If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Chicago Breaking News)   Here's what the new economic stimulus package will mean to you, other than having to hear about it in the news for the next six months   (chicagotribune.com) divider line 525
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

24893 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Feb 2009 at 1:09 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



525 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-02-12 11:07:16 AM
From another article:

The $500-per-worker credit for lower- and middle-income taxpayers that Obama outlined during his presidential campaign was scaled back to $400 during bargaining by the Democratic-controlled Congress and White House. Couples would receive $800 instead of $1,000. Over two years, that move would pump about $25 billion less into the economy than had been previously planned.

Officials estimated it would mean about $13 a week more in people's paychecks when withholding tables are adjusted in late spring.

Millions of Americans receiving unemployment benefits would see a $25-a-week increase in their checks.

Wait, wait, wait.

Working people only get $13-a-week more in their checks, but unemployed lazy people sitting on their asses at home watching Oprah get $25-a-week more in their checks? What is wrong with this picture? Well just about everything actually.
 
2009-02-12 11:20:17 AM
Walker: From another article:

The $500-per-worker credit for lower- and middle-income taxpayers that Obama outlined during his presidential campaign was scaled back to $400 during bargaining by the Democratic-controlled Congress and White House. Couples would receive $800 instead of $1,000. Over two years, that move would pump about $25 billion less into the economy than had been previously planned.

Officials estimated it would mean about $13 a week more in people's paychecks when withholding tables are adjusted in late spring.

Millions of Americans receiving unemployment benefits would see a $25-a-week increase in their checks.

Wait, wait, wait.

Working people only get $13-a-week more in their checks, but unemployed lazy people sitting on their asses at home watching Oprah get $25-a-week more in their checks? What is wrong with this picture? Well just about everything actually.


Unemployment benefits are completely different from welfare. Last year I was on unemployment for a few months, and those extra few dollars can go a long way when you have problems looking for work.

Unemployment is a short-term (up to a year, depending on the state, I think) benefit that specifically helps people who have lost their employment and are looking for new work. I had to come in to the employment office occasionally and demonstrate that I was actively pursuing a job.
 
2009-02-12 11:25:47 AM
Also, unemployment benefits are considered taxable income. A portion is withheld, and you might have to pay some back depending on the rest of your income.

I found that out doing my taxes last week.
 
2009-02-12 11:42:09 AM
Stop wasting my time
You know what I want
You know what I need
Or maybe you don't

Do I have to come right flat out and tell you everything?
Gimme some money, gimme some money
 
2009-02-12 12:04:47 PM
Workers making less than $75,000 a year would get a $400 credit for 2009 and 2010. Couples making up to $150,000 would get $800.

Sweet.

Homeowners who install new doors, windows or furnaces to make their homes more energy-efficient would get as much as $1,500 back through new tax breaks.

Sweet, we were planning on getting new doors and windows anyway.

Walker: Working people only get $13-a-week more in their checks, but unemployed lazy people sitting on their asses at home watching Oprah get $25-a-week more in their checks? What is wrong with this picture? Well just about everything actually.

No, people on UNEMPLOYMENT get $25 more a week. These are people who, through no fault of their own, LOST THEIR JOBS.

As someone who was on unemployment for about a month, and who credits it with helping him keep his house, I'd say this is a Good Thing™
 
wee [TotalFark]
2009-02-12 12:15:08 PM
Bloody William: Unemployment benefits are completely different from welfare.

Yeah. Unemployment is short-term. Welfare can be forever.

But anyway: Isn't it nice that your kids and grandkids can give you money?
 
2009-02-12 12:18:02 PM
It comes out to about $30 a paycheck for my family. Not great but not bad. That will buy a tank of gas for now. The education stuff help me too since I'm going to school 2/3 time as well as working. I'm expecting to be unemployed at some point this year so it' nice to see the other stuff too. none of it is really enough to make a huge difference, but I suppose it's only about keeping the tires patched, not buying new ones.
 
