tax refund?????

[Hhhyyyddd]

i thought it was too good to be true, but i did some investigating and it seems to be for real! if you filed taxes for 2002, and qualified for the $600 child credit, you have another $400 per child coming at the end of july....
or have i fallen into some happy alternate universe where things like this happen???

[tommy]

here is something for ya to read ref that subject kiddo


http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/0528TaxCuts-Payouts-ON.html


i hope it applies to ya

[Rapunzel676]

And the more money you make, the more you get back. Hmmm. . . .

[banzai]

This is towards next years tax refund - the amount was bumped up to a $1000 but they should send out checks for $400 Per child in order to stimulate the economy NOW! (Next year when you file the amount will be $600 per kid - because you will have already gotten the $400) I have 5 kids so I should be eligible for $2000. Also effective now are lower tax brackets so you should see a reduction in your payroll taxes.

[tommy]

Hhhyyyddd

as long as ya get more cash it will be great for you and yours

thank you Mr. Bush :cheer:

[smileysal]

It is good for people who end up getting a large tax return but I don't think it is such a good idea for people always end up paying. To bad there wasn't a way each person could decide if they want a check or wait because it really isn't a refund. The thousand dollar credit on each child is only temperary too. By 2011 it will be back down to $500 a child if I read and remembered right.

[Hope]

I sure could use the $$$ for school clothes!!:)

[MidnightMoon]

I'm not gonna hold my breath for mine

[ifwalker]

Did it say anything about the newly married couple w/out kids, who got that not-so-nice surprise when they filed for the 1st time??
:rolleyes:

[noelleray]

if i'm correct,we'll be getting $400 back. but i'd much rather get it back in April,i seem to do alot more shopping with my tax refund. if we get this money it will be going to bills,so much for stimulating the economy. they'd have to give me more then that to get me to go shopping when the bill collector is holding out his hand. might splurge and buy dinner one night,does that count?

[iwannawin]

Families who live on minimum wage ($10,500 to $26,625) will not benefit at all and they're the ones who need it the most. :(

http://www.msnbc.com/news/919762.asp?0bl=-0

[jaybat]

"if we get this money it will be going to bills,so much for stimulating the economy"

Whether you pay bills or spend it on stuff, it's still money going into the economy. Pay your bills with it and it gives that person/company more money, which means more for somebody else to spend.

And while I myself would pay bills (doesn't apply tho, no kids) a lot of people will take it as bonus money and use at least part of it to buy something they've had their eye on.

[allie]

Thanks for the links all. IL's told us about this but I forgot about it until now. We had twin boys last November, and we desperately need to pay our first hospital bill off!!! THANKS!

[Rapunzel676]

Sure Jaybat, if trickle-down economics actually worked. ;)

[CHOCKO895]

:smile4:
THE CHECKS WILL BE GOING OUT ACCORDING
TO THE LAST 2 DIGITS OF YOUR SS# LOWEST FIRST!

[MidnightMoon]

Well since my husband is in the Army and doesn't make over $26,500 we won't be getting a check :(

[nycphoto]

It really irks me the way the government works. Why are we sending money to those that are filthy rich with tax free dividends or this child tax credit for people who refuse to practice family planning?

The greatest burden on any municipality is the schools. My wife and I are not rich and have no children. So we pay through the nose. As it is, we subsidize people who have children. I do not resent helping people who have one or two children but I do resent tax refunds for those that have more than two. We are rewarding irresponsible behavior. This, irresponsible birth rate takes away from my environment, the taxpayer and of course the housing and job markets.

I cringe when I hear of all the new homes America is building knowing that it will take away from the last open spaces that we can enjoy. We already subside multiple children households. I don't see why we have to put them on easy street. They made the choice to have children, the taxpayer shouldn't have to pay for it. Tax benefits should end with the second child. And one day, we will all pay for these tax refunds.

[banzai]

Sorry you feel that way. As a mother of 5, I don't agree with you. My husband is the only wage earner in our family, he makes an excellent salary which enables me to stay home and raise our children. I volunteer at schools, nursing homes, for my children's sports. My children also volunteer. I know having a large family is a drain on the environment, thats why I reduce, reuse, and recycle as much as possible. I don't think that you should lump all large families as being irresponsible. My family does more to make the world a better place to live then most dinks and two parents two kids do. You might think that limiting families to two children is a good thing, I happen to think it might be the third one who ends world hunger or finds a cure for cancer.

