by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAX TIPS
This Washington Times piece did a nice overview of FY2014:
The Treasury Department unveiled its Fiscal Year 2014 numbers, which showed that the government’s revenue, for the first time ever, hit the $3 trillion mark. However, the government still overspent its revenues, leaving a $483 billion deficit.
Supporters of President Obama are touting the “success” of a $483 billion deficit by pointing out its the lowest deficit since 2008. A “mere” $483 billion deficit is not something to be celebrated. It means that, despite record revenues, the government still engages in out-of-control spending.
By comparison:
“The government first hit the $1 trillion revenue mark in 1990, then hit the $2 trillion mark in 2000. But President George W. Bush’s tax cuts and the bursting of the 1990s Internet bubble cut into revenue, dropping it to $1.8 trillion in 2003, before it began the shaky climb to $3 trillion.
Just five years ago, in 2009, the trough of the recession, revenue was only $2.1 trillion. That means it’s leapt $900 billion in just five years.”
And here’s where the dichotomy lies. The Left sees high government revenue as something to be celebrated, while the Right understands that high government revenue means less money for the private sector. “Every one of those $3 trillion is sucked out of the private-sector economy and makes the private sector smaller,” said Chris Edwards, director of tax-policy studies at the Cato Institute. “The $3 trillion isn’t free. It comes out of our pockets and from the private economy.”
Contrast his analysis with Jack Lew’s, Treasury Secretary. “The president’s policies and a strengthening U.S. economy have resulted in a reduction of the U.S. budget deficit of approximately two-thirds — the fastest sustained deficit reduction since World War II,” Mr. Lew said.
What are those “president’s policies”? Successful tax hikes. The highest 2% earners saw their tax margins increase; all earners saw their payroll taxes go up. And don’t forget the Obamacare taxes. The full list of all of Obama’s tax increases can be found here.
Perhaps the most profound statement can be summed up here: “Spending, meanwhile, has remained relatively flat at about $3.5 trillion.”
When spending is “flat” at $3.5 trillion, we definitely have a problem. Each year since 2009, the Obama Administration has spent over $3 trillion, the only president to ever do so: From 2009 – 2013 respectively, here are the numbers of spending in per year: 2009: $3,517,677; 2010: 3,457,079; 2011: $3,603,059; 2012: $3,537,127; 2013: $3,454,605. For a full chart of historical federal spending per year, go here. Federal spending has remained consistent at around $3.5 trillion/year — consistently high. Over-budget. And adding deeply to the deficit each year.
It will be interesting to revisit this next year at the end of FY2015, when Obamacare, the crowning Obama policy achievement, really gets going. Remember how Obamacare was going to reduce deficits? About that. The Weekly Standard recently did a thorough analysis of Obamacare projections and found that:
“So, compared to the deficit surplus of $180 billion for 2015-24 that a straight extrapolation from the CBO’s 2012 scoring would yield, current projections now indicate that Obamacare’s decreased spending (in relation to prior expectations) will reduce deficits by another $83 billion (bringing the estimated surplus to $263 billion), but those projected surpluses will be more than offset by the projected $132 billion decrease in Medicare revenue and $262 billion decrease in tax revenue due to lower job growth.
In all, therefore, CBO projections indicate that Obamacare will increase deficit spending by $131 billion from 2015-24. That’s a $311 billion swing from the extrapolated 2012 numbers, a $240 billion swing from the actual 2012 numbers, and a $255 billion swing from what we were told when Obamacare was passed.
So, this fiscal year was more of the same. Government overspending, gleefully celebrated by record tax collections of your hard earned dollars. The rapacious government needs to be fed.
by | ARTICLES, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, TAX TIPS
On July 10 and again on July 11, the IRS will be in court for two separate cases related to the IRS scandal, specifically regarding the missing emails.
The Weekly Standard notes that on Thursday, July 10th, “IRS lawyers will appear in federal district court to explain why they never reported the emails missing in the context of a lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch”.
