Economic Stimulus Bill passes

MUDSHARK

MUDSHARK

Audioholic Chief
Summary of bill:

Feb. 14, 2008 - The economic stimulus bill that the White House and Congress agreed was needed was signed by the President today. After stalling in the Senate for a week, the bill was passed by an 81-16 vote on February 8. Within hours, the House sent the economic stimulus bill to the President’s desk with a lopsided 380-34 vote. The $151.7 billion stimulus package closely resembles the original House bill, H.R. 5140, passed on January 29 by an overwhelming majority and with full White House support. That proposal relied on personal income tax rebates and temporary 50% bonus depreciation and expanded section 179 limits to encourage business investment. The Senate’s weeklong attempt to add additional measures to the bill failed. The amendment only added tax rebates to low-income seniors and disabled veterans and temporarily raised the limits on government-sponsored enterprises conforming loans and on loans the Federal Housing Administration can insure. Controversial items such as increased unemployment assistance, energy tax incentives, and additional funding for the low-income home energy assistance program were absent from the final bill. In a news release issued February 13, the IRS said it would automatically start sending rebate payments in May based on taxpayers 2007 income tax returns.

While media attention on the economic stimulus package recently signed by President Bush has focused on the rebate checks that will be distributed soon to most individual taxpayers, the package includes two other provisions of interest to businesses and their owners.

· Bonus depreciation for purchases of new equipment or fixed assets. Companies purchasing qualifying new equipment or assets can depreciate an additional 50% of the value of those assets in the first year, significantly accelerating their depreciation benefits.

· Section 179 limits almost doubled. The limit on the Section 179 deduction, which allows qualifying businesses to expense certain purchases instead of depreciating them over time, is essentially doubled to $250,000.

· Higher limits for conforming mortgage loans. The stimulus package also allows Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to purchase loans as high as $729,750, up from the current limit of $417,000. This will result in a much higher threshold before a mortgage is considered a “Jumbo” loan, which could result in lower interest rates on many larger mortgages.

Business owners and executives should discuss these possible benefits with their tax advisors. The information below summarizes the provisions of the economic stimulus package.


Economic Stimulus Act of 2008

Individual Tax Provisions

Income Tax Rebates (phased beginning at income of $75,000 for singled taxpayers, $150,000 for joint returns):

· Individual – up to $600

· Joint – up to $1,200


Rebates for recipients, with no tax liability, but at least $3,000 in social security and veterans disability payments:

· Individual – up to $300

· Joint – up to $600


Refundable Child Tax Credit (phased beginning at income of $75,000 for singled taxpayers, $150,000 for joint returns):

· $300 per child

Business Tax Provisions


Section 179 for 2008:


· $250,000 expense limit

· $800,000 phase-out

Bonus Depreciation:


· 50% for first year assets purchased in 2008


Other Provisions

Limits on mortgages that can be bought by government-sponsored enterprises, insured by FHA:

· Increase to $729,750 from $417,000 and $362,790
 
stratman

stratman

Audioholic Ninja
This is good new for me, since I'm a small business owner the depreciation cap is great.
 
MUDSHARK

MUDSHARK

Audioholic Chief
There have been some threads with some misinformation around so I thought a short layman's summary might be helpful.

Did Stratman just spend $1200 on his music server? Coincidence maybe?:D
Actually, just jesting as he likely doesn't qualify either. But....... perhaps Mazer can get an entertainment center now and retire the 'box'.:p
 
stratman

stratman

Audioholic Ninja
There have been some threads with some misinformation around so I thought a short layman's summary might be helpful.

Did Stratman just spend $1200 on his music server? Coincidence maybe?:D
Actually, just jesting as he likely doesn't qualify either. But....... perhaps Mazer can get an entertainment center now and retire the 'box'.:p
Speaking of Mazer, where has he been? I haven't seen hair nor hide of him lately.:confused:
 
aberkowitz

aberkowitz

Audioholic Field Marshall
Dumbest possible plan the government could have come up with. I'm going to take the money of course, but I'll probably spend it in another country on vacation :D.
 
MUDSHARK

MUDSHARK

Audioholic Chief
This is good new for me, since I'm a small business owner the depreciation cap is great.
As a small business owner you can work when you want. As long as you alway want to work.:)
 
jeffsg4mac

jeffsg4mac

Republican Poster Boy
Dumbest possible plan the government could have come up with. I'm going to take the money of course, but I'll probably spend it in another country on vacation :D.
That is the beauty of it. It was YOUR MONEY TO BEGIN WITH, so you should be able to do whatever you want to with it. It should have never been taken from you in the first place.
 
aberkowitz

aberkowitz

Audioholic Field Marshall
That is the beauty of it. It was YOUR MONEY TO BEGIN WITH, so you should be able to do whatever you want to with it. It should have never been taken from you in the first place.
Totally disagree with you there. Taxes are a necessary evil in a democratic society, otherwise you'd never get people to pay for certain public goods. National defense is the classic example... everybody wants to live in a safe environment and be protected should an enemy attack, but try getting people to voluntarily pay for the service. Public schools and roads are two other similar examples. While taxes create social loss from an economic standpoint, from a societal standpoint they are the only practical way of supporting certain services. I say this as somebody who's in the top tax bracket and pay more than my "fair" share.
 
