Re: OT Government Fraud

[Larry Cartwright <exit60@CABLESPEED.COM>]

Yes, Congress and the President and the media are guilty of
misrepresenting the exact nature of the 2001 advance payment checks in
their media campaigns.  Yes, the word "rebate" appears repeatedly in the
news archives describing the checks mailed out earlier this year.  No, I
don't really think it's fraud.  They promised a tax cut and delivered
same, for better or for worse.

To their credit, the IRS is the one guv'mint outfit which has been up
front and accurate about the precise nature of the money "giveaway"
since the very beginning, through their website
<http://www.irs.gov/ind_info/apinfo/>.  I have read that the IRS is not
happy about the way this was inaccurately promoted in the media since
they are going to be the ones bearing the brunt of whatever taxpayer ire
materializes between now and April 15th.

Executive summary:  The $300/$600 is the result of a 5% cut in the 2001
tax rate on the first $6000/$12000 of everyone's taxable income.  What
they've done is given us an advance payment of money they believe we
would have been receiving in 2002 when we file our 2001 tax return.
Your 2001 tax return will look just like it would have if Congress and
the President had done nothing at all.  The base tax rate will still be
15% just like it was last year, instead of the 10% it will be on the
2002 tax year returns you file in 2003.

Your check was an advance payment of what would have been an *unusually
high* rebate, not the "usual rebate" you describe.  Since you already
have received the money, your 2001 return will have the usual rebate you
have been expecting rather than the unusually high rebate you would have
received if they had been straightforward about this.

Don't worry about the government trying to tax the advance payment.  IRS
quote: "This is a reduction of tax and is not taxable income on the
federal tax return."

I don't like the way they went about this, because anything which is
less than straightforward causes people to have less trust in their
government.  This is the kind of slick and arrogant Federal
sleight-of-hand that has produced the Michigan Militia and Tim McVey.

This is quite benign compared to the tax manipulation carried out by
George W. Bush's father, which really was a truly evil piece of work.
The elder Bush wanted to increase consumer spending to pump up the
economy, so he had the IRS reduce payroll withholding rates effective
immediately.  Everybody who fell for it found a modest increase in their
paychecks, which they spent.  Later they were stunned to find that the
manipulated withholding did not cover their tax obligation, and millions
of people had to scrape and borrow at the last minute to come up with
their tax payment.

Back to physics,

Larry

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Larry Cartwright   <exit60@cablespeed.com>
Retired (June 2001) Physics Teacher
Charlotte MI 48813 USA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jim Green wrote:
> NO, I don't mean fraud toward the government -- but fraud BY the government:
>
> Didn't everyone understand that the $600 was "extra" money "given back" to
> taxpayers  -- for  us to spend on whatever.
>
> But do I now understand that it was a LOAN toward our 2001 tax rebate???
>
> IE If I have overpaid my taxes in 2001 by say $1000, next April I do not
> get the $1000 back!!!  I only get $400.
>
> Am I the only one who sees this as fraud?   Didn't we all see the $600 as
> an extra free "rebate" on higher than needed taxes during 2000
> and  previous years.
>
> Do I now see correctly that it is only an "advanced payment" toward next
> year's usual rebate for the usual over payment of taxes?
>
> Were we not conned into spending this "extra" money earlier this year.
> Instead we should have saved it for next April.
>
> Do I understand correctly?
>
> Am I the only one who is amply ticked?