2009-02-12 12:35:52 PM
wee: Bloody William: Unemployment benefits are completely different from welfare.

Yeah. Unemployment is short-term. Welfare can be forever.

But anyway: Isn't it nice that your kids and grandkids can give you money?


Unemployment insurance is paid, at least partly, by your employer (in the event that they let you go without fault). Try again.
 
2009-02-12 12:55:45 PM
Based on these numbers, I expect my check to just about cover the cost of a Big Mac.
 
2009-02-12 01:03:45 PM
timujin: Based on these numbers, I expect my check to just about cover the cost of a Big Mac.

$13 per week means a $676 tax credit per year.
 
2009-02-12 01:12:35 PM
FINALLY I CAN SUPERSIZE MY KIDS' HAPPY MEALS

FREE AT LAST
 
2009-02-12 01:14:41 PM
This one pisses me off: Home Buyers: but it is substantially less than a proposal in the Senate bill that would have boosted the credit to $15,000

I'm selling my house and the couple looking at was waiting until this passed so they could get this credit.

Now...not so sure.

Something that could help boost the housing market? Nah, we don't need that.

Dumbasses.
 
2009-02-12 01:14:47 PM
Based on these numbers, I expect zero, nada... thanks for nuttin'
 
2009-02-12 01:14:48 PM
I don't get any extra money because I'm single and I make over $100k. This is so unfair. Save me Republican Jesus!
 
2009-02-12 01:14:49 PM
Wake me when my house is back to being "worth" what it was in 2001. Only then will this BS be over and the dust have settled.
 
2009-02-12 01:14:55 PM
Dammit. Thanks for that first time homebuyer bonus...two years too late.
 
2009-02-12 01:15:10 PM
No wonder we're farked as a country... look at all the greedy assholes clamoring for MOAR.

DIAF.
 
2009-02-12 01:15:29 PM
I can't stop stimulating my package.
 
2009-02-12 01:16:06 PM
You know, if we had the FairTax, you could keep all of your paycheck, instead of just $13 more.
 
2009-02-12 01:16:33 PM
WOW!!!! Jesus Christ, I feel so economically stimulated that pennies are shooting out of my shwantz! Blam! Pow! Beeeyow!
 
2009-02-12 01:16:46 PM
Thank God they didn't give it to rich people (in the form of tax cuts) so they could go invest it in their China stocks.
 
2009-02-12 01:16:56 PM
rodeofrog: I can't stop stimulating my package.

Think about taxes. It always works for me.
 
2009-02-12 01:17:02 PM
"Workers making less than $75,000 a year would get a $400 credit for 2009 and 2010. Couples making up to $150,000 would get $800."

Remember back in early 2008 when Democrats were pushing for a roughly $150 billion stimulus in rebate checks to taxpayers?

The biggest argument was "We have to hurry and do this! If we take too long, it will be too late!" And then they got it out the door in a hurry, just in time to fix everything? And we avoided a recession, and everyone looks back and regards that $150 billion as money well spent?

Good times. Good times.
 
2009-02-12 01:17:10 PM
The increase in my paycheck will be so small that nothing in my household will change. $400/26= $15, yay I can afford a nice lunch once every two weeks now.

If they were going to do this, it would have been better for the economy if they'd just said "we're going to give you that tax break as a lump sum payment" instead of reducing your payroll taxes over the entire year. You can purchase something (or pay a bill) with a $400 check (or $800 if a working couple); not so much with $15 every two weeks.
 
2009-02-12 01:17:42 PM
farkuufarkinfark: You know, if we had the FairTax, you could keep all of your paycheck, instead of just $13 more.

I hear a lot of positive attributes about this Fair Tax. Are there any drawbacks?
 
2009-02-12 01:17:56 PM
"It is time to sober up and return to free market sanity, risk and reward, supply and demand, without political intervention. Politicians are good at catering to the needs of special interests, but very bad at determining what needs to take place in the market. Government should stick to punishing fraud and enforcing contracts. When they use the tax code, bureaucratic departments and their manipulative rules and regulations to dictate social and economic behavior, we end up with distortions and malinvestments. Bailing out banks, continuing failed Fed policies and strapping the taxpayer with toxic debt will worsen the pain, and punish the innocent.

