent a thank you note to the White House. The rebate is idiotic, but I suppose I'd rather have it go to the Greens than to the Fortune 100 company of President Ford's choice.)
Re:A taxing fable (Score:3, Insightful)
Phhht. I've never seen a worse analogy.
If I made $10 million a year, I'd never let anyone else put a dime towards thcover the bill.
Re:A taxing fable (Score:2)
Re:A taxing fable (Score:5, Interesting)
1 $0
2 $0
3 $0
4 $0
5 $1
6 $3
7 $7
8 $12
9 $18
10 $59
Some quick data that I have found: the USA GDP for 1999 was $9,477b, the federal gov't budget was 18.7% of that, or $1,772b. Each of the 10 men would have to pay $177b in taxes if they were equally responsible for the budget. There were 105m households in the USA in 1999, and the median household income, by quintiles, were:
1 $9.9k
2 $24.4k
3 $40.9k
4 $63.5k
5 $135.4k
Each household's share of the federal budget is about $17k. Suppose that each household needs at least $12k to live on, (that's why there are deductions), or more likely $24k, since $12k just about cannot pay for anything, and we see that the poorest 2 men cannot pay anything, and probably the next 2 poorest men as well. The 5th and 6th men can pay a little but, the next two more, and the last two are the ones that will can and do pay the majority of the bill. Note that your households are or will most likely be in the top quintile, and that those people have the most to lose in a breakdown of society that supposedly the gov't is helping prevent.
Bye
Re:A taxing fable (Score:2, Interesting)
However, there's one minor difference about this most recent rebate. It's not based on what you paid this year, it's based on what you paid last year. For me, this is fine. I'm well over for last year and will be, again, this year. But I have some friends who were either not employed or very lightly employed last year (due to a variety of reasons, such as having been a student until recently). This year, they're paying their taxes, just like everyone else, should be entitled to their share of the rebate, but because it is based on what you paid last year, they don't see squat.
I have to assume that this was done because there was no way to know what someone was going to have to pay this year. But this means that person number 3, who suddenly got bumped up to being person number 6 (due to getting a job, or a hefty raise) didn't get any part of the refund, because they didn't pay anything last time.
Re:A taxing fable (Score:2)
Besides which, consider the flipside -- people who paid a whole bucketload of taxes last year, but have since lost their jobs (which seems to be pretty common in high-tech circles these days). It would be just as unfair -- probably more so -- for the government to say, "Yeah, you gave us all this money last year, but now you're unemployed. No rebate for you!"
--
Re:A taxing fable (Score:2, Informative)
You want UNFAIR? (Score:2, Interesting)
Perhaps we were asking the wrong questions in this past election year. Our Senators/Congressmen do not pay into Social Security, and, therefore they do not collect from it. Social Security benefits were not suitable for them.
They felt they should have a special plan. Many years ago they voted in their benefit plan. In more recent years, no congress person has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan.
For all practical purposes, their plan works like this: When they retire no matter how long they have been in office, they continue to draw their same pay until they die, except it may be increased from time to time by the cost-of-living adjustments. For example, former Senator Bill Bradley (New Jersey) and his wife may be expected to draw $7,900,000.00 over an average life span, with Mrs. Bradley drawing $275,000.00 during the last year of her life. Their cost for this excellent plan is "$0", nada, zilch. This little perk they voted in for themselves is free to them.
You and I pick up the tab for this plan. Our tax dollars at work! From Social Security, which you and I pay into every payday for our own retirement, with an equal amount paid in by our employer, we can expect to receive an average of $1,000 per month. We would have to collect our benefits for 68 years and 1 month to equal the Bradley's benefits.
Imagine for a moment that you could structure a retirement plan so desirable, a retirement plan that worked so well, that Railroad Employees, Postal Workers, and others who were not in the plan would clamor to be included. This is how good Social Security could be, if only one small change was made.
That change would be to jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan out from under the Senators & Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us. Watch how fast they fix it!!!
If enough people receive this message maybe a seed will be planted, and maybe good changes will evolve.
Don't forget, our girl, Hillary Rodham Clinton, now comes under this Congressional Retirement Plan. Talking about the Clinton's, it's common knowledge that, in order for her to establish NY State residency, they purchased a $ million + house in upscale Chappaqua, NY. Makes sense.
Now, they are entitled to Secret Service protection for life. Still makes sense. Here is where it becomes interesting.
A residency had to be built in order to house the Secret Serviceagents. The Clinton's now charge the Secret Service rent for the use of said residence and that rent is just about equal to their mortgage payment, meaning that we, the tax payers, are paying the Clinton's mortgage, and it's all perfectly legal.
Re:A taxing fable (Score:4, Insightful)
The ten men at the table eat different amounts of food. The food does different things for the men at the table. The analogy breaks down really fast.
The wealthiest people get more of a monetary benefit from national defense. Of course, if we get nuked, we all lose our lives. But the wealthiest people lose the most money in cases of turmoil. That service performed by the government does more for them than it does for poor people.
Similarly, of course, there are many social services that wealthy people do not need to use.