The following day, July 11th, “the IRS legal team is expected to try to block outside access to the evidence that Lois Lerner’s computer crashed—if such evidence exists”.
I mentioned the July 11th court date last week here, where you can also read the court motion.
These two court dates are significant, because they contrast the internal investigation that has been done so far: “The Department of Justice “investigation”—led by a high-dollar Obama donor, overseen by an attorney general who may be the most loyal of the Obama loyalists, who reports to a president who has already declared that there was not even a “smidgen” of corruption”.
by | ARTICLES, TAX TIPS, TAXES
What is a phase out rule?
When a taxpayer nears an income limit to qualify for a tax credit, there is a gradual reduction of that tax credit. This is known as a phase out. Higher income earners need to be aware that phase outs will come into play as they file their taxes this year.
It is noted that “The last time we saw a phase-out rule for itemized deductions was back in 2009. Unfortunately, this phase-out provision has also been resurrected for 2013 and beyond.
As a result, you can potentially lose up to 80% of your 2013 write-offs for home mortgage interest, state and local income and property taxes, charitable contributions, and miscellaneous itemized deduction items (such as investment expenses and fees for tax advice and preparation).
Phase-out starts as the following AGI thresholds: $250,000 for singles, $300,000 for married joint-filing couples, $275,000 for heads of households, and $150,000 for married individuals who file separate returns.
More specifically, the total amount of your affected itemized deductions is reduced by 3% of the amount by which your AGI exceeds the threshold. However, the reduction cannot exceed 80% of the total affected deductions that you started off with.”
by | ARTICLES, OBAMACARE, TAX TIPS, TAXES
Do you make above $250,000 (married joint filer) or $200,000 (individual filer)? For 2013 filers, you get to pay an additional tax starting this year.
Prior to tax year 2013, the Medicare Payroll tax was 2.9%. Self-employed taxpaxers pay the entire 2.9% themselves. Non self-employed taxpayers pay this tax split evenly between employer and employee, each paying 1.45%
The new surtax that starts this year was implemented as part of paying for Obamacare. It tacks on an additional 0.9% tax for filers above the aforementioned thresholds. Additionally, if you are married filing separately, the threshold is $125,000. See below:
Previous Law:
Employer/Employee 1.45%/1.45%
Self-employed 2.9%
Obamacare Tax Hike, 0.9% Surtax
Individual: First $200,000 (same as old law)
Married/Joint: First $250,000 (same as old law)
Married/Separately: First $125,000 (same as old law)
Individual: Above $200,000
Married/Joint: Above $250,000
Married/Separately: Above $125,000
Employer/Employee 1.45%/2.35%
Self-employed 3.8%
This additional tax is found on pages 2000-2003 of the PPACA.
If you think you may owe the new 0.9% tax, you should fill out the “Additional Medicare Tax” Form, which is also called Form 8959
by | ARTICLES, GOVERNMENT, TAX TIPS, TAXES
Most people like receiving a tax refund – it’s kind of like a windfall for many people, especially those for whom saving is a difficult discipline. However, getting a big tax refund from the IRS may not necessarily be the best thing for you in certain situations.
Try to think about your refund in a different way. Essentially, you are giving the government an interest-free loan, which they give back to you when you file your taxes. There’s really no reason to do that, other than you like the surprise surplus.
A lot of people don’t like the idea of owing the government, or are afraid they will not have the money available at tax time to pay the bill. That is a valid concern. However, if you adjust your withholding enough so that you owe on April 15th, that also means you have more money in your paycheck each month.
In reality, whether you owe the government or they owe you, the amount of tax collected is virtually the same. The difference is whether you have your taxes paid for you via your paycheck, and have a smaller paycheck because of it (and a refund in the spring), or whether you set the money aside on your own and have a little bit more to take home from work every pay period.