"If Congress really wanted to do something helpful, it would cut taxes. Ideally, we would repeal the income tax altogether and get the IRS off the economy's back, which would be a huge boon. We should also cut spending. Cut every unconstitutional department and program, every wasteful governmental encroachment on the people's liberty and money, starting with our massive overseas empire. The cost of our empire is bringing us to our knees, just as the Soviets' empire did to them. Congress should also abolish the Federal Reserve and take back its responsibilities to ensure sound money, safe from the manipulations of powerful banking interests.

"These things would constitute real change, real economic stimulus. The plans being bandied about Washington are just more of the same. As long as no one seriously considers the cure, we are unfortunately destined to prolong the disease." - Congressman Ron Paul


You know: the guy who voted against the Patriot act (which Obama supports), is against Faith Based programs (which Obama supports), is against rewarding the failure of the banks (which Obama supports).

You idiots elected the wrong guy...again.
 
2009-02-12 01:18:09 PM
The nutzoid radio guy said we were all going to get a new car, kitchen, and college degrees. What happened? Sometimes I wonder if he's telling the truth.
 
2009-02-12 01:18:16 PM
I'm getting ready to quit my job and go on the system so I'm really getting a kick...

/Thanks for the free money Farkers!
 
2009-02-12 01:18:49 PM
Workers making less than $75,000 a year would get a $400 credit for 2009 and 2010. Couples making up to $150,000 would get $800.

This seems a little backwards to me. If the other half and I were making 150k, we really wouldn't be in dire need for an extra $800. Wouldn't it be more beneficial to give those making less a better deal? Seriously, how is $400 going to really make a difference?
 
2009-02-12 01:19:42 PM
wee: Bloody William: Unemployment benefits are completely different from welfare.

Yeah. Unemployment is short-term. Welfare can be forever.

But anyway: Isn't it nice that your kids and grandkids can give you money?


Welfare maxes out at 5 years due to changes made in the late 90s IIRC.
 
2009-02-12 01:20:09 PM
Spanky_McFarksalot: This one pisses me off: Home Buyers: but it is substantially less than a proposal in the Senate bill that would have boosted the credit to $15,000

I'm selling my house and the couple looking at was waiting until this passed so they could get this credit.

Now...not so sure.

Something that could help boost the housing market? Nah, we don't need that.

Dumbasses.


except that unlike the previous credit this one doesn't have to be repaid... so thats more of a plus

than again i am a fool who bought my first house on dec 19... grrr... nothing for me... well nothing that i don't have to repay.
 
2009-02-12 01:20:17 PM
Bendal: The increase in my paycheck will be so small that nothing in my household will change. $400/26= $15, yay I can afford a nice lunch once every two weeks now.

If they were going to do this, it would have been better for the economy if they'd just said "we're going to give you that tax break as a lump sum payment" instead of reducing your payroll taxes over the entire year. You can purchase something (or pay a bill) with a $400 check (or $800 if a working couple); not so much with $15 every two weeks.


People save lump sums because it comes in over their budget. People spend paycheck increases because they increase their budget. This is what you want in a stimulus.
 
2009-02-12 01:20:23 PM
Sapper_Topo: I'm getting ready to quit my job and go on the system

If you quit you don't get unemployment. You need to get fired.

Then, oh lordy, you get everything. Cars, women, a new house, free beer on Tuesdays.

I don't know why I waited so long.
 
2009-02-12 01:20:29 PM
Rapmaster2000: farkuufarkinfark: You know, if we had the FairTax, you could keep all of your paycheck, instead of just $13 more.

I hear a lot of positive attributes about this Fair Tax. Are there any drawbacks?