Poor and wealthy people alike get their social security.
So, true, different people pay different amounts. They don't get the same food at the table.
Re:A taxing fable (Score:2)
I don't think I said once that anyone is obligated to do anything. I was just pointing out that the metaphor was broken.
That's ok (Score:2)
tax rebate? (Score:2)
oh? is it a US thing?
damn yanks
Give For Change (Score:2)
http://www.giveforchange.com/ [giveforchange.com]
Mine is going to the EFF (Score:2)
Check out TaxRebatePledge.org [taxrebatepledge.org] while you are at it.
Re:Mine is going to the EFF (Score:2)
This site claims that majority of Americans voted for Gore and bla bla bla
So fucking what ? The rules are rules.
Fuck, people get over this. Your guy tried everything, including hijacking elections using lawyers and still lost.
Again, get over it. He is gone and Bush is in White House.
Re:Eating out of the dumpster.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You liar. There are three possibilities for why you're not getting a tax cut:
Go back to your cave, troll.
Re:Eating out of the dumpster.... (Score:2)
There is no "refund" (Score:5, Informative)
Why indeed?
Bu$h's "refund" is actually an advance on the refund you'll get when you file next year. The Rocky Mountain News was one of the few voices in the media that bothered to point out this little fact.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/business/art icle/0,1299,DRMN_4_754516,00.html [rockymountainnews.com]
You don't have to be paranoid to realize that this is nothing but a successful campaign to trick taxpayers into believing that they can use this "refund" as mad money, and that they can still count on a refund next year. Those people will be wrong. Remember, the whole point of this is to "stimulate the economy" (i.e. put more money into the pockets of Big Business).
So keep this in mind, kids: If you get a check for $300, you had better hope you continue to have a good year, otherwise you'll likely find the IRS asking for that money back.
Re:There is no "refund" (Score:2)
Well, its true that it isn't a rebate (at least in the normal sense of the word), but it also isn't an advance. It is money in lieu of reduced taxes next year, but it is calculated based on your 2000 salary and won't be corrected for any increases that you get during 2001. If I weren't at the maximum it would have worked out nicely for me since my household income went down this year (my wife is staying home to have our baby); but for most people below the cutoff it is a reduction in the amount they would have received next year. (Of course they can put it in a savings account that pays reasonable interest and probably keep up with their wage increases 'til next April.
Re:There is no "refund" (Score:2, Informative)
You're almost right. The tax cut is retroactive, meaning the taxes that were taken out of your pay check so far this year were taken out at a higher rate then the actual tax rate. The refund check is a way to compensate for being overtaxed so far this year. Of course everyone will receive a smaller refund check next year because the government is taking less out of your paycheck.
Most people who were going to receive a refund will still receive one, just a little smaller.
Re:Eating out of the dumpster.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:dinner (Score:3, Funny)
Exactly! (Score:2)
The tax cut is retroactive to the beginning of the year and is going to be phased in over 10 years. At the end of that 10 year period, if Congress does not vote to extend it, the tax rates go back up to the pre-tax cut levels. The checks that are being mailed out are to cover the extra taxes that were paid from Jan 1 to June 30. Employers were supposed to begin using the new rates beginning July 1st. With the exception of the bottom 15 percent bracket, all the brackets dropped by one percent (ie 28 went to 27). Depending on how much you earn, filing status, and the deductions taken, you may or may not have noticed it. I didn't. There is also supposed to be an adjustment in August, but I can't remember what it is right now [payroll admin, so I load tax rate changes & other things. PA tax locales suck! Occupational priviledge tax?? WTF!]. There will be another drop in rates effective Jan 1, 2002.
The checks are being sent out now to get people spending now instead of next year. Also, the $300, $500, or $600 is the maximum amounts being mailed out. It is 5 percent of your 2000 taxable income up to a limit. The IRS has the information here. [irs.gov]
PS2 (Score:2, Informative)
It's only one of the above available in the UK - this forum can be so damned US-centric sometimes.....
Bah humbug!
This is clearly an evil plot... (Score:2)
If I were receiving a tax rebate from the US government (the scum won't give me one just on the grounds that I'm not a US citizen and have never paid tax in the US) I'd be a little less bleeding edge with my purchase, and pick up a JAMMA cabinet and a Pacman board...
Re:M-1A Rifle (Score:2)
truth (Score:2)
I've been discussing this topic a lot recently with my friends and co-workers and I feel the need to speak up about what is really going on regarding this tax rebate.
This is NOT free money. If you are getting a check you will in fact have to PAY IT BACK at the end of the year on your 2001 tax return.
Read this CNNfn.com article [cnn.com] for more details - especially the first two questions and answers. (Link reprinted below to avoid SmartTags.)
http://cnnfn.cnn.com/2001/06/19/investing/q_klot t_ column/index.htm
Re:truth (Score:2)
Actually, in the letter I recieved from the IRS stating how much I would get back, it mentioned that this money is non-taxable.