If you set your withholding so that you’ll owe at tax time, you are in essence holding your own money longer. This can be helpful in situations such as being in debt, where payments are due every month. By having extra in your paycheck due to having less money deducted for taxes, you could use the extra money to pay a little more on your debt, thereby reducing the amount of interest you pay in the long run. Some people prefer this approach.
One potential thing to worry about with regard to waiting on federal tax returns. We have seen situations where state governments have delayed issuing refunds in the recent past due to staffing, fiscal woes, and other such problems. Even the federal government last year delayed receiving returns until Jan 31st last year (and therefore remitting refunds) — though that was due to the Fiscal Cliff. However, since the example has been seen in some states, and since the IRS apparently understaffed, it is not an unlikely possible scenario that the federal government might also delay issuing refunds on a larger scale in the future.
At the end of the day, whether you like to keep your own money until tax time or whether you prefer the windfall method, you can achieve this your preference by going to visit your Human Resources administrator. If you want more money in your paycheck – and possibly owing the IRS, claim more dependents. If you prefer a refund, claim fewer dependents. The form to make changes on is called a W-4.
It’s always good practice once a year to review your tax and financial situation and make adjustments as necessary.
______________________
Now What?
Did you like what you read?
If you did, I hope you’ll join my Secret Tax Club.
It’s free, it’s via email, and it’s for you.
I periodically send out information such as tax tips, reading suggestions, articles and more, and the information is not always available anywhere else, even on my own website.
If you want to join, visit my Secret Tax Club page.
Thanks for visiting Tax Politix
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, OBAMACARE, TAX TIPS, TAXES
New Changes to the Itemized Medical Deduction
For years, taxpayers have been able to claim an itemized deduction on their taxes for medical expenses. That deduction still exists, but the threshold has been increased starting this years, as part of the implemenation of Obamacare taxes.
When a taxpayer, spouse, and/or dependents accumulate large medical bills in a given year, the ability to deduct them comes as a welcome relief to many family. The rule-of-thumb was that the sum of medical expenses totalled 7.5% or more of the Adjusted Gross Income (AGI). So for instance, if a family’s AGI was $50,000, they could claim an itemized deduction of medical expenses if it was at least $3,500 (not including insurance premiums, etc).
Now beginning this year and beyond, the threshold has been raised to 10% AGI. That same family making $50,000 AGI needs to have accumulated $5,000 worth of qualifying medical expenses before they can claim that deduction on their tax return.
There is one group for which the floor is still 7.5%; that is persons who are age 65 and above. The 7.5% AGI calculation will remain as such for another 4 years until 2017.
For data through 2009 from the IRS, 10 million families used this tax deduction. Raising the threshold was a means to limit the amount of deductions taxpayers would claim starting this year, thereby raising more tax revenue to pay for Obamacare.
This change is found of found on pages 1,994-1,995 of the PPACA.
——————————-
Now What?
Did you like what you read?
If you did, I hope you’ll join my Secret Tax Club.
It’s free, it’s via email, and it’s for you.
I periodically send out information such as tax tips, reading suggestions, articles and more, and the information is not always available anywhere else, even on my own website.
If you want to join, visit my Secret Tax Club page.
Thanks for visiting Tax Politix
by | ARTICLES, TAX TIPS, TAXES
Most items on this year’s 1040 are the same for last year. However, a few changes should be noted — mainly related to adjustments for inflation.
The new Standard Deduction amounts are as follows:
Single: $6,100
Married Filing Separate: $6,100
Married Filing Joint: $12,200
Head of Household: $8,950
Dependent: the greater value of either 1) earned income plus $350 or 2) $1,000. This cannot exceed $6,100
There are additional Standard Deduction amounts for filers with special status: 1) age 65 and older or 2) blind. These amounts are as follows:
Single or Head of Household: $1,500
Married, Joint: $1,200
Married, Separate: $1,200
Look for Part II on IRS 1040 Changes coming up soon.
