A list of the "unstimulated."

[CCTAU 3,335]

Why are they saying that jointly if you make over $150K, you are rich?

A list of the unstimulated

The Tax Policy Center estimates that about 10 percent of Americans won’t be getting a rebate check this spring. With the aid of Chad Stone, the chief economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, we’ve identified some would-be economic stimulators who are in for some disappointing news:

Disabled people: If you weren’t a veteran, disability itself won’t get you the check, even if you’re living on about $600 a month in public benefits, as many are.

College students and the very poor: If you made less than $3,000 this year, forget about it. Public benefits don’t count—it has to be earned income.

The unemployed: Senate Democrats, joined by some Republicans, tried but failed to include extended unemployment benefits in the package. If you’ve been unemployed all year and didn’t make $3,000, you get nothing.

Tax fudgers: Waiters, cabbies, street vendors, personal trainers and others who work largely in cash may get dinged if they under-report their income. A single taxpayer reporting $14,950 in earnings and taking the standard deduction gets a $600 check; report less and you get less.

Off-the-books earners: Prostitutes, drug dealers and loan sharks may be big indirect recipients of stimulus funds, but they won’t get checks themselves unless they’re reporting their earnings on their 1040s (in which case the lack of rebate checks may be the least of their worries).

Political refugees, foreign workers, green card holders: Congress required a Social Security number to get the stimulating checks, which eliminates folks applying for citizenship who haven’t yet gotten an SSN.

The rich: Last, but certainly not least, the rich get the stimulus shaft. Benefits start to phase out above $75,000 for a single filer and $150,000 for married ones.

LINK

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I really don't have any problem with the above folks not getting anything or getting less. The vast majority of the time, unless you've spent way beyond your means and made unwise decisions, a couple making $150,000 isn't quite feeling the pinch and thus doesn't need the prod of this stimulus package to go out and spend money on something.

[CCTAU 3,335]

I really don't have any problem with the above folks not getting anything or getting less. The vast majority of the time, unless you've spent way beyond your means and made unwise decisions, a couple making $150,000 isn't quite feeling the pinch and thus doesn't need the prod of this stimulus package to go out and spend money on something.

While this may be true, my question really was more about "What is rich?"

One time it's $200K the next it's $150K.

So when the government is taxing, rich is $200K. But when they are giving away money it's $150K?

Neither makes sense. But didn't the couple making over $150K pay more taxes than the others already? If so, isn't this just socialism?

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Maybe a tiny bit on the low end where people didn't make enough to pay income taxes. But they did have payroll taxes taken out so it's not like they put nothing in.

Other than that, it's merely each of them getting back some of the tax dollars they paid in. How's that socialism?

As far as "who is rich", I don't think the point of the stimulus package was to make that determination. They just had a target figure for what they wanted to "spend" on this and who they thought would provide the bang to the economy they were looking for.

[CCTAU 3,335]

Maybe a tiny bit on the low end where people didn't make enough to pay income taxes. But they did have payroll taxes taken out so it's not like they put nothing in.

Other than that, it's merely each of them getting back some of the tax dollars they paid in. How's that socialism?

If you paid in but others got back then wouldn't that be a redistribution of the wealth? Hence one of the basis for socialism?

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Not really. It simply means, of the people who paid in, some got back some of their own money. Others did not. Socialism, in it's truest form, is everyone who works "pays" in everything and the state doles back a portion equal amounts to everyone regardless of how much (if anything) they did. A milder form would be where you paid in, and others got back above and beyond anything they paid in...the funds of which came from you obviously.

But that's not what's happening here.

[CCTAU 3,335]

Not really. It simply means, of the people who paid in, some got back some of their own money. Others did not. Socialism, in it's truest form, is everyone who works "pays" in everything and the state doles back a portion equal amounts to everyone regardless of how much (if anything) they did. A milder form would be where you paid in, and others got back above and beyond anything they paid in...the funds of which came from you obviously.

But that's not what's happening here.

Baby steps......

[SupperClub 0]

I really don't have any problem with the above folks not getting anything or getting less. The vast majority of the time, unless you've spent way beyond your means and made unwise decisions, a couple making $150,000 isn't quite feeling the pinch and thus doesn't need the prod of this stimulus package to go out and spend money on something.

Ahem...I whole-heartedly disagree. Couples who earn over $150k/year pay much more in income taxes, so IMO they should get a proportionate share of what they pay. There are people who don't pay ANY income taxes who will see a check from Uncle Sam, whereas my wife and I probably won't see a dime back from the federal government. We can use $1200 just as much as the next person.

It's called punishing achievement, and it's bullsh*t. Then again, that's what's wrong with our current tax code to begin with, so I shouldn't be surprised.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I really don't have any problem with the above folks not getting anything or getting less. The vast majority of the time, unless you've spent way beyond your means and made unwise decisions, a couple making $150,000 isn't quite feeling the pinch and thus doesn't need the prod of this stimulus package to go out and spend money on something.

