PDA

View Full Version : Savings Bonds Instead of Refund Check



PoliCon
09-12-2009, 11:16 PM
2009-09-07 04:17:00
Will You Elect to Receive Savings Bonds Instead of Your Income Tax Refund Check?


-- president barack obama - worried -- In his regular Saturday radio address this week, President Obama outlined a list of "common-sense steps" that would make it easier for US workers to save for their retirements.

President Obama declared that these changes were necessary due to $2 trillion dollars in retirement savings being wiped out over the past two years.

One of the proposed changes? Allowing people to request that any tax refund be sent as a government savings bond instead of a check.

This change will be active as of 2010, and will require a simple check of a box on your tax return to enroll in the program.

If you opt in to this program, then the government will send you your tax refund in the form of Series I Savings Bonds.

This program will be enhanced even further in 2011, as people will be able to name others (such as their children) as co-owners of the bonds.

An estimated 100 million people receive income tax refunds from the federal government every year. If even a small percentage elect to receive bonds instead of cash, then the United States government will have created a new way of helping to fund its deficits.

Is this a novel new way of helping Americans save for their retirements?

Or is this a desperate attempt to try and raise more funds to help pay for a seemingly endless stream of future deficits?

CONTINUED (http://www.davemanuel.com/2009/09/07/savings-bonds-instead-of-tax-refund-checks/)

AmPat
09-13-2009, 12:02 AM
There is no way I will allow the gov't to keep any more of my money. As for the check box, how easy would it be for a gov't worker to enroll you accidentally? You would be dead before you navigated the beauracracy to fix that error.

Speedy
09-13-2009, 12:29 AM
There is no way I will allow the gov't to keep any more of my money. As for the check box, how easy would it be for a gov't worker to enroll you accidentally? You would be dead before you navigated the beauracracy to fix that error.

I agree. That is one of the stupidest ideas I ever heard. I do not need the Government to help me save for my retirement. In fact, I wish they would not "help" me save for my retirement through Social Security.

Kiss my ass and give me back my money, you damned Halfrican!

RobJohnson
09-13-2009, 01:03 AM
It might not be a bad option & some might use it.

I never get huge refunds, but I could simply ask for a savings bond in one of my nephew's names. I'd do it. :)

djones520
09-13-2009, 01:05 AM
If I didn't need the cash to help get some of my debt under control, I'd be tempted to do this. Put it aside for my kid.

As long as it's optional, I have no problem with the option being there.

FeebMaster
09-13-2009, 01:33 AM
If I didn't need the cash to help get some of my debt under control, I'd be tempted to do this. Put it aside for my kid.

As long as it's optional, I have no problem with the option being there.


These things almost always start optional.

What a deal. (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/news/pressroom/currenteebondratespr.htm)

Rockntractor
09-13-2009, 01:45 AM
You would be betting that America will succeed. I'm not so sure anymore!

linda22003
09-13-2009, 07:44 AM
Savings bonds are a terrible investment. Frankly, getting a tax refund is a bad way to "save".

FlaGator
09-13-2009, 07:51 AM
I wouldn't have an issue with this as long as it stayed truly optional.

FlaGator
09-13-2009, 07:54 AM
Savings bonds are a terrible investment. Frankly, getting a tax refund is a bad way to "save".

Some of us have no choice but to deal with tax refunds in that I don't know how much I'll make from one year to another. My income this year will be substantially more that last year and at the start of this year I never would have expected it. I couldn't have planned for increase in income because I didn't know it was on the horizon.

linda22003
09-13-2009, 01:49 PM
Fluctuating income is an understandable situation, but some people who are salaried still count on their tax refunds for "savings". They don't trust themselves to have access to the money all year, and prefer to have the government hang onto it for them! :rolleyes:

BSR
09-13-2009, 01:59 PM
These things almost always start optional.

What a deal. (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/news/pressroom/currenteebondratespr.htm)

0.00%? where do I sign up? :rolleyes:


Just another way for Obama to hold onto your money longer... No thanks, I am capable of investing my money with a better return than 0.00%..

Gingersnap
09-14-2009, 11:04 AM
These things almost always start optional.


That's exactly the problem. I no longer have any confidence at all that professional politicians have any restraint when it comes to revenue sources. We've seen clearly over the past 20 years or more that the slippery slope not only exists but operates at warp speed.

I'm not even going to address the financial dumbness of this plan.

lacarnut
09-14-2009, 11:10 AM
0.00%? where do I sign up? :rolleyes:


Just another way for Obama to hold onto your money longer... No thanks, I am capable of investing my money with a better return than 0.00%..

Hey, a bond is better than an IOU like in CA.:rolleyes: However, that could change.

FlaGator
09-14-2009, 02:26 PM
Fluctuating income is an understandable situation, but some people who are salaried still count on their tax refunds for "savings". They don't trust themselves to have access to the money all year, and prefer to have the government hang onto it for them! :rolleyes:

I'm trying to work my charitable contributions in such a way that I get most of the money that the government took this year back.