George Lakoff and Bruce Budner: Progressive Taxation: Some Hidden Truths
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Mon, 04/16/2007 - 8:45am. Guest Contribution
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by George Lakoff and Bruce Budner
At this time of year, it seems there are only two things certain in life: taxes and anxiety about taxes. Instead of the perennial talk of a simplified tax form, how about a simplified understanding of the progressive values that underlie our tradition of progressive taxation?
Such an understanding won't move the tax deadline. But it might eliminate some of the anxiety. Understanding the hidden truths behind progressive taxation might also lead to more coherent - and more just - tax policies.
Progressive taxation - taxing the wealthy at higher rates than the poor -- is a moral issue. Like many moral issues, it sparks heated debate. The debate is borne of conflicting worldviews, values, and understandings of values. But as we at the Rockridge Institute have written, when progressives understand the values and ideas that underlie their positions on issues, they can articulate arguments authentically and with greater persuasive force. These arguments will appeal to those whom we call biconceptuals -- the great majority of Americans whose worldviews borrow in various ways from both progressive and conservative values.
America's government has at least two fundamental functions, protection and empowerment. Protection includes the police, firefighters, emergency services, public health, and the military. Empowerment includes the infrastructure needed for business and everyday life: roads, communications systems, water supplies, public education, the banking system for loans and economic stability, the SEC for the stock market, the courts for enforcing contracts, air traffic control, support for basic science, and our national parks and public buildings. We are usually aware of protection. But the empowerment infrastructure, provided by taxes, is usually taken for granted, hidden, or ignored. Yet it is absolutely crucial, a fundamental truth about America and why America provides opportunity.
This is a basic truth. That is what framing should be about: revealing truths and allowing us to reason using them.
Taxes are part of our common wealth, what we all share. Protection and empowerment serve the common good. Because of our common wealth, we are all protected and America's empowering infrastructure is available to all. That is a fundamental America value: the common wealth should serve the common good. It benefits everyone.
Citizens are financially responsible to maintain this common wealth. If we shirked this responsibility, we could not maintain our roads, fund our schools, protect ourselves from military threats, and enforce our laws. Equally importantly, we could not create prosperity for ourselves, because we would have no protection of our intellectual property, no oversight of our markets, no means to enforce our contracts, no way to educate most of our children.
Several main progressive values support the idea of progressive taxation. One is the belief that the common wealth should be used for the common good. Another is responsibility, the responsibility that citizens have to pay for the benefits we receive from our common wealth. And still another is fairness. These values intertwine on the question of progressive taxation.
Few people dispute this responsibility at some level. Disagreements generally arise over the amount and the relative apportionment of the responsibility. Differing concepts of fairness drive this debate. While many progressives say it is only fair that those who earn more pay a higher percentage of their earnings as taxes compared to those who have difficulty making ends meet, conservatives respond by asserting that it is unfair to "punish" the financially successful by making them pay more.
An important point often lost in this debate is an appreciation that the common wealth, which our taxes create and sustain, empowers the wealthy in myriad ways to create their wealth. We call this compound empowerment -- the compounded use of the common wealth by corporations, their investors, and other wealthy individuals.
Consider Bill Gates. He started Microsoft as a college dropout and has become the world's richest person. Though he has undoubtedly benefited from his unusual intelligence and business acumen, he could not have created or sustained his personal wealth without the common wealth. The legal system protected Microsoft's intellectual property and contracts. The tax-supported financial infrastructure enabled him to access capital markets and trade his stock in a market in which investors have confidence. He built his company with many employees educated in public schools and universities. Tax-funded research helped develop computer science and the Internet. Trade laws negotiated and enforced by the government protect his ability to sell his products abroad. These are but a few of the ways in which Mr. Gates' accumulation of wealth was empowered by the common wealth and by taxation.
As Warren Buffet famously observed, he likely couldn't have achieved his financial success had he been born in Bangladesh instead of the United States, because Bangladesh had no banking system and no stock market.
Ordinary people just drive on the highways; corporations send fleets of trucks. Ordinary people may get a bank loan for their mortgage; corporations borrow money to buy whole companies. Ordinary people rarely use the courts; most of the courts are used for corporate law and contract disputes. Corporations and their investors -- those who have accumulated enough money beyond basic needs so they can invest -- make much more use, compound use, of the empowering infrastructure provided by everybody's tax money.
The wealthy have made greater use of the common good -- they have been empowered by it in creating their wealth -- and thus they have a greater moral obligation to sustain it. They are merely paying their debt to society in arrears and investing in future empowerment.
This is the fundamental truth that motivates progressive taxation.
It is a truth that undercuts conservative arguments about taxation. Taxes provide and maintain the protecting and empowering infrastructure that makes our income possible.
Our tax forms hide this truth. They do not indicate the extent to which taxes have created and sustained the common wealth so you could earn what you have. They make it look like the empowering infrastructure was just put there by magic and that the government is taking money out of your pocket. The most likely truth is that, through the common wealth, America put more money in your pocket than it took out -- by far.
But this situation is threatened by conservative tax policy. Through unfair cuts in taxes paid by the wealthy, through payment for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and through borrowing abroad to pay for the tax cuts and Iraq, the common wealth is being drained and the infrastructure allowed to fall apart. We need to return to a fair tax policy that recognizes financial responsibility incurred by the compound use of America's empowering infrastructure.
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
George Lakoff is a Senior Fellow at the Rockridge Institute. Bruce Budner is the executive director of the Rockridge Institute.
 