Exactly! The "refund" is non-taxable the same way all your tax return refunds are non-taxable. It is a refund that you overpaid (or this case, might overpay) your taxes during the year and they are giving your the money back.
Re:Support the Democratic National Committee (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Support the Democratic National Committee (Score:2)
--Blair
Re:Support the Democratic National Committee (Score:2)
I don't see Dumbya rushing to reduce federal gas taxes, federal tobacco taxes, federal import duties, or to give rebates on those things to people who didn't qualify for an income-tax rebate.
Meanwhile the average millionaire is getting 100x the free money from the gobment surplus that the average shop-worker is.
And don't give me that crap about "but they paid more". They knew the rules going in. Giving tens of thousands of dollars to a millionaire out of money that could be used to end hunger or repair the dissolving interstate highway system or shore up social security for another 100 years is a crime. Especially since the corporate tax levels being relied on to grow the surplus have been cut in half by the technology recession.
Republicans are short-sighted greedheads who used a temporary spike in GDP and a short term of total lawmaking control to line their own pockets at the expense of everyone.
--Blair
Re:Support the Democratic National Committee (Score:2)
Are you serious? It's virtually always Democrats who are in favor of gas and tobacco taxes. One of Clinton's first actions was a gas tax hike, which Republicans unsuccessfully tried to roll back. Republicans are generally more supportive of lower tariffs and duties than are Democrats, although there are exceptions. The most regressive tax of all is the payroll tax which funds Social Security, and Democrats howl in protest whenever Social Security reform is mentioned.
Giving tens of thousands of dollars to a millionaire out of money that could be used to end hunger or repair the dissolving interstate highway system or shore up social security for another 100 years is a crime.
First, not taking someone's money does not constitute a "gift". Second, the federal government has spent trillions on social programs over the past few decades with extremely limited success. Private charities do a much better job than government, and people give more to charity when they have more after-tax income.
Republicans are short-sighted greedheads who used a temporary spike in GDP and a short term of total lawmaking control to line their own pockets at the expense of everyone.
Wow, a liberal resorting to personal attacks. I'm shocked.
Re:You are such a troll. (Score:2)
With the proliferation of closed minds and un-critical thinking in this world, I predict the GOP will never lack for constituents.
--Blair
Re:You are such a troll. (Score:2)
Of those "10,000 things other than fund welfare", how many have been raving successes? Success as defined by "solving the problem", of course. Let's list a few:
Drug War? Seems I can still pick up a spliff on any corner.
War on Poverty? Just saw a commercial about "The State of Poverty in the USA". Seems the poor will always be with us.
I know, War on Other Countries in the Name of Good Intentions! Seems we bomb a lot of countries filled with brown people. I guess some people count that as a success, but after watching our soldiers dragged through the streets of Somalia, I think I'll pass.
Health care for all? Well, since the 1940-50s, the government has gone from suppling 0% to over 50% of the dollars spent on health care, and the problem seems to be getting worse.
Curing specific diseases? Well, there was polio... oops, darnit, the polio vaccine was developed by a private lab... are you old enough to remember the Swine flu shots? A reall winner of a government program, there. How many caught and died from Swine flu accquired from the vaccine?
I know, the Helium Fund! Yes, seems that's fully funded! We'll have helium in the case of war.
You just paid $1.3 trillion for a gang of billionaire fixers to drop cash into their pockets.
'Scuse me, how is somebody getting their own money back "drop[ing] cash into their pockets"? A fundamental lesson you must learn -- the money the government gets in taxes is *not their money*, it belongs to somebody else. They allow the government to take it with the understanding that the money will be spent on things for the good of the country as defined by the boundaries established by the Constitution. I've looked all through the Constitution, and most of what government does isn't to be found there.
That $1.3 trillion could have eradicated the mental illness, homelessness, and joblessness that causes those bums to live on the streets downtown.
If you take all the money spent on welfare and welfare programs, it turns out you could give every poor person currently living in the US $100,000 or so -- enough for them to start their own war on poverty, I believe.
An odd, but true discovery after some 40 years of a War on Poverty -- you can't cure poverty by giving poor people money.
It will be dumped into hedge funds that don't affect capital investment so much as stock prices on old companies. Then it will be willed to half-wit, jobless rich kids who will snort it up their noses or spend it on tuneups for their Ferraris.
Who cares what somebody does with their money? Not me -- and you shouldn't either. Besides, you shot yourself in the foot. Congenitally rich kids don't hoard money, as a rule. They blow it on toys, coke, whatever -- a flow of money from the rich to the poor, without government taking some 70-80% in redistributing it.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid I've wasted my time in trying to argue with you. You've taken the easy way out and supported Democrats out of a misplaced, slavish devotion to an ideal that has been proven many times over to be wrong (at best), or even actively evil (at worst). A government does a few things very well, and does most other things very poorly. Unfortunately, both Democrats and Republicans are so entrenched in their ideas of how government can work, if we just get the right people to run it -- Democrats want FDR to climb out of his grave and level the inequalities between the rich and poor (except for themselves -- you'll notice that no Congressman receives Social Security, or has Social Security taxes taken out of their paychecks. They've established their own retirement fund). Republicans believe that if we can just get Ronnie back in his right mind, he'll stop those darn kids from taking drugs and get those nudie pictures off the Internet.