[Hhhyyyddd]

i agree with what christina just said.
only i'm a widowed mom with three kids. i practiced "family planning" - i had a lot of plans for my family.wasn't planning on mike dying at age 36. neither was he.
i do not apologize for any tax favoritism i get as a single, working parent of three.

[tommy]

Originally posted by Hhhyyyddd
i agree with what christina just said.
only i'm a widowed mom with three kids. i practiced "family planning" - i had a lot of plans for my family.wasn't planning on mike dying at age 36. neither was he.
i do not apologize for any tax favoritism i get as a single, working parent of three.

========================================

my deepest and of course late condolences on the losss of Mike--- i am sure its not easy for a mom of three to raise a family without a dad/hubby but i do want ya to know i wish ya the best of luck kiddo :smile11:

and in ref to this tax break i hope you get the $$$$$$$$'s when ya need them

[viperlily]

I think it's about time we get a break. We don't make a ton of money, but enought to collect on the child tax credit. I am all for helping people who truly work hard and don't have enough money, but here is my husband who works like a dog to support his family, half his check goes to taxes, we have to PAY for all our electric, hospital bills, etc. where others get it FREE or discounted. Yes, I thank GOD we have enough to pay for it, but it's not like we don't go through times where we we're like "ok, which bill do we have to skimp on this time."

I believe yes, if you want this money or any tax cuts you benifit from to go elsewhere, by all means do what you want with your money!

[suzybeth]

We got a partial child credit for our 3 kids. I really don't see why it is anyones business, how many children I have. Each of my pregancies were planned. My husband earns a good wage and supports our family, and also pays taxes to a country he isn't even a citizen of. I am very lucky to be able to stay home with my children. We may not have the finer things in life, but we do have a roof over our heads and food in our stomachs and Love in our hearts. but I do resent tax refunds for those that have more than two. We are rewarding irresponsible behavior. This, irresponsible birth rate takes away from my environment, the taxpayer and of course the housing and job markets. It really is a shame that you have not enjoyed the bliss of parenthood. Maybe that would change your opinion. What would happen if your wife became pregnant and had triplets. Would that be irresponsible of you? Perhaps you better think your philosophy through a bit more, before condemning parents of more than one or two children.

[allie]

I just want to say that my husband and I TRIED for almost a year to get pg and we finally did in April of last year with our twins. Yes we have always wanted at least two kids, we just happened to get them on our first try I guess you could say.

People with more than two kids doesn't mean they acted irresponsibly.

BTW A friend of mine just had triplets November of last year after over 6 years of infertility treatments with her husband, does that make her irresponsible? No.

[smileysal]

I am so glad not everyone has the same feelings NYC. If that was the case many of us would not be here. First on all, birth control is prohibited in some religions. It's someone choice to have more then 2 children just like it is your choice to have none. No one is going to purposly have a child for a tax break. It costs a lot more to raise a child then $600 a year. Secondly, there is not much help available to low income families. A family can not survive on welfare and it is very hard to get. Not everyone is able to afford health care coverage and go without. So if someone that makes less then me gets a little break I am happy for them. Schools were mentioned also. If fact the education a chid receives has a lot to do on the income bracket of the parents. The areas that are wealthy have a higher standard of education the poorer areas. In some schools there is not even enough books for the students and what they do have is out dated. Housing and job shortages has more to do with people being greedy then the population. Everyone wants more and they want bigger and better. The traditional 1,1000 sq ft ranch home is not good enough. The family size is getting smaller but the houses are not. If people lived simpler life styles there could me more stay at home moms and less people working 2 jobs in order to support their life style.

[Hhhyyyddd]

-
thanks to tommy and other understanding persons:)
i also wanted to add, because i always have more to say:D
i only posted about the refund- and in the "in the news" section
-was to let anyone who didn't know and might be eligible about the news.that's all. but of course we always end up taking these discussions somewhere else, and that's okay!
i can also say that i have paid taxes before i had children and that i'm sure i'll be paying them again soon-hopefully when i win some monster prize- but if not then(back to the always encroaching real world) when my kids are grown-which will be soon- they're 13 about to be 14, 12, and 8 and time has a way of flying.