2009-02-12 01:20:30 PM
IXI Jim IXI: Dammit. Thanks for that first time homebuyer bonus...two years too late.

Looks like I'm going to luck out on that one. My closing is tomorrow.

So if I'm reading this and other stories correctly, even though I buy the house in 2009, I can get that credit on my 2008 taxes that I'm working on now, right?
 
2009-02-12 01:21:29 PM
Xenomech: "It is time to sober up and return to free market sanity, risk and reward, supply and demand, without political intervention. Politicians are good at catering to the needs of special interests, but very bad at determining what needs to take place in the market. Government should stick to punishing fraud and enforcing contracts. When they use the tax code, bureaucratic departments and their manipulative rules and regulations to dictate social and economic behavior, we end up with distortions and malinvestments. Bailing out banks, continuing failed Fed policies and strapping the taxpayer with toxic debt will worsen the pain, and punish the innocent.

"If Congress really wanted to do something helpful, it would cut taxes. Ideally, we would repeal the income tax altogether and get the IRS off the economy's back, which would be a huge boon. We should also cut spending. Cut every unconstitutional department and program, every wasteful governmental encroachment on the people's liberty and money, starting with our massive overseas empire. The cost of our empire is bringing us to our knees, just as the Soviets' empire did to them. Congress should also abolish the Federal Reserve and take back its responsibilities to ensure sound money, safe from the manipulations of powerful banking interests.

"These things would constitute real change, real economic stimulus. The plans being bandied about Washington are just more of the same. As long as no one seriously considers the cure, we are unfortunately destined to prolong the disease." - Congressman Ron Paul

You know: the guy who voted against the Patriot act (which Obama supports), is against Faith Based programs (which Obama supports), is against rewarding the failure of the banks (which Obama supports).

You idiots elected the wrong guy...again.


That's DR. RON PAUL! He's a DOCTOR. Get it right.
 
2009-02-12 01:21:30 PM
Psylence: No wonder we're farked as a country... look at all the greedy assholes clamoring for MOAR.

DIAF.


We're going to need more to keep this country afloat. Better prepare your sphincter for about half-way through the year for another one. I suggest using your fingers and working up to large cucumbers.
 
2009-02-12 01:22:02 PM
img24.imageshack.us
 
2009-02-12 01:22:08 PM
So lets just say, for example...

Some random guy makes just over $75K a year - his wife stays at home with their child and has one on the way. This family lives in a city (oh, lets just say Chicago) - this person knows living in the city costs more, but is able to save a lot in annual transportation costs.