It's too bad more people don't believe in themselves enough to return all these decisions and control to themselves and vote Libertarian.
Re:You are such a troll. (Score:2)
Finding point failures with the government, all of them somewhat bogus*, doesn't alter the fact that it has acted to create the freedom, prosperity, and stability that amplified the productivity that created that income in the first place. Rich people just don't want to have to pay for what they get exponentially more value out of. They're cheap, inhuman bastards, and they've proved it. This nation should not reward them for buying an election.
And who said we should give cash to poor people? Eat your straw men on your own time, ostrich.
They blow it on toys, coke, whatever -- a flow of money from the rich to the poor.
You bozos don't understand the economy at all, nor why $40,000 spent on a square rod of interstate highway is worth more to the world than $40,000 sent to the billionaire who runs the Medellin cartel or to the billionaire who runs Ferrari.
--Blair
* -
Drug War? Seems I can still pick up a spliff on any corner.
Gee, all thanks to Ronald Reagan.
War on Poverty? Just saw a commercial about "The State of Poverty in the USA". Seems the poor will always be with us.
But the effects of poverty don't have to.
I know, War on Other Countries in the Name of Good Intentions! Seems we bomb a lot of countries filled with brown people. I guess some people count that as a success, but after watching our soldiers dragged through the streets of Somalia, I think I'll pass.
Panama, Iraq, Grenada, etc., etc...
Boosh ran on a promise to grow the military. The other day he offered to shrink it to make it better. Gee, that was exactly the plan that Bush/Cheney began in 1991 and Clinton continued, and exactly the plan that Boosh ran against. You right-wing bozos are two-faced and have trouble getting your story straight.
And I'm glad you'll "pass". Veterans like me hate having mental midgets of any political bent next to us in formation.
Health care for all? Well, since the 1940-50s, the government has gone from suppling 0% to over 50% of the dollars spent on health care, and the problem seems to be getting worse.
Because of GOP laissez-faire attitudes towards supply-side cost control.
Curing specific diseases? Well, there was polio... oops, darnit, the polio vaccine was developed by a private lab...
And then the federal government spent tens of millions of dollars to have the shots applied universally, which is the only way to stop a contagion. Without that expenditure, only rich kids would have been protected, and the epidemic would have continued.
Are you positive, 100% sure, and prepared to do the audit to prove that this "private lab" wasn't funded by government research grants? Knowing what I know about scientific research, having actually done some, almost all of it has at least partial funding from the government--DARPA, NSF, NIH--and almost none of it would get beyond the sketch-on-a-napkin stage without that funding.
But you keep whining about the straw bum on the corner getting a hand up from straw Big Brother. It's a funny act. You should take it on tour.
are you old enough to remember the Swine flu shots? A reall winner of a government program, there. How many caught and died from Swine flu accquired from the vaccine?
The Swine flu didn't become an epidemic. Is that because of the innoculations or despite it? You can't tell.
I know, the Helium Fund! Yes, seems that's fully funded! We'll have helium in the case of war.
You don't understand why that's important, and how hard it is to get it back if we fuck it up. But don't let science get in your way. You're on a roll. Now trip over your big floppy feet and bend the stem on the fake flower in your hat. Ha-ha. That's a riot.
Re:You are such a troll. (Score:2)
You're quite bitter when your sacred cows are poked and prodded, aren't you? You obviously don't fully understand my political leanings, and make some pretty amusing misapprehensions in your rant.
Lucky for you, I never abandon even a dullard after just one try, so I'll make my arguments again.
First, the silly assertions:
You bozos don't understand the economy at all, nor why $40,000 spent on a square rod of interstate highway is worth more to the world than $40,000 sent to the billionaire who runs the Medellin cartel or to the billionaire who runs Ferrari.
And I never claimed that it was worth more. I claimed that inherited money tended to be spent quicker, and as such doesn't clump together. Further, I claim that it's none of your damn business who or where or why or on what money is spent. If you decide it's the place of government to ensure where money goes and who has it, it is just as easy for Republicans to check on who is doing what to whom in who's bedroom. Do you want that as well?
Gee, all thanks to Ronald Reagan.
Sure, I'll agree with that. I'm no Reaganite, in case you're capable of understanding. Under Reagen, we suffered one of the biggest tax hikes, and some of the largest government spending up to then. I will admit he was better than Carter was or Mondale would have been, however.
Panama, Iraq, Grenada, etc., etc...
... seems we agree. We tend to stick our noses in a lot of other people's business, and I think that's wrong.
And I'm glad you'll "pass". Veterans like me hate having mental midgets of any political bent next to us in formation.
And here I thought it was fags you guys were afraid of bunkering with...
Because of GOP laissez-faire attitudes towards supply-side cost control.
