Talk:Economic Stimulus Act of 2008

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaxationWikipedia:WikiProject TaxationTemplate:WikiProject TaxationTaxation articles

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bush family (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bush family, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Bush familyWikipedia:WikiProject Bush familyTemplate:WikiProject Bush familyBush family articles

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Hey, all. Noob entry, so any advice would be welcome, as long is it is actually helpful. Please edit as you see fit, I suspect information will be coming fast in furious in the next few days and weeks. Would love to see some good references added.

Regarding the origin of the actual word "confumbo", it came out of my exhaustion-adled brain during a conversation while on a long bike ride with a colleague in the mortage industry. This entry is a first step in establishing what I think might be a useful addition to the American English lexicon. Jhanken (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not a place for original research, and neologisms are to be avoided. I propose the article for deletion following Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Cenarium (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to add a citation to the H.R. bill; hopefully that qualifies me to remove the deletion tag since this is a notable piece of legislation in the United States (and I can't find another article on it yet). I don't think any original research exists since it seems to be a direct summary of the bill. --shadytrees (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to User:Marco polo for his expansion of the article. --shadytrees (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps add the expected date(s) that individual's will see their rebates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.80.239 (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Value

Ok... so when the Hell does this article turn into a record of a historical event and stop being a substitute for the IRS Q&A page or a political criticism? Points to include: 1) Who first proposed bill and when 2) Date bill was proposed in each house and who sponsored 3) Date bill passed committee in each house 4) Date bill put up for vote in each house

Name of article

The official name of the Act of Congress to which this article refers is "Economic Stimulus Act of 2008". The words "United States" do not appear in the name of the Act. Should the name of the article - and the name of the Act as shown in the article - be changed? Famspear (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I went ahead and changed it! Famspear (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question on the references

Reference 10 and 11 are identical. I am not knowledgeable enough to correct/edit the article with confidence. I suggest someone to apply appropriate action on those 2 references and how they are cited in the article. --Mondorescue (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are not the same. Although the article text is the same, the side bars and comments are different. I tried to use the appropriate article for the text in question. Dtaw2001 (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referencing from the comments section and/or the inset box, I suggest you specify that. Otherwise, it seems that you are citing two identical articles, which is redundant and confusing. --Mondorescue (talk) 07:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know what is up with the comment about reference 10 being some NPR April Fool's joke? --Mondorescue (talk) 07:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's no joke. Dtaw2001 (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stimulus check by mail if?

This article is the first time anywhere that i have seen that if you have used an online tax service and let them deduct their fee from your refund the stimulus check is sent by mail instead of direct deposit...So instead of getting mine april 28th i get to wait till like may20th. My last two digits are 10...woulda been first freaking day--96.13.244.117 (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

I made an edit to the website changing two links for calculating economic stimulus package from a commercial site which requires download (taxrebatecalculator.com by zango) to the IRS official calculator today. I may be wrong, but I think the IRS site is the best source for the information and without totally knowing all the Wikipedia policies I feel they'd discourage sponsorship of a particular site that requires a download of ad-sponsored material. Profiled by the media or not, the IRS [1] is the most authoritative source. Random9 sent me a message reading "please don't edit entries you dont know about. We made the Economic Stimulus Tax Rebate Calculator. It has been featured on all NBC.com and FOX.com affiliate and syndicate sites and WidgetBox.com. We added the post for the calculator to wiki as requested. Please don't modify the post any more. Please would prefer not to see the IRS till tax time." This sounds like commercial self-promotion. He seems to be spamming this entry with his edits. This isn't a personal attack, but a constructive criticism of his methods. I would like some other user input before I revert his changes. Thank you all. Somerut (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and changed it as I noticed all of the edits he had ever made were to link to domains he owned. This is shameless self-promotion for commercial gain. Input still invited. Somerut (talk) 09:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; I have been reverting the links too. His behavior is not allowed. Tb (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added links to two articles -- one that explains how military families who don't usually file a return can get a stimulus check, and another on suggested ways to spend it -- and both were removed. Neither was promotional in any way, shape or form. Just informative. Why were these removed when the information they presented was accurate and helpful? MarkD4700 (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One was a short opinion piece on 'how to spend your check', one was a very, very short explanation of the benefits which are well covered in better sources. Both were slapped in the middle of a spammy commercial site, which I presume from your editing pattern you have an association with. Kuru ^talk 23:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska PFD

I haven't been able to find any information on this, but it'd be something good to put in the article.

