It really bothers me when the checks are referred to as tax rebates. They are economic stimulus checks. Yes, they are rebated from taxes but even those who paid no taxes will get a rebate provided they filed a return.

The objective is not to give your money back to you. The objective is that you will spend someone else's tax money to stimulate the economy.

It's a feel-good trick to pretend it's a tax rebate.

on top of that, those that pay the most taxes get no "rebate," so like you say, it is definitely NOT a tax rebate, it's more of a welfare check.

for those making > $1 million. The rebate phased out at > $200,000 AGI which covers ~5% of all taxpayers or 3 million taxpayers. They should have given extra foof stamps to those that did not qualify for the rebate at all.

As far as those making >$1 million, from the 2001/2003 taxbreaks alone; they averaged ~$124,000 in tax breaks. Rebateor tax break, rebate or tax break, rebate or tax break, rebate or tax break, rebate or tax break . . .

I would take the tax break

they do n ot pay any sales taxes either??? Oh wow! I want that deal also.

Don't be silly. Live at the same wage Bush uses to qualify people for SCHIP/CHP and see how much fun it is. Your jealous because someone who filed with an income of $3,000 got a measly $300. The nerve of them.

run75441:

they do n ot pay any sales taxes either??? Oh wow! I want that deal also.

That's disingenuous. What the original message meant was that you can't get a rebate on a tax you never paid, not that people getting the stimulus check aren't paying any taxes at all. The fact that they pay other taxes to other governments (sales taxes, in states that have them, are paid to state governments, not the federal government) does not change the fact that some people do not pay federal income taxes.

No one is objecting to this, we're just arguing for some honesty in what the stimulus checks are called.

Please read SilentCal's response since he captures my point nicely.

Also, measly $300 is exactly right. $300 is not going to keep anyone afloat in this economy. And it isn't intended to. It's intended to be spent - on gas, on electricity, on milk, on bread, on rent or mortgage. The idea is to stimulate businesses not save someone who makes $3000. I don't begrudge anyone a few bucks. I would prefer that someone making $3000 a year get decent health care and not have to pay an arm and a leg for medications.

Yes. A few years ago, the Wall Street Journal editorial pages actually had the nerve to label people who are so poor that they are not required to pay income taxes 'lucky duckies'.

As if poor people should count themselves lucky.

I'm sure Angelo Mozillo would be happy to trade places with any of them.

Not.

run75441:

This has nothing to do with sales taxes, that is a red-herring argument.

And your understanding of the "rebate" is way off. It's not $200000 like you say, if you you are single, you start losing the rebate at $75,000 and lose it completely by $87000.

Where the hell did you get your $1 million figure from? You are either a lyar or just very bad with numbers.

By the way, $75,000 in Cali is not much money at all. Cost of living adjusted it amounts to about $30,000 in arizona or Cleveland, or whatever crappy midwest area you are from.

I am betting that idea would be very unpopular with Republicans.

I was against the whole idea of the economic 'stimulus' package, to begin with. The picture it conjures up in my mind is of Dr. Frankenstein and Igor, applying jolts of increasingly high-voltage electricity to the corpse of the American economy, trying to bring it back to life. The corpse is jerking around spasmodically, but not coming to life. Picture Ben Bernanke playing the role of Dr. Frankenstein, and George W. Bush starring in the role of Igor. [Heck, he even LOOKS like Igor.]

But, given that they had decided to send out stimulus checks, there happens to be good reasons for why it was designed as it was. Send out rebate checks to millionaires, and they are not likely to spend the money. Send those $300 or $600 checks to lower middle income and working poor, though, and the money is much more likely to be SPENT. They were trying to get 'the biggest bang for the buck'.

Don't you understand that??