Am I missing something here - or is this random person not getting anything in this package - not like he feels it is owed to him at all, but he thinks it is odd.
 
2009-02-12 01:22:11 PM
I'z lubs dis socalizm!!!
 
2009-02-12 01:22:55 PM
Xenomech: "It is time to sober up and return to free market sanity, risk and reward, supply and demand, without political intervention. Politicians are good at catering to the needs of special interests, but very bad at determining what needs to take place in the market. Government should stick to punishing fraud and enforcing contracts. When they use the tax code, bureaucratic departments and their manipulative rules and regulations to dictate social and economic behavior, we end up with distortions and malinvestments. Bailing out banks, continuing failed Fed policies and strapping the taxpayer with toxic debt will worsen the pain, and punish the innocent.

"If Congress really wanted to do something helpful, it would cut taxes. Ideally, we would repeal the income tax altogether and get the IRS off the economy's back, which would be a huge boon. We should also cut spending. Cut every unconstitutional department and program, every wasteful governmental encroachment on the people's liberty and money, starting with our massive overseas empire. The cost of our empire is bringing us to our knees, just as the Soviets' empire did to them. Congress should also abolish the Federal Reserve and take back its responsibilities to ensure sound money, safe from the manipulations of powerful banking interests.

"These things would constitute real change, real economic stimulus. The plans being bandied about Washington are just more of the same. As long as no one seriously considers the cure, we are unfortunately destined to prolong the disease." - Congressman Ron Paul


You know: the guy who voted against the Patriot act (which Obama supports), is against Faith Based programs (which Obama supports), is against rewarding the failure of the banks (which Obama supports).

You idiots elected the wrong guy...again.



Oh, shut the fark up.

I mean I agree with cutting unconstitutional programs, but to strip a debted nation of one of its only reliable sources of income in the middle of a crisis might be bad form, no?
 
2009-02-12 01:23:03 PM
Der Vassermeister: Rapmaster2000: farkuufarkinfark: You know, if we had the FairTax, you could keep all of your paycheck, instead of just $13 more.

I hear a lot of positive attributes about this Fair Tax. Are there any drawbacks?


George Lakoff and Bruce Budner: Progressive Taxation: Some Hidden Truths
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Mon, 04/16/2007 - 8:45am. Guest Contribution
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by George Lakoff and Bruce Budner
At this time of year, it seems there are only two things certain in life: taxes and anxiety about taxes. Instead of the perennial talk of a simplified tax form, how about a simplified understanding of the progressive values that underlie our tradition of progressive taxation?
Such an understanding won't move the tax deadline. But it might eliminate some of the anxiety. Understanding the hidden truths behind progressive taxation might also lead to more coherent - and more just - tax policies.
Progressive taxation - taxing the wealthy at higher rates than the poor -- is a moral issue. Like many moral issues, it sparks heated debate. The debate is borne of conflicting worldviews, values, and understandings of values. But as we at the Rockridge Institute have written, when progressives understand the values and ideas that underlie their positions on issues, they can articulate arguments authentically and with greater persuasive force. These arguments will appeal to those whom we call biconceptuals -- the great majority of Americans whose worldviews borrow in various ways from both progressive and conservative values.
America's government has at least two fundamental functions, protection and empowerment. Protection includes the police, firefighters, emergency services, public health, and the military. Empowerment includes the infrastructure needed for business and everyday life: roads, communications systems, water supplies, public education, the banking system for loans and economic stability, the SEC for the stock market, the courts for enforcing contracts, air traffic control, support for basic science, and our national parks and public buildings. We are usually aware of protection. But the empowerment infrastructure, provided by taxes, is usually taken for granted, hidden, or ignored. Yet it is absolutely crucial, a fundamental truth about America and why America provides opportunity.
This is a basic truth. That is what framing should be about: revealing truths and allowing us to reason using them.
Taxes are part of our common wealth, what we all share. Protection and empowerment serve the common good. Because of our common wealth, we are all protected and America's empowering infrastructure is available to all. That is a fundamental America value: the common wealth should serve the common good. It benefits everyone.
Citizens are financially responsible to maintain this common wealth. If we shirked this responsibility, we could not maintain our roads, fund our schools, protect ourselves from military threats, and enforce our laws. Equally importantly, we could not create prosperity for ourselves, because we would have no protection of our intellectual property, no oversight of our markets, no means to enforce our contracts, no way to educate most of our children.
Several main progressive values support the idea of progressive taxation. One is the belief that the common wealth should be used for the common good. Another is responsibility, the responsibility that citizens have to pay for the benefits we receive from our common wealth. And still another is fairness. These values intertwine on the question of progressive taxation.
Few people dispute this responsibility at some level. Disagreements generally arise over the amount and the relative apportionment of the responsibility. Differing concepts of fairness drive this debate. While many progressives say it is only fair that those who earn more pay a higher percentage of their earnings as taxes compared to those who have difficulty making ends meet, conservatives respond by asserting that it is unfair to "punish" the financially successful by making them p ...