[mnsteph]

When I heard today about the people who make under 26,500 ( or something) salary dont count in the tax credit...it made me sick. Arent those the ones who need it the most? Unbelievable.......
As for resenting refunds for those with more than 2 kids...I just dont get it. Maybe I dont understand you correctly...in some instances like someone living off welfare and just having kids to continue to get a check ( see up in MN they cut you off after a few years...but I actually knew of someone who did that...YUK) thats a whole nother ball game. To me thats irresponsible. Otherwise I say, have as many as you want, as long as you can feed and clothe them. support them on your own..., as long as you love them...whats wrong with that?
Anyway everybody has different opinions and I do respect all of yours, it makes for interesting conversations...;)

[magel86]

people who make less than $26,000 and have kids don't pay in enough taxes to get the refund. It is based on what you pay in and what percentage you end up no longer havng to pay. So I think it is still fair although they could use the $ more.

[mnsteph]

I suppose that would make more sense to me magel86...it still seems unfair though...I guess when I was grooming dogs for 10 yrs I never made over $10,000 a year and always PAID over $900 in taxes at the end of every year ( my boss didnt take out taxes..) So I know what its like to be the working poor... that kinda stuff always frustrates me. It just really appears to be a crappy deal, maybe it all makes good sense in the end...just comes across really bad.

[Hope]

Mine starts with a 2!!!:cheer: :cheer: :cheer:

[amyann16]

ACk.....My last 2 digits start with a '8' and husband's starts with a '6'......

[Rapunzel676]

I just wanted to give some encouragement to the parents here. You're doing the most important job in the world and you deserve all the help you can get. Kids are great and I think that how many you choose to have is your business and your business alone. Even though I don't have any myself, I gladly pay taxes so kids in my area can get good educations and so their parents have enough money to take care of them during the rough times. I truly believe that children are a community's responsibility.

[allie]

Originally posted by Rapunzel676
I just wanted to give some encouragement to the parents here. You're doing the most important job in the world and you deserve all the help you can get. Kids are great and I think that how many you choose to have is your business and your business alone. Even though I don't have any myself, I gladly pay taxes so kids in my area can get good educations and so their parents have enough money to take care of them during the rough times. I truly believe that children are a community's responsibility.

Although that last sentence I hesitate to agree with ~ LOL, I do agree with your post whole heartedly! Thank you as well! ;)

[Rapunzel676]

Allie, you're more than welcome. Children enrich your life in ways you never knew were possible, even when they're not yours! I can't even remember what life was like before my three wonderful, adorable, occasionally maddening, but always entertaining little nieces. I had a really bad string of luck last year--lost a close friend, experienced some serious health problems--and those girls were just about the only thing that could bring a smile to my face. :baby: :hugs: :love:

I know it sounds hokey, but even though I'm the world's biggest cynic, I look at them and can still feel that there's hope for this old world. Okay, everyone can take out their cheesemeters now, I think I've hit the motherlode.

[Brent]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=68&ncid=68&e=2&u=/nyt/20030529/ts_nyt/tax_law_omits_child_credit_in_low_income_brackets
Thu May 29, 3:02 PM ET
By DAVID FIRESTONE The New York Times


WASHINGTON, May 28 A last-minute revision by House and Senate leaders in the tax bill that President Bush (news - web sites) signed today will prevent millions of minimum-wage families from receiving the increased child credit that is in the measure, say Congressional officials and outside groups.

Most taxpayers will receive a $400-a-child check in the mail this summer as a result of the law, which raises the child tax credit, to $1,000 from $600. It had been clear from the beginning that the wealthiest families would not receive the credit, which is intended to phase out at high incomes.

But after studying the bill approved on Friday, liberal and child advocacy groups discovered that a different group of families would also not benefit from the $400 increase families who make just above the minimum wage.

Because of the formula for calculating the credit, most families with incomes from $10,500 to $26,625 will not benefit. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal group, says those families include 11.9 million children, or one of every six children under 17.

"I don't know why they would cut that out of the bill," said Senator Blanche Lincoln, the Arkansas Democrat who persuaded the full Senate to send the credit to many more low income families before the provision was dropped in conference. "These are the people who need it the most and who will spend it the most. These are the people who buy the blue jeans and the detergent and who will stimulate the economy with their spending."

Ms. Lincoln noted that nearly half of all taxpayers in her state had adjusted gross incomes that were less than $20,000.

Families with incomes lower than $10,500 will also not receive the refund checks. But under the 2001 tax revision, they would not have been eligible for either the $600 or the $1,000 credits because they do not pay federal taxes. Proposals to give them the credits failed on the House and Senate floors on party-line votes.

The Senate provision that did pass was intended to help those families making $10,500 to $26,625 who do pay federal taxes and could have taken all or part of the $600 credit. The provision, which would have cost $3.5 billion, would have allowed those families to receive some or all of the extra $400 in the new law.