Rickster71

Rickster71

Audioholic Spartan
Totally disagree with you there. Taxes are a necessary evil in a democratic society, otherwise you'd never get people to pay for certain public goods.
Abe, you have to admit, it's tempting.:D
We would have the choice to 'not' throw money at the USA's school system, that has a dismal global ranking, in math and science.
Though I do get your point.
I believe it's the waste of out tax monies, that anger people most.
 
jeffsg4mac

jeffsg4mac

Republican Poster Boy
Totally disagree with you there. Taxes are a necessary evil in a democratic society, otherwise you'd never get people to pay for certain public goods. National defense is the classic example... everybody wants to live in a safe environment and be protected should an enemy attack, but try getting people to voluntarily pay for the service. Public schools and roads are two other similar examples. While taxes create social loss from an economic standpoint, from a societal standpoint they are the only practical way of supporting certain services. I say this as somebody who's in the top tax bracket and pay more than my "fair" share.
I did not say you or I should not pay taxes, but we pay way too much taxes. The fair tax plan or the flat tax plan is what is needed. NOBODY regardless of income should have to pay more then 10 or 12 percent of their hard earned money in taxes.
 
aberkowitz

aberkowitz

Audioholic Field Marshall
Abe, you have to admit, it's tempting.:D
We would have the choice to 'not' throw money at the USA's school system, that has a dismal global ranking, in math and science.
Though I do get your point.
I believe it's the waste of out tax monies, that anger people most.
Hey- I'd love to have more choice in exactly how our tax monies are spent, specifically on things like schools, but until I'm elected benevolent dictator of the US.... :D
 
aberkowitz

aberkowitz

Audioholic Field Marshall
I did not say you or I should not pay taxes, but we pay way too much taxes. The fair tax plan or the flat tax plan is what is needed. NOBODY regardless of income should have to pay more then 10 or 12 percent of their hard earned money in taxes.
When I was in college I actually wrote a very detailed research paper on this subject proving out how Steve Forbes flat tax plan would shortchange the government by what was around 15-20% of the annual budget. Of course I've forgotten all of the specifics at this point, and I don't know how it compares to the current fair tax plans being floated around, but I'd be curious to see how the numbers work out today.

I have no problem with some progression in our tax system, specifically at the extreme ends of the spectrum. My real problem is how they define "high earners". Why is it that somebody making $200K a year is lumped into the same category as somebody make $200 million a year? I understand the desire to have a simpler tax code, but all of the divisions are on the low side and everybody making more than X amount is lumped together as "rich". I'm not going to argue that a family making $200K vs. one making $50K shouldn't pay more in taxes, but they shouldn't be paying the same percentage as Bill Gates.
 
jeffsg4mac

jeffsg4mac

Republican Poster Boy
When I was in college I actually wrote a very detailed research paper on this subject proving out how Steve Forbes flat tax plan would shortchange the government by what was around 15-20% of the annual budget. Of course I've forgotten all of the specifics at this point, and I don't know how it compares to the current fair tax plans being floated around, but I'd be curious to see how the numbers work out today.

I have no problem with some progression in our tax system, specifically at the extreme ends of the spectrum. My real problem is how they define "high earners". Why is it that somebody making $200K a year is lumped into the same category as somebody make $200 million a year? I understand the desire to have a simpler tax code, but all of the divisions are on the low side and everybody making more than X amount is lumped together as "rich". I'm not going to argue that a family making $200K vs. one making $50K shouldn't pay more in taxes, but they shouldn't be paying the same percentage as Bill Gates.
Well we have to disagree on principle then because I don't believe that anyone should have to pay a higher percent just because they make more money. The fair tax is the only way to go. The more you spend the more you are taxed. You can't get any more fair than that.
 
M

Mort Corey

Senior Audioholic
Ah the old progressive tax....from each according to his means and too each according to his needs....think it was Uncle Karl's idea no? Since close to 50% of the population pays no income tax; being the majority; they can vote to take other peoples money....democracy at its finest.

Mort (who thiks this whole rebate nonsense is just a scam anyway)
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top