Oh ho, your ignorance is so amusing! We used to have doctors who made housecalls, free clinics, charity hospitals and the like. Now, we have Medicare and other government money buying health care, and more people than ever going without it. The GOP had nothing to do with it. This all occured under Democrat watches.
And then the federal government spent tens of millions of dollars to have the shots applied universally, which is the only way to stop a contagion. Without that expenditure, only rich kids would have been protected, and the epidemic would have continued.
Like I said originally, there are some things a governement does very well, and this is one of them -- drawing the entire country together to face a common (and serious) threat. My point was that government funding didn't find the cure (Infantile Paralysis Foundation funded Salk), and it wasn't government that made the vaccine accessible (Salk refused to patent the vaccine, so it would be inexpensive). Long live Individualism!
Now to the patently stupid:
Finding point failures with the government, all of them somewhat bogus*, doesn't alter the fact that it has acted to create the freedom, prosperity, and stability that amplified the productivity that created that income in the first place.
Wait, did you say what I think you said? My God, you did! Government creates freedom?!?! What a twisted, upside down world you live in! Just so you can be clear on this: the Constitution and Declaration of Independace don't spell out what we get from government. They spell out what government can and can't do. If you can wrap your miniscule mind around that, you'll have the beginnings of a real understanding of the farcical world you've built up in your astonishing ignorance.
Get this straight, Tiger -- my rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are not gifts from government, but my basic, unalienable rights, inviolate to government. Government's only role is to protect those rights from being infriged by outside agitators and evil internal factotums, such as yourself. In just world, the minute you start advocating the wholesale theft of property from one group of people to be redistributed to another group of people, based entirely on your own sick notion of "fairness", you'd be carted across the border and dropped of in Siberia, where your views can be better implemented.
Rich people just don't want to have to pay for what they get exponentially more value out of. They're cheap, inhuman bastards, and they've proved it. This nation should not reward them for buying an election.
ALMOST ALL people are cheap, inhuman bastards. Don't just pick on the rich -- I work in a neighboorhood filled with people (your glorious poor, who just want a hand-up, not a hand-out) who take to throwing rocks at car windows and stealing tools from local businesses. We're not a community of rich people here -- I barely made enough to live on last year, but since I'm self-employed, I had 30% of my income taken in taxes.
Regardless, you have NO RIGHT to dictate how somebody spends their money, or how they wish to dispense it when they die, as long as they do so within the law (e.g. they can't spend the money on hitmen to kill old enemies). You don't have to like it, nor do you have to keep quiet about your opinions -- but you SHOULD NOT BE ABLE to use artificial means of force (government) to enforce your own dictates on other free people.
You're an idiot communist if you do advocate such blazing stupidity. I suggest you try Cuba -- there are no huge discrepencies in incomes there (except for Castro, who is worth millions).
Re:You are such a troll. (Score:2)
It wasn't one, I'm not a dullard, and you declared your time "wasted". Seems in addition to an innumerate twit, you're a liar.
Your responses to my arguments are noted. They're useless drivel, but they're noted. I'll just point out this one thing:
Get this straight, Tiger -- my rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are not gifts from government, but my basic, unalienable rights, inviolate to government.
The Bill of Rights does not guarantee you freedom from Income Tax.
And the bill is "unalienable...inviolate" only under the system of belief as held at the time by the voters who vetted the Constitution. Those rights have been amended in the past, and will be in the future. Learn that your current snapshot of the world is not the immutable truth, and you might start to understand the need for government to act as a collection and disbursement point--a motor--for projects that do not have the properties necessary to make a capitalistic enterprise profitable.
I am a capitalist (a blindingly successful one, thank you), but I'm wise enough to understand that I don't have the resources or legal right to build the Interstate Highway system or win World War II (which, btw, each cost less than $1.3 Trillion). You sit back and whine about having to pay your share. Millions of people who gave their lives so you can have what you have aren't convinced by your talk-radio talking points.
--Blair
Tough Choice! (Score:2)
Re:Eating out of the dumpster.... (Score:2)
...and you want a refund of tax that you didn't pay?
Re:Eating out of the dumpster.... (Score:2)
I attended a private school. My student loans, federal grant money, and work study pay were all partly or completely subsidized by the federal government.
My letter from Uncle Sam (Score:5, Funny)
Re:My letter from Uncle Sam (Score:4, Funny)
Lots of dinners! (Score:2)
Re:save it... you know you have to... (Score:2)
I imagine they are all right where they were when they said them.
TaxRebate t=0 (Score:2)
Re:TaxRebate t=0 (Score:2)
My $300? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:NO no no!! (Score:2)
A hard choice, but it makes sense to me. ;-)
Re:NO no no!! (Score:2)
First casualty of the Bush tax cut. (Score:5, Funny)
what tax deduction? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:actually (Score:2)
None of the above! (Score:3, Interesting)
Can't wait for that cash!
Re:None of the above! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:None of the above! (Score:3, Interesting)
So yes, I want to worry about brakes on my Nova. I wish I knew which rear disks would fit on it because I'd probable do them as well.
Re:Support the Democratic National Committee (Score:3, Funny)
Or, alternatively, mail it to the RIAA or MPAA. It all ends up in the same place anyway!