_________________________________
Now What?
Did you like what you read?
If you did, I hope you’ll join my Secret Tax Club.
It’s free, it’s via email, and it’s for you.
I periodically send out information such as tax tips, reading suggestions, articles and more, and the information is not always available anywhere else, even on my own website.
If you want to join, visit my Secret Tax Club page.
Thanks for visiting Tax Politix
by | ECONOMY, TAX TIPS, TAXES
Most people like receiving a tax refund – it’s kind of like a windfall for many people, especially those for whom saving is a difficult discipline. However, getting a big tax refund from the IRS may not necessarily be the best thing for you in certain situations.
Try to think about your refund in a different way. Essentially, you are giving the government an interest-free loan, which they give back to you when you file your taxes. There’s really no reason to do that, other than you like the surprise surplus.
A lot of people don’t like the idea of owing the government, or are afraid they will not have the money available at tax time to pay the bill. That is a valid concern. However, if you adjust your withholding enough so that you owe on April 15th, that also means you have more money in your paycheck each month.
In reality, whether you owe the government or they owe you, the amount of tax collected is virtually the same. The difference is whether you have your taxes paid for you via your paycheck, and have a smaller paycheck because of it (and a refund in the spring), or whether you set the money aside on your own and have a little bit more to take home from work every pay period.
If you set your withholding so that you’ll owe at tax time, you are in essence holding your own money longer. This can be helpful in situations such as being in debt, where payments are due every month. By having extra in your paycheck due to having less money deducted for taxes, you could use the extra money to pay a little more on your debt, thereby reducing the amount of interest you pay in the long run. Some people prefer this approach.
Whether you like to keep your own money until tax time or whether you prefer the windfall method, you can achieve this your preference by going to visit your Human Resources administrator. If you want more money in your paycheck – and possibly owing the IRS, claim more dependents. If you prefer a refund, claim fewer dependents. The form to make changes on is called a W-4. It’s always good practice once a year to review your tax and financial situation and make adjustments as necessary.
You can also find this article over at my Examiner.com page — where you’ll be able to find other tax preparation advice from me.
by | BLOG, ECONOMY, RETIREMENT, SOCIAL SECURITY, TAX TIPS, TAXES
Imagine an employer gives a turkey to his employees each year for Thanksgiving. Then one year, the cost of the turkey doubles, but he still gives everyone a turkey anyway. That year, the employee is getting an increase in the value of their pay (the extra cost of the turkey).
The same logic applies to a person getting insurance with their job. If a person gets a 2% pay increase, but the medical benefits costs for the employer also increases $30 more a month then the employee pay goes up 2% plus the $30.00. Many people don’t understand those “hidden” costs regarding benefits and compensation, but that’s how it works.
In the same way, if the cost of providing a defined benefit plan costs your employer now 25% more, or goes up by X dollars more, that X dollars is ultimately additional pay going to you, whether or not you tangibly see it. Nowadays, mainly government workers and some unions are typically the only ones who have defined benefit plans; most employers have moved away from them to a defined contribution plan because of the spiraling costs inherent in a defined benefit plan. A downside, however, is that regular people in private sector jobs with 401Ks critically need to put more of their own money away for retirement because their money investment is growing so slowly.
On the other hand, Obama’s administration is doing two thing that are directly and substantially increasing the cost of employers to maintain a defined benefit plan: 1) keeping interest rates so low that employers just have to invest more just to get a decent rate of return; and 2) increased regulations, which slow the growth of business and impede business gains, thereby slowing the rate of return. On top of this, the government is ignoring the huge increased cost of fringe benefits they provide (i.e, the turkeys) in their budgets – something a private company simply cannot ignore. If a private company were to do so, then it risks going out of business . Therefore, it must account accurately and completely for its costs.
