1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Federal Rebate Checks

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Italian_Stallion, Jan 24, 2008.

  1. Hammer Pants

    Hammer Pants Active Member

    I'm going to spend $200-$250 of it on something fun and dump the rest into savings, probably.
     
  2. Details from washingtonpost.com:

    Under the deal, nearly everyone earning a paycheck would receive at least $300 from the Internal Revenue Service. Most workers would receive rebates of $600 each, or $1,200 per couple. Families with children would receive an additional payment of $300 per child. Workers who earned at least $3,000 last year -- but not enough to pay income taxes -- would be eligible for $300.

    Overall, 117 million families will receive a rebate check, including 35 million with incomes too low to have qualified under the earlier Bush proposal. Those 35 million families will receive rebates totalling $28 billion.

    Rebates would be limited, however, to single taxpayers who earned up to $75,000 or couples with incomes of as much as $150,000.
     
  3. andyouare?

    andyouare? Guest

    Sweet! I'm getting $1,500? I love you George!

    I've changed my mind: Huckabee '08!
     
  4. OnTheRiver

    OnTheRiver Active Member

    By the above formula, that one family in Arkansas is gonna get back like $23,000 by the time the guhvment tallies up all the youngins.
     
  5. Italian_Stallion

    Italian_Stallion Active Member

    Since some people seem to be interested in the whole injured Iraq War vet analogy, I took the time to do a cursory check.

    Apparently, Veterans Affairs pays out $115 to $2,471 per month depending upon the level of disability. Additionally, a person could get additional amounts if they have a spouse and/or children, lost a limb, etc.

    But $2,500 a month is $30,000 a year. I suppose they might pay a parapalegic $50,000 a year. But maybe it's only $35,000 or so. Whatever the case, I'd be a little pissed to find out the guy next door with two working legs and a family income of $140,000 just bought a new TV with the government's money.
     
  6. micropolitan guy

    micropolitan guy Well-Known Member

    Pay some bills. Pay some other bills. And then pay some bills.
     
  7. Hammer Pants

    Hammer Pants Active Member

    As much as it pains me to say this — because I'm not a huge fan of this president — shouldn't we all spend the money (or put it on credit card debt, which thank God, I have avoided)? Shouldn't we spend the money and see if we can boost the economy? I mean, Democrat or Republican, we don't want to fuck up the economy any more, right?

    Maybe I'm just missing the point. I was always a smart kid, but I sucked at Economics.
     
  8. Flying Headbutt

    Flying Headbutt Moderator Staff Member

    It would take care of most of my credit card debt, which isn't that high compared to others I know. This is still something that makes zero sense to me though.
     
  9. OnTheRiver

    OnTheRiver Active Member

    Ain't the government's money. It's his.
     
  10. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    No worries, Hammer. I'll spend twice as much as I get in the hopes to counter the effects of un-American savings account depositors.
     
  11. 93Devil

    93Devil Well-Known Member

    If I was smart, I would take the 1,200 (married) and drop it into a down payment on a townhome that I could rent to some poor slobs who lost their home (and credit rating) to a sub prime mortgage.

    But it will go into savings and thus eventually turn into 1 1/2 months of daycare.
     
  12. Italian_Stallion

    Italian_Stallion Active Member

    Okay, since this thread has taken some noteworthy turns, I'll go ahead and say up front that I'm aware lots of folks will disagree with this opinion, but I'll offer it anyway...

    It's morally reprehensible for the government to shell out $1,200 to a child-less couple earning enough dough to afford a pair of BMWs (read $125,000 plus) while there are people in this country living in shacks and tents. I don't care if they're crazy as shit and already draw government checks. I don't care if you think they're "trailer trash" as someone has said.

    I know. I'm a socialist. I'm a bleeding-heart liberal. I don't care what label you choose. It's morally reprehensible.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page