Best Suggestion... (Score:2)
First off, this question is very USA-centric, but the meme I'm propagating is good for virtually any country where you might get a tax refund/rebate at any time in the year.
(as a side note, the USA tax rebate is a one-time thing this year: $300 if you filed as a single person, $600 for a married couple, and $0 if you're claimed as a dependent. It wasn't income-based, though they won't rebate you if you didn't pay at least $300 in taxes.)
This is what you should do with your refunds/rebates:
Then, donate your refund/rebate to either (a) an organization that is opposing Government programs in #1 above, or (b) an organization in #2.
In both cases, you're applying money in an efficient way to counter-act "bad government" (as defined by you).
If you won't give it away, at least have the common sense to pay off your credit card bills rather than just spend it.
Oh, and for christ sakes, everyone here with a real job should go see a financial advisor. Do it now. You're a fool if you think you can plan your entire financial life by yourself without consulting a professional (or better yet, at least three different ones to get contrasting advice).
-Erik
Re:Best Suggestion... (Score:2)
That's only because starting next year, the new 10% tax bracket (part of the old 15% bracket) will be in full effect. The rebates are intended to provide the effect of the 10% bracket now, instead of waiting until next year.
You are wrong about the amounts. (Score:2)
The $300 and $600 are the maximum that you can get back, it's possible to get less. It is based on the taxable income filed on the 2000 return. A taxpayer is getting 5 percent of that back, up to $300 for singles, $500 for Heads of households $500, and married couples $600. The IRS has the formulas used here. [irs.gov]
Re:Best Suggestion... (Score:2)
drugs, mainly (Score:2)
But then, I'm a kidney transplant recipient. Heroin? Crack? B33r? Pshaw! That's the cheap shit compared to the stuff we (have to) buy. :-)
Using it to buy 600 shares of Salon.com (Score:2)
Why the dependant thing? (Score:2)
Re:Why the dependant thing? (Score:2)
In the case of dependents, you neither vote nor do you have money, so you aren't one of GW's friends.
Re:Support the Democratic National Committee (Score:2, Insightful)
Jefferson stated the reason why this is bad succinctly :
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813. ME 14:21
Buy a PS/2, more like. (Score:2)
Re:actually (Score:5, Interesting)
The refund is 5 percent of the 2000 taxable income up to a limit dependent on the filing status. The limits are:
- Single or Married filing separately: $6000
- Head of Household: $10000
- Married filing jointly: $12000
The IRS has the information here [irs.gov] along with the schedule of when the checks are to be mailed. The only ones who get nothing are the ones who have no taxable income or fail to meet other IRS guidelines for the rebate. I don't see anything wrong with that at all. Before you start whining about the poor not getting any of it, think about what they are already getting in the form of Earned income tax credits, social programs, and other hand outs. I'd say they are already getting more than enough from the Govt as it is.Re:Eating out of the dumpster.... (Score:2)
Well, lemme tell you...You aren't missing much. I had an ex-girlfriend that had one of those Bush tax cuts. Don't get me wrong...it looked nice. The problem was that it tended to trap moisture and eventually led to her smelling like a sour, mildewed towel. "Eating out of the dumpster". Indeed. ;)
Re:The govenment does not produce (Score:2)
I agree. What the original post suggests is a basic socialistic idea
Wow, that's an interesting idea. I guess that since Bush forces me to spend 30% of my taxes on the military he must be a Socialist. On the other hand, maybe he's just a compassionate conservative Socialist.
Re:Free Dmitry! (Score:2)
Why don't you support changing the root of the problem? eg. bad laws, bad lawmakers.
Re:Free Dmitry! (Score:2)
I do support changing the root of the problem: money in politics. That's why my money isn't going to a party or a politician (neither of which I trust with my cash), but to a foundation capable of creating legal pressure and leading public opinion against a bad law.
Re:actually (Score:2)
Re:Hmmmmm..... (Score:2)
Star Wars Rogue Leader and Metroid are two that I'm personally looking forward to, however there is a larger game list, and more information about the GameCube in general, at IGNcube's GameCube FAQ [ign.com].
I know what I'm going to do! (Score:2)
I'm going to use my tax refund to buy Slashdot a new poll.
-S
The Shaft! (Score:2)
I get The Shaft
NewsRadio is such a funny show
You could do what I did... (Score:2)
Re:TiVO Upgrade (Score:2)
I upgraded a 14 hour using a WD 60 GB 5400 rpm drive. Now I have more than enough space for the few shows I watch.
if i'm gonna buy cowboyneal a lobster dinner... (Score:4, Funny)
his name aint cowboykneel for nuttin!
:-) (it's humor, laugh a little)
Re:support keiritsu? (Score:2)
One thing that I feel is important to say here is that if you are getting a rebate, it's kind of unlikely that you will be able to write off the donation.
Every year every American (and their spouse if filing jointly) has the choice of either itemizing their deductions, or taking a standard deduction. This choice was made on line 36 of the 1040 for the year 2000.