Ahem...I whole-heartedly disagree. Couples who earn over $150k/year pay much more in income taxes, so IMO they should get a proportionate share of what they pay.

It's not a tax cut. It's a simple rebate on taxes already paid last year and is not proportional. If you paid over $1200 in taxes and make under $150,000, you get $1200 back.

There are people who don't pay ANY income taxes who will see a check from Uncle Sam, whereas my wife and I probably won't see a dime back from the federal government.

They are getting money back if they paid payroll taxes. And they only pay those if they worked enough to make at least $3000 last year.

We can use $1200 just as much as the next person.

I'm sure no one is walking around turning down $1200, so in that sense, sure anyone could use it. But if you think $1200 has the same impact on you as it does a family making $50,000 or $35,000 a year, I think you're detached from reality.

It's called punishing achievement, and it's bullsh*t. Then again, that's what's wrong with our current tax code to begin with, so I shouldn't be surprised.

Then you should be all for the Fair Tax that Huckabee favors.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

It's not free money. Well, for most people. It is simply an advance on teh tax return that you would get next April.

It's not like they are giving out free hams at Christmas and you ain't gettin' one.

Actually, it's a rebate on the tax you paid last year. It won't affect your return next April unless your state taxes federal refunds.

Here's a good Q&A on it: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23075438/

[SupperClub 0]

It's not a tax cut. It's a simple rebate on taxes already paid last year and is not proportional. If you paid over $1200 in taxes and make under $150,000, you get $1200 back.

Trust me, I'm well aware that it's not a tax cut. Never said it was. Simply tried to use logic in saying that if you fall into Bracket X of the income tax, you should receive a proportionate share of any rebate issued.

They are getting money back if they paid payroll taxes. And they only pay those if they worked enough to make at least $3000 last year.

Bottom line is there is a segment that will receive an income tax rebate when they don't pay income taxes.

I'm sure no one is walking around turning down $1200, so in that sense, sure anyone could use it. But if you think $1200 has the same impact on you as it does a family making $50,000 or $35,000 a year, I think you're detached from reality.

Neither you nor Uncle Sam has any clue what kind of impact $1200 will have on my family. Each person/couple's situation is different. Sure we make good money, but we also have enough in student loan debt (thanks to law school) to own a second house. Are we really better off than a couple who's making $120k with no debt?

Then you should be all for the Fair Tax that Huckabee favors.

I am. I've read the first book a couple of times and I'm waiting on my copy of FairTax: Answering the Critics to drop on my doorstep any day now.

[autiger4life 3]

Off-the-books earners: Prostitutes, drug dealers and loan sharks may be big indirect recipients of stimulus funds, but they won’t get checks

That's a great line right there.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Bottom line is there is a segment that will receive an income tax rebate when they don't pay income taxes.

They are getting a rebate on their payroll taxes, not an income tax rebate.

Neither you nor Uncle Sam has any clue what kind of impact $1200 will have on my family. Each person/couple's situation is different. Sure we make good money, but we also have enough in student loan debt (thanks to law school) to own a second house. Are we really better off than a couple who's making $120k with no debt?

Oh, you're a lawyer. You don't deserve any money then.

Do you really think that having debt should be a mitigating factor? Or should they start adjusting people's tax rates based on their debt load so that those with high amounts of debt pay less taxes?

Also, I don't know what you make, but $150k is where the phase out begins, not where it ends. In actuality, you'd have to make more than $174,000 to get nothing. Plus, there is the $300 per child rebate too, and that's figured differently from the flat rebate for singles or couples.

Then you should be all for the Fair Tax that Huckabee favors.

I am. I've read the first book a couple of times and I'm waiting on my copy of FairTax: Answering the Critics to drop on my doorstep any day now.

I actually like it too as long as it's structured to truly keep the poor from getting hit by having all the necessities of life taxed much higher. I prefer to tax consumption over production any day.

[SupperClub 0]

They are getting a rebate on their payroll taxes, not an income tax rebate.

You sure about that? Everything I've seen shows this as an income tax rebate. I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time.

Oh, you're a lawyer. You don't deserve any money then.

I'm not the lawyer, I married one. Yeah, I know I'm screwed.

Do you really think that having debt should be a mitigating factor? Or should they start adjusting people's tax rates based on their debt load so that those with high amounts of debt pay less taxes?

Not at all, just showing you how each family's situation is unique. A blanket statement such as "Anyone making $150k or more won't feel the pinch as bad" isn't the case, that's all.

Also, I don't know what you make, but $150k is where the phase out begins, not where it ends. In actuality, you'd have to make more than $174,000 to get nothing. Plus, there is the $300 per child rebate too, and that's figured differently from the flat rebate for singles or couples.

We're screwed.

I actually like it too as long as it's structured to truly keep the poor from getting hit by having all the necessities of life taxed much higher. I prefer to tax consumption over production any day.

100% agreeance here.

Oh, you're a lawyer. You don't deserve any money then.

He's not a lawyer, but he does sleep with one.

Once in a blue moon...