Do you have to pay back the 300 child credit?

[JasonDeter]

Anyone working their taxes. I have to pay it back. Thanks george*

[yankeeinlouisiana]

1. I suspected as much.

Haven't started on my taxes, but we had to pay it back last year. I have 3 kids...YIKES!!

[liberalhistorian]

2. How can that be possible that

you'd have to pay it back? What are the circumstances of that?

[alcuno]

3. Well, if it's a credit, it could be credited towards your 03 taxes.

Kind of like an advance.

[DiverDave]

14. "kind of"??

It is an advance.
I have tried and tried to explain this to some folks...they just don't get it.

They will be surprised when they do their taxes.

[JasonDeter]

4. Just got the tax forms yesterday and looking through it

george* said I owe him the 300 back! It's complicated and they recommend you go the the irs website to check it out but yes I.do.have.to.pay.it.back.

[cthrumatrix]

18. Shrub -- "read my lips".............."I fooled you once....don't get..don'

fool..again fool twice....aww forget it"...I screwed you.

[Buffler]

5. You have to pay it back

if a not enough taxes were withheld throughout the year.

[drdigi420]

6. Yes, my sister doesnt believe this

She swore up and down that she was getting a full $1200 for her 3 kids and that Bush is a genius (she is also a pentecostal nutball, so she is very easily misled)

I wonder how they are going to feel when they have to pay it back now.

Unfortunately, as with religion, she ignores all facts that indicate her posittion is wrong.

[freestatevet]

7. One doesn't "pay it back"

One just didn't have enough taxes withheld.

[newyawker99]

21. Hi freestatevet!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[SoCalDem]

8. It's a "payday advance"..plain and simple..

Prove it to her by having her add the $ she got back to her taxes withheld....the refund expected should be higher by that amount..

BUT..if the employer cut back on the withholding AND she received that "advance", she may have spent money THEN, that she OWES NOW..:)

Welcome to Bushonomics, version 2003..:(

[freestatevet]

9. You mean this

was too complicated for people to follow? Gee whiz, I refuse to believe that American people are that stupid.

[Don Claybrook]

11. Yes, it most assuredly is

...too complicated for most people to follow.

If you don't pay very close attention, and you receive a check in the mail for 400, 800, 1200, what would you think? You'd think that the government was giving you money, that's what you'd think.

It's completely couter-intuitive to get a check in the mail and think, oh, well the government is sending me this check so that they can charge me for it again at the beginning of next year. It's counter-intuitive, that is, unless you understand that there are no limits to the depth to which Bush will whore for votes.

[sallydallas124]

13. Not necessarily

Most people were probably uniformed given the way it was presented by Bush as a handout.

on edit - nevermind the first edit

[LiberalFighter]

23. How many people do their own tax returns?

If they don't do their own tax return it makes it difficult to comprehend how much they pay in taxes.

Do they know how much they would pay in taxes if they weren't married? If they didn't have children? If they use deductions instead of the standard deduction?

[latebloomer]

10. it was an advance

against your refund, right?

Just like the "gift" many of us got the previous year.

[cthrumatrix]

12. This is where "truth in media" is important....it was an early credit the

whole way...the media clearly did not share the goods with the public.

tell your repug friends.

[OneTwentyoNine]

15. Hell yes,it was merely a loan!!

We repeated this over and over when those bogus checks went out that on next years taxes you'll have to show the amount your check was for.

Wait till the rest of the Freeper crowd and Bush bootlickers figure this one out...


David

[lovedems]

16. My husband has spent the last year waiting for this.

He kept saying "wait until people realize they have to pay this back!" Somehow he figured out way back when. With 4 kids, we are going to have to pay back 1600 and he has been without a job for 6 months. I HATE GWB!

[Beetwasher]

17. Let's Put It This Way

If you were going to get a $1,000 refund on your taxes, but you have four kids and you got a $1,600 "credit", you will now owe $600 in taxes. That's why they call it a "credit",t hey are crediting it against your refund. Most people were too stupid to realize it wasn't free money, and the admin. was banking on this. Surprise!

[Fescue4u]

19. Simply No.

Unless you want to put a spin on it.

Your taxes are reduced by $300 and you got that reduction upfront.

The only way you would have to pay it back would be if congress repeals it retroactively.

The refund/tax payment on April 15th is simply a balancing transaction between you and uncle sam.

[grasswire]

20. unless you lost your income

...as someone noted. If your income dropped during the year, you really DO have to pay it back.

[Fescue4u]

22. Well thats true

But for the vast majority, it was a tax cut.

Now if you paid more than $300 in taxes 2002 and less than $300 in taxes in 2003...and got a refund, you would have to pay at least some of it back. $300 is taxes is nothing though. I would think a Walmart Employee pays more than that.

[Art_from_Ark]

24. Apparently, you don't know how the other half lives

Where I'm from, $300 is still a very tidy sum to most people.

[SoCalDem]

25. No one is saying it is NOT.. The kicker is that for people

who are expecting , say... $1600.00 as a refund when they file taxes, have already received $1200.00 of it if they have 4 kids... or if their boss goofed (and many have) and withheld too little, they may have to dig into their pockets to pay extra..:(

There are people who thought it was a "gift" to them, and that their
"normal" refund would still be intact when they filed their taxes..

Just like last time, there is a place on the return where they have to "claim" it as income..:(

[Yupster]

26. Man Economics

is just where DU is at its worst.

[Cleita]

27. DU is at it's worst?

Err, wasn't it the BushCo who did this bait and switch?