The tax rebate works by retroactively raising the standard deduction amount for the year 2000. If you are single, it raises this amount by $300; married filing jointly, $600; head of house-hold, $500. Only if you used the standard deduction, or you itemized your deductions and the itemization is less than the new standard deduction will you receive any money.
If you wish to write off contributions to charity, then you must itemize your deductions (line 15 for Schedule A for the year 2000). This means that you will have to be under the rare condition of not having enough deductions in 2000 to beat the standard deductions or have enough deductions to itemize, but not enough to beat the adjusted standard deduction (this will get you a rebate) AND you have to have enough deductions this year to beat the standard deductions.
It could and does happen. If you bought your first house late 2000 or early 2001, your interest payments can be enough to push you over the mark. If you have a lot of unexpected medical bills too. People cross this threashold all the time and I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands of taxpayers that will meet these conditions. I'm just saying it's not likely that you are one of them and you should check into it before you give to a charity thinking you can deduct the amount (although if you want to give to a charity, you should, regardless of tax benefit).
Food Stamps for Cowboy Neal (Score:2)
Mmmmm, government cheese!
First One to Get It Right (Score:2)
It's an "advance" on any refund you may be getting next April; it's NOT a "rebate."
So what happens if you don't actually have a refund coming next April?
Exactly.
Are you getting the picture now? This check boils down to nothing more than a PR scam. They are cleverly hiding the truth by messing with the tax tables you'll see next spring.
Don't get me wrong: they take too much money anyway. I'd MUCH rather pay in April and have that money now. But I'd rather get it under honest conditions.
Re:What kind of political party (Score:2)
Re:NO no no!! (Score:2, Informative)
I MADE MONEY with my rebate! (Score:2)
I can hear people saying, "So? Me too? Get to the point."
Luckily for me, I ended up paying $1.47 in taxes. With the rebate check I ended up $298.53 in the black. I hope I can keep up this rate of return on my taxes! Thanks George!
Re:I didn't get a tax rebate... (Score:2)
No, I don't mean that in a libertarian-style "you paid taxes so its just your money back" sort of way. I mean that its not a rebate.
Its an advance [irs.gov] on your 2001 taxes (I was surprised that a search for "advance" on this list turned up no results). 2000 is just used to determine if you qualify. The IRS has been forced to make it look like a rebate [detnews.com]. Even worse, they're having to borrow [fark.com] money to pay for this "rebate".
-= rei =-
Re:NO no no!! (Score:2, Funny)
Not Worth The Tax Break (Score:2)
How was he going to do it? He was planning on elimating 1/2 of the military -- his numbers showed that we had several times the strenght that we needed, and the Vietnam war was going nowheres, so we should back out, and drastically reduce military spending.
Okay, that may have been a bit radical. But if we were to cut the defense budget in half, we could do a lot to lower taxes, help the poor, clean the enviroment, and a like.
Why should a tax cut give back to the rich, more then the poor? The poor are the ones who need it the most, they should get the most taxes back (it only makes sense that way).
We need real cuts to the goverment, before we start mailing checks back. Otherwise we are just creating a decfict. And the tax cuts, should go to the poor who have little money over the neccesities, and not the rich, so they can buy Wiz-bang 2001.
Re:Not Worth The Tax Break (Score:2, Insightful)
Um, what the hell kind of backwards logic is this? Do know know what the tax rates are? If you were to graph them against income they would look like a logarithmic curve.
Here's a newsflash, poor people don't really pay that much in taxes. Hell, "poor" is an arbitrary designation anyway. If you're talking about people that are below the poverty threshold, they don't pay any taxes, and usually receive an earned-income credit? How can you give them back something they did not pay in?
It's not that I particularly have anything against poor people, it's just that this whole concept of disproportionately gathering money from people and then redistributing it in an extraordinarily inefficient manner is a little disturbing to me. In a sense, you're right, we shouldn't really tax "poor" people, if they can't support themselves, they can't be expected to support the government. Atleast these are my thoughts on the matter. However, once an individual reaches a certain level of income that can be taxed, I don't see any reason why anybody above that level of income should be taxed disproportionally. Most left-leaning types will start throwing around words like "wealthy" or "privileged" and tell us how we should taxes things that we don't like (I guess we don't like wealthy people). The flaw in this argument is that wealthy people in one part of the country are not the same as wealthy people in other parts of the country. Cost-of-living in this country can vary up to 2 or 3 times between areas with the highest and the lowest cost of living. So a family getting $50k in Mississippi, for example, can live quite comfortably in a reasonably decent home whereas a family in Palo Alto, CA would be homeless.
I'm all in favor of a more reasonable flat tax that was proposed sometime during the presidential race. I.e. a fixed tax rate (around %15 or so) that everybody gets to pay regardless. There are several reasons why this would never fly. A tax like this would hit the very wealthiest individuals fairly hard, i.e. the ones with the financial flexibility enough to exploit the tax code to it's fullest extent. And we know the Republicans couldn't allow this to occur. Something like this would also hit the some of the lower-middle-class as well which the Democrats certainly wouldn't permit. So, in the end, everyone in the middle gets the shaft, just like always.