When your boss asks you for some issues surrounding a problem do you cut and paste some guy from the internet or do you give him some bullet points?
 
2009-02-12 01:23:07 PM
Don't you just have to pay that $15,000 first time home buyer thing right back in two years?
 
2009-02-12 01:23:43 PM
junglegoddess: IXI Jim IXI: Dammit. Thanks for that first time homebuyer bonus...two years too late.

Looks like I'm going to luck out on that one. My closing is tomorrow.

So if I'm reading this and other stories correctly, even though I buy the house in 2009, I can get that credit on my 2008 taxes that I'm working on now, right?


my understanding is that you don't claim it on your 2008 but there is a form to file to claim it in advance of your 2009.
 
2009-02-12 01:24:03 PM
So in other words, if you aren't buying a house, you won't really be seeing any significant difference at all.

WHERE IS ALL THE MONEY GOING?

We are talking about an EIGHT HUNDRED BILLION dollar package!

How many workers are there in the country? Lets just say 150 million.

If you took that 800 billion, and decided to just divide it out into equal stimulus checks, that would be $5,400 per tax payer.

I think giving everyone a five thousand dollar check would kick start the damn economy a lot more than this crap.
 
2009-02-12 01:24:06 PM
tartie_pants: except that unlike the previous credit this one doesn't have to be repaid... so thats more of a plus

Thanks, I didn't know that. I thought the $15k didn't have to be repaid either. This owuld be better then. I'll be sure to let the realtor know as well. If it works, a beer is coming your way.
 
2009-02-12 01:24:13 PM
$13 a week is change you can believe in.
 
2009-02-12 01:24:15 PM
Billy Ligue: Based on these numbers, I expect zero, nada... thanks for nuttin'

If my limited coursework in economics taught me anything, if you work at all (for a business that deserves to exist), you will see the benefits of other's people's money circulating.

If you are on a fixed income, then you wouldn't see said benefits.

If you are a day trader or something like that, you may see local investment opportunities.
 
2009-02-12 01:24:18 PM
xebeche_tzu
Wake me when my house is back to being "worth" what it was in 2001. Only then will this BS be over and the dust have settled.


Thread over. That is exactly what needs to happen. Continuing to prop up artificially high house prices with more subsidizes will not solve anything.
 
2009-02-12 01:24:35 PM
I was expecting more in the vision department. I mean, putting the money through normal gov't channels (Dept of Transportaion, etc) only ensures massive waste even without earmarks. Transparency my ass; most of the 800 billion will go to the same operators who worked the Big Dig until it was 14 billion over budget.

I was hoping that Obama would use his TV time last week to announce some mind-blowingly big project that would put people to work, like maybe a dam three times the size of Hoover dam on the Missouri, or something truly new and huge that would address both the need for jobs and also served to move us away from fossil fuels and greenhouse emissions.

Guess I'll go back to reading sci-fi. Politics is so depressing.
 
Displayed 50 of 525 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report