TAXMAN Posted March 7, 2008 Report Share Posted March 7, 2008 Did I read that even a deceased person in 07 with/without a tax liability can get this money? Does same rule apply where one spouse died on 07, jt return being filed more than 1200 tax liability can get this money? What you'all think? Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grandmabee Posted March 7, 2008 Report Share Posted March 7, 2008 Did I read that even a deceased person in 07 with/without a tax liability can get this money? Does same rule apply where one spouse died on 07, jt return being filed more than 1200 tax liability can get this money? What you'all think? Thanks YES Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAXBILLY Posted March 7, 2008 Report Share Posted March 7, 2008 http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=177937,00.html taxbilly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrisbry Posted March 7, 2008 Report Share Posted March 7, 2008 Did I read that even a deceased person in 07 with/without a tax liability can get this money? Does same rule apply where one spouse died on 07, jt return being filed more than 1200 tax liability can get this money? What you'all think? Thanks Now that has to be about the most insane thing I have ever heard -- issuing rebates to taxpayers who died in 2007. I wonder how many nights sleep was lost before they came up with that one. How many people died in the U.S. in 2007? One site said roughly 2.4 MILLION. Even if just HALF qualify, take that times a minimum of $300 -- Those rebates are going to cost taxpayers over $350 million! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacun Posted March 7, 2008 Report Share Posted March 7, 2008 "Those rebates are going to cost taxpayers over $350 million!" Not really. It is coming from taxpayers to taxpayers. Imagine that you have $350 million on your right pocket, and you move them to your left pocket. It doesn't make any difference if you have both hands and both pockets are big enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LindaB Posted March 7, 2008 Report Share Posted March 7, 2008 "Those rebates are going to cost taxpayers over $350 million!" Not really. It is coming from taxpayers to taxpayers. Imagine that you have $350 million on your right pocket, and you move them to your left pocket. It doesn't make any difference if you have both hands and both pockets are big enough. No, the government doesn't have the 350 million, they have to borrow it. It will end up costing our children and grandchildren much more when they have finished paying the interest on the borrowed money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacun Posted March 7, 2008 Report Share Posted March 7, 2008 And it borrows it because it has income coming from taxpayers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LindaB Posted March 7, 2008 Report Share Posted March 7, 2008 And it borrows it because it has income coming from taxpayers. They will borrow and add it to the huge national debt of almost 9.4 TRILLION dollars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrisbry Posted March 7, 2008 Report Share Posted March 7, 2008 And it borrows it because it has income coming from taxpayers. But no income coming from the deceased taxpayers who are benefiting from the rebate. For instance, in my situation, my father passed away in 2007. He qualifies for the $300 rebate. He does not have to file a return for 2008. As a result, I have to keep the Trust account open until we receive this rebate so that I can disperse $50 to each beneficiaries. Ok, that opens up a new question. I'll start a new thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnH Posted March 7, 2008 Report Share Posted March 7, 2008 Our parents' & grandparents' generations borrowed heavily to pay for WWII, get out of the depression, weather recessions, win the cold war, and various other reasons. Not all those borrowings were smart and we'd all like to have a few do-overs, but by & large we don't seem to be suffering for their "irresponsible" borrowing. I think our kids & grandkids can handle the debt we are passing along to them, provided we use the money to keep the economy afloat and hopefully make progress in the war against religious fanatics who would prefer to put us back in the dark ages. They should be thanking us in the same manner that we should be thanking our preceding generations for having some foresight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacun Posted March 7, 2008 Report Share Posted March 7, 2008 I thought we have discussed this before. Imagine that you are the head of a mansion. You are not the millionaire but your family lives richly in comparison to other households and you have millionaires in your household. Your family is huge, and you have doctors, lawyers, millionaires, gardeners, dishwashers, etc. Your mansion and its infrastructure is worth it $100 millions. You owe $10millions and you want to give the gardeners and dishwashers of your family another $10 million dollars and you want to borrow it. The dishwashers will spend most of this money in your mansion. What's the big deal about this? Your assets are much… much more that your debts. Let me tell you another story... I have a huge Cotton Plantation. I pay my workers, they pay taxes on what they make. At the end of the year, I sell my cotton and I pay taxes on my profit. The factory that processes my cotton pays employees, employees pay their taxes, the factory also pays taxes. Levi’s buys fabrics from the factory hires employees, employees pay taxes, Levi’s pays taxes. Levi’s outlet pays employees, employees pay taxes, outlet also pays taxes. Consumers buy from Levi’s, it is not tax deductible. If consumers do not have money to buy, none of the taxable events would take place. Now from the states point of view, I live DC and I go to New York to buy Levi’s. I pay taxes when I buy them to NY, then I bring them to DC to resell them, I charge taxes to my clients for DC. Without taxes, the net cost of items would be very low. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacun Posted March 7, 2008 Report Share Posted March 7, 2008 "But no income coming from the deceased taxpayers who are benefiting from the rebate." As long as the refund is not burried with the dead person, the government will benefit at some point. (see my big answer above) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneInAlabama Posted March 7, 2008 Report Share Posted March 7, 2008 The government is giving the rebates so that we will go out and buy more goods that are made in other countries. Most of those rebates are going overseas. How is that helping America? Gene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacun Posted March 7, 2008 Report Share Posted March 7, 2008 The government is giving the rebates so that we will go out and buy more goods that are made in other countries. Most of those rebates are going overseas. How is that helping America? Gene I am glad your ancestors didn't see the world as narrow as you see it, otherwise the U.S. would not be a super power after globalization came into the picture. I do not want to start explaning about the Internet and globalization on this forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jainen Posted March 7, 2008 Report Share Posted March 7, 2008 >>It will end up costing our children and grandchildren much more<< Not necessarily, because they get to pay it back with much cheaper dollars. On the day of the election that brought the current administration to power, the dollar traded against the euro for 85 cents. Today it's north of $1.55, a loss of more than 80% of it's value. That is to say, your value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.