Re:Rebate woes (Score:3, Interesting)
While it is true that the Treasury Dept. is going to have to sell some bonds to cover the refund advance checks due to a cash flow problem, the US Govt is still expected to post a surplus, although not as big as what was predicted a couple years ago. However, as another poster pointed out, it is the nature of politicians to spend increasing amounts of money each year. If it wasn't a tax cut, it would have been for some Govt program looking for a problem to solve. I'd personally like it be split evenly between debt reduction and refunds to the taxpayers.
Besides, the economy was starting to slow down before the election, so if Gore would have won, the economy would still be on the skids.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not Applicable (Score:2)
To differentiate between nations and continents, people started using the term USian.
I just use it cos it's quicker to type though : )
Course, I could use the word "Yank" instead, but I was trying to be polite.
Re:Not Applicable (Score:2)
As for your geography; anyone from the British Isles is British. It doesn't really matter if your parents or grandparents immigrated here (hell, if you go far enough back everyone's ancestors were from somewhere else) - if you're from (i.e. born in) the British Isles then you're British (plus there's ex-pat citizenship issues etc.). Not really that difficult. I wouldn't suggest that I speak for all ethnic groups (I assume that's what you meant, because obviously someone with a different nationality [look up the definition] isn't British, though can of course be just as much a member of society as anyone else) within the U.K. but the term "British" simply denotes where you're from.
Oh, and I'd expect that anyone from Brittany would consider themselves to be French - just because the name's similar doesn't mean that it's the same thing.
Let's see, what else? Oh yes; your argument of "We were using the name first" is pretty childish. The Americas were named after Amerigo Vespucci (quite possibly the wrong spelling there), who claimed to have discovered North America before anyone else (Columbus only got as far as the West Indies on his first trip), and identified South America as a seperate continent first. Both continents together form the Americas and the name pre-dates the formation of the U.S.A. Therefore, anyone from the Americas can be considered to be an American in the same way that I can be considered to be a European.
Hope this has cleared things up a bit for you. Normally I wouldn't respond to a flamebait A.C. but you seemed like you needed some help. And it's nice that you're so rabidly patriotic, but you demean yourself when you call other countries losers. Simply saying "The USA is great; please stop whining and trying to be P.C. when a naming precedent has been well established" would have been far more effective. Not that this was really a question of patriotism, more one of distinction between nationalities.
Oh, and if you feel compelled to respond, please log in instead of posting anonymously or I'm going to ignore you. It's only Karma. It's hard to take your jaw-breaking threat seriously when you're too cowardly to reveal your identity in your post.
UKoGBaNIans? Nice! (Score:2)
Oh, and -1, brings new meaning to "Off Topic" (this was about spending a tax rebate, not stupid semantics, after all), but since the story's pretty old, and this comment is nested pretty deep, I'd feel pretty honoured (and rather surprised) if moderators got far enough in here to mod this comment.
Re:Support the Democratic National Committee (Score:2)
Re:Not quite (Score:3, Insightful)
The one action that would have shown the american people that Bush has guts would have been to use bully pulpit to convince the us that the surplus could have been used to transition social security into a "savings system" and try to get legislation passed that implemented that vision. It would have given him a lot of respect.
Instead we got an advance on the potential decrease in taxes next year. Bush proved he is in the pocket of the fringe right-wing, social security is worse off, the democrats have no guts to accomplish anything anyway since Hillary got shot down by the health insurance industry (the last time something "big" was attempted in Washington), and now I've got a major headache. Thanks alot for setting me off on a rant...
hope/lifetime learning (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In case no-one has noticed... (Score:2)
Right on. GCN seems to be the system to watch.
I buy consoles to play Japanese console games, and Nintendo makes the best console games anywhere. (To this day, I'm not bored of Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island on Super NES; I play straight through it every few months or so.) Even third parties are eyeing GCN closely...in particular, Sega is in love with the little thing, along with the GBA.
PS2 has been available for so long, but the number of current domestic U.S. releases that are interesting to me is...zero. There are exactly four games coming out for PS2 in the next two years that I even remotely care about. I _may_ buy a PS2 to play them, but only if the ridiculous system price comes down by a large amount, and there are no funky hardware revisions, AND Ascii decides to release a fighting pad for PS2 that mimics the Japanese Saturn pad like their Dreamcast fighting pads. Even then, it looks like I'd be using it to play PS1 games, mostly. Such madness could only come from Sony...or MS.
It's probably obvious that I dismissed x-box a long time ago. They even followed Sega Saturn's large-controller mistake, only in reverse. Ingenius. Here's a free clue for MS: Kids have small hands, even smaller than "Japanese" hands. I have other gripes, but those'll cost extra (read: "MS Money"). Something amazing will have to happen before MS has my attention again.
Pfft. As if I know anything.
< tofuhead >
That's right, three dateless years and counting (Score:2)
Dateless and Happy [purdue.edu]
Well. Most of the time, anyway.