Most families with children who make about $30,000 or less are also eligible for the earned income credit, which the law does not not change. In addition, the law has a few other benefits for low income earners, like expanding the lowest tax bracket and a temporary reduction in the penalty on two-income couples.

Several centrist senators worked hard to make the child credit fully refundable for all low income families, and the full Senate voted this month to include a provision that would have included the minimum-wage families. But the provision was dropped in the House-Senate conference, where tax writers spent days trying to cram many tax cuts most prominently, cuts in the taxes on stock dividends and capital gains into a bill that the Senate said could not be larger than $350 billion.

House Republicans, who acknowledged the gap on the child credit, blamed the Senate for insisting on its $350 billion cap, saying the low-income families could have been covered had the Senate been more flexible.

A spokeswoman for the Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee, Christin Tinsworth, noted that the provision was included in an agreement reached last week by Representative Bill Thomas, Republican of California, the committee chairman, and Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

That agreement would have cost $380 billion, but it fell apart when an important swing senator, George V. Voinovich, Republican of Ohio, said he could not approve any bill that exceeded $350 billion. To satisfy him and the Senate, Ms. Tinsworth said, the child credit provision was dropped, along with other costs.

"The Senate preferred to have $20 billion in state aid," she said. "But when we had to squeeze it all to $350 billion, they weren't talking about the child credits. This bill does a lot to help people who need help. But its primary purpose was to generate jobs. Apparently, whatever we do is not going to be enough for some segments of the population."

But Democrats and children's advocacy groups said the Republican demand for large cuts in the dividend tax, which they said benefits primarily wealthy taxpayers, pushed away the credit from low income families.

"If we were going to have a tax cut to give $1,000 to all these other kids, there's no reason not to include these kids, too," said David Harris, president of the Children's Research and Education Institute. "Their families are working and playing by the rules and are left out, though it would not have cost too much to include them."

A spokeswoman for Mr. Voinovich said the senator would have been happy to extend the child credits, but believed that the entire package should not pass $350 billion. The tax writers were free to reduce the dividend tax cut, noted the spokeswoman, Marcie Ridgway.

The gap in the number of families who receive the child credit occurs because of how the formula was arranged in 2001. Congress decided then to give refunds of the credit to low income families, but just to a maximum of 10 percent of the amount they made over $10,000, or a refund of $600, whichever was lower. The $10,000 amount was indexed to inflation and is now $10,500.

When the credit was raised to $1,000, many families could not qualify for the extra amount, because the 10 percent maximum still limited them. Ms. Lincoln proposed raising the formula to 15 percent, which would have covered the increase in the credit for most of those families. Her proposal made it through the Senate Finance Committee, but later she voted against the full cut.

Because her vote and those of other supporters were not necessary for final passage, Republicans knew they could drop the provision without hurting the bill's chances in the Senate.

"I guess this shows us what our priorities are," Ms. Lincoln said. "I think this tax bill is very irresponsible in the way it treats families."

[Brent]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030531/ts_afp/us_economy_taxes_030531002715
Fri May 30, 8:27 PM ET


WASHINGTON (AFP) - A last-minute change to the 350 billion-dollar tax cut bill signed into law this week scrapped a credit for nearly 12 million children in low-income families, an analysis showed.

The analysis was released by Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a budget watchdog group. The maneuver had already drawn fire from critics of the tax bill who claimed it is skewed toward the wealthy.

The bill provides a tax credit of up to 400 dollars per child, but families with annual incomes between 10,500 and 26,625 dollars were cut out of that benefit in the final compromise draft passed by Congress.

"There are 11.9 million children nationwide -- or one of every six children under age 17 -- who would have benefited" from this credit, according to the CBPP report.

Keeping the credit in for those families would have cost 3.5 billion dollars, CBPP said, adding that the figures is "dwarfed by the tax cuts the bill provides to people whose incomes above one million dollars."

It said about 90 billion dollars of the tax cuts would go to some 200,000 households with incomes over one million dollars.

"While the Republicans tax break leaves no business behind, it leaves behind millions of children from working poor families," said Representative Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the House of Representatives.

"Faced with a choice between giving a tax break to an elite few or helping millions of working families, the Republicans once again chose to help their wealthy friends."

The San Jose Mercury News in an editorial also showed disdain for the action, saying that "in a bill heavily weighted toward incentives for investment (largely by the wealthiest of Americans) the child tax credit was designed to provide relief to those who really need it: low- and middle-income families."

A New York Times editorial called the move the tax bill's "final indignity."