Does the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend count toward qualifying income? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigman19 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calculating Refund Amount

Who decided to charge taxes according to income, but refund according to how many mouths you feed? I know families with numerous kids who paid less in taxes last year than they received in their Economic Stimulus check. How about basing the "refund" on a percentage of adjusted gross income or a percentage of taxes paid instead. This is turning into a form of unofficial welfare. I'd sure like to have received more money back than I paid last year in taxes. -Speedeep (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rebate is limited to $1200, in the case of a married couple filing jointly. If a family received the maximum payout and paid less than that in taxes last year, then according to the 1040 tax table, they earned less than $10,600 combined -- which is the equivalent of one person working for federal minimum wage for about 10 months, and then taking a 7-week (unpaid) vacation. I suspect you're correlating "amount you pay/receive in April" with "tax paid". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.170.62 (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier refund means simpler process and less (or no) postage

If the decision was made earlier to give these refunds, we could have just added (if a refund was due) or subtracted (if taxes were due) right on our tax forms. This would have saved at least some of the $767 million the IRS estimated it cost them to issue these refunds after everyone filed their taxes. -Speedeep (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I heard that this program cost so much that everyone's going to have to pay 1100 additional dollars in tax, so we're actually in the red 500 dollars for the privilege. Can anyone find a source on that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 05:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How much given out?

Does anyone have the figure for total dollars the government is giving out? If so, can you add it to the article?--Jeff (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The government is expected to give out $152 billion for 2008 with an additional $124 billion to be spent over the next 10 years. However, the entire premise of this stimulus package is that the economy will get better and that the money we have borrowed (so far $152 billion) to pay for this stimulus package will be added to the national debt (now over $10 trillion) and paid back from the taxpayers in the future with interest. What happens if the economy doesn't get better but gets worse? Then you are stuck with more debt and less ability to stimulate the economy in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.128.214.182 (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard economist says the tax rebates were a failure

Harvard economist Martin Feldstein says the tax rebates were a failure:

"Recent government statistics show that only between 10% and 20% of the rebate dollars were spent. The rebates added nearly $80 billion to the permanent national debt but less than $20 billion to consumer spending. This experience confirms earlier studies showing that one-time tax rebates are not a cost-effective way to increase economic activity."[2]

Surprise, surprise... Unfortunately this is one of those "I told you so..." moments. I just don't understand how can I be smarter than all the politicians, who voted for it with such an excitement. :(

Credit or Deduction??

How will we be charged for the stimulus package. Will it reduce our deduction/increase our tax payment? What definite info is known. This should be elaborated by someone in the know. Maybe a new section. I am guessing we'll get a credit, but what if they stick us with the bill (here is your money to spend willy-nilly a year early, it'll hurt later but seems like free money now). Please answer this, it is a subject of much rumor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.162.1.42 (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if what happened to me when I filed my taxes this year is any indication, we are paying it back by having it taken out of our returns this year. I was docked $600 from my return, since TurboTax/TaxCut ask for what your received last year and then takes it out.Ancientflounder (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move page to Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 (United States)

Would anyone object to moving this page to Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 (United States) in light of other countries (e.g. China) passing their own economic stimulus acts this year (yes, I realize Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 is the official name in this case). OCNative (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

I don't know much about the housing bubble, so I'm just wondering: When the article says that limits were raised for the GSEs, were the limits designed to make real estate a more or less attractive investment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.191.70 (talk) 03:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]