The government however, won’t ever go out of business. It merely passes off these huge costs to the employee – or worse, to the taxpayer. Higher costs to the taxpayer means less money for you. Less money for you means harder savings for the future.
Overall, you will need to put away more for retirement. If you have a defined benefit plan, the long-term projections and promises may be scaled back at some point in the future once the plan proves to be unsustainable. In a defined contribution plan, continued sluggish growth for investments make it difficult for retirement plans. Whatever your strategy, know that you will definitely need more than you think you do right now.
by | ECONOMY, FREEDOM, POLITICS, TAX TIPS, TAXES
The IRS is reminding taxpayers and Congress alike that if the annual “AMT patch” isn’t renewed before the end of the year, millions of taxpayers (28 million) would be on the hook for thousands more per person in tax payments.
But we need more than just a “patch”. We need to eliminate the AMT from the tax code. Here’s why:
The Alternative Minimum Tax (“AMT”) presents hardships to the practitioner as well as the taxpayer who prepares his own return by, as its name implies, imposing a second tax calculation mechanism on taxpayers. It serves virtually no useful purpose, other than the raising of an ever-increasing amount of tax revenue. But it has become very clear in recent years that this AMT tax revenue is not coming from just the taxpayers who were the intended targets of this tax.
The AMT was instituted in its present form when the prior “add on” Minimum Tax was transformed into the AMT in the early 1980’s. Its stated purpose was to require that all taxpayers paid at least a fair share of tax. It was to do this by identifying “loophole” type deductions, also known as “preferences”. There would then be an alternative calculation using lower tax rates applied against this taxable income as increased by the preferences. Whichever of the taxes is higher is the one the taxpayer must pay.
However the AMT was seriously flawed from the outset. Instead of focusing on these loophole type preferences (which would have limited the tax to a very small number of tax law “abusers”), the law that was passed included items that were not loopholes at all. A convoluted formula compares the differences between income and deductions to determine who falls under the guidelines.
A very substantial majority of all AMT paid by taxpayers results from the following four factors:
- Treating state and local taxes as a preference
- Treating miscellaneous deductions as a preference
- Allowing lower exemptions than the regular tax.
Each of these, however, can be quickly shown as inappropriate factors with which to base a tax system intended to just make sure everyone pays a “fair share” of tax.
- State and local taxes are hardly a loophole. The taxes exacted by state and local governments are hardly “voluntarily” paid by taxpayers in an attempt to avoid paying federal taxes.
- Miscellaneous deductions is the category of deductions that consists primarily of expenses incurred to earn income that is subject to tax. It includes unreimbursed employee expenses, investment expenses, etc. This is the most basic and important deduction needed to have a truly fair income tax system. For example, if an individual pays a lawyer a fee for collecting back wages, the legal fee is a miscellaneous deduction. If an individual pays the lawyer $300 for collecting $1000 of back pay, netting $700, the AMT would tax the individual on the full $1000.
- The exemption available under the AMT tax system is a fixed dollar amount which, unlike exemptions and standard deductions under the regular tax system, is not indexed for inflation. Furthermore, it is phased out entirely over certain income levels. And each year Congress has to approve an annual “patch”, which raises the threshold for inflation, in order to raise the exemption limits of the tax so that less wealthy taxpayers won’t be subject to the AMT.
It must be noted that the annual AMT patch is not a tax cut at all, but merely the avoidance of a massive tax increase on millions of middle-income taxpayers’ families. Congress likes to point to the patch as some major revenue loss, had the AMT been applied to those families, as an excuse to raise to raise taxes in order to offset this “potential missing tax revenue”.
The AMT in its present form has no place in tax law. The AMT does not serve the purpose for which it was intended and functions in a most inequitable manner while adding enormous compliance burdens. It should therefore be changed to eliminate the adjustments for state and local taxes and miscellaneous deductions, update its rates, and modify its exemption — or else the AMT needs to be eliminated completely.
crossposted at redstate.com/alanjoelny