"Some senators and interest groups are now urging President Bush (news - web sites) to rectify this injustice, a change that would presumably require separate legislation," the Times said. "Given all the other problems with this bill, it seems the least he can do."

President George W. Bush's spokesman Ari Fleischer (news - web sites) this week defended the move, saying the bill was aimed at cutting taxes instead of redistributing income, adding that the bill was "very fair" in providing relief to all taxpayers.

"Now there may be some who argue that after somebody actually pays zero in income tax, other taxpayers have a responsibility to transfer more of their income to people who pay no income taxes," Fleischer told reporters Thursday.

"And that's an argument that some people might want to make. That, in the end, as a redistribution of income that is public assistance above and beyond what people pay in their income taxes."

But the CBPP, which focuses on policy issues affecting poor and middle-income families, said one study of the bill showed the bottom fifth of households will receive tax cuts that average just one dollar in 2003, while the next-to-bottom fifth will receive tax cuts averaging 38 dollars, contrasting with an average cut of 93,500 dollars to households with incomes of more than one million dollars.

[Rapunzel676]

For once I'm virtually speechless. This whole "tax cut" is just smoke and mirrors, a quick fix that fixes nothing and hinders those it's supposed to help. :worry2:

[monroe5440]

As per usual the families that are WORKING drawing minimum wage or a little higher are getting nothing for the most part. In translation "the people who really could benifit from it". Too bad we don't have a spot on our taxes where we could donate ours to a needy family instead of just a box to donate to the presidential campaign.

I fortunatly fit into the catagory where I will recieve mine and I can definatly use it (school clothes) but I would gladly give it up for a family that could use it for...I don't know?, food??

[saxxygal]

How do you cut taxes for those who pay none? Isn't the idea to stimulate the economy, which in turn helps everyone? More jobs mean more income. If we get too focused on making sure the rich can't benefit, we will lose sight of what is best for everyone.

I don't want to be robbed of the incentive to be rich. I don't want either to be over-rewarded for being poor and unproductive. Get over the anti-rich mentality. When taxes are lowest, charitable giving goes way up.

As far as those who really are in dire straights, that is not a tax cut issue, so let's not mix topics. There certainly should be policies in place to address these folks, but that is a different subject.

This is about stimulating the world's largest economy for the entire nation's sake.

Just throwing in my two cents...
later folks! :smile2:

Saxxy

[Rapunzel676]

I'm not anti-rich. In fact, I'd like to be rich someday. If I ever get to be rich, however, I can assure you that I WILL pay my fair share in taxes. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that of people and corporations who make more money than they could use in three lifetimes. If Bill Gates can pay his taxes and not complain about it, why can't anyone else? I don't think anyone should be taxes unreasonably, but nor do I think that those with less should be taxed at a disproportionate rate than those with more. It doesn't make any sense.

Furthermore, plenty of poor people pay taxes. Sure, those at the very bottom don't, but given that income distribution in the United States more or less resembles a bell curve (although if the wealthiest Americans have their way, it will look more like a peak), the population of individuals with the lowest income represents a small section of the population, while the majority are the so-called "working poor" and the middle class.

The idea that anyone is rewarded for being "poor and unproductive" is absolutely contrary to the facts. Welfare benefits have actually been going down steadily since the 1970s. Since inflation has gone up significantly in the interval, one would think that benefits would have risen correspondingly, but in fact they have been slashed dramatically. A poor single mother earns less in welfare benefits today than she would have in the 1970s and expenses today are a whole lot greater than they were then. The current system, moreover, does not promote a "welfare to work" transition, since most of the jobs these people can get pay less than welfare and carry no benefits. They would actually be better off staying at home with their kids, but since there's now a 5-year cap on welfare benefits, they're pretty much stuck at their dead-end jobs. I'm all for increasing the minimum wage and educating people to get better jobs, but to say that most people would rather be poor disregards both the facts and human nature.

[Mary Beth]

Originally posted by saxxygal
This is about stimulating the world's largest economy for the entire nation's sake.


I have referred to an editorial in the New York Times before. It said, in essence, that each dollar in tax cuts that go to those who aren't rich will generate $1.73 in economic activity. Each dollar in tax cuts that will go to the wealthy will generate 9 cents.

So, if we want to stimulate our economy, we should be giving more to the not-wealthy! They're sure to spend it and thereby generate more economic activity.

The wealthy will also, since the economy is shaky, be less inclined to spend any tax refund. They're must more likely to save it, just in case.

Mary Beth