Yup, it's TODAY. If you haven't filed, you have until midnight to postmark. If you can't get it together, file for an extension by filling out and filing this form. You can file 4868 electronically or paper.
When your taxes are all set, enjoy the freebies:
- Starbucks: Free Coffee - Cinnabon: 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. two free cupcake bites - Dunkin Donuts: free donut with coffee purchase - Taco Del Mar: free taco with coupon on website on April 15
Those are nationwide, but there are also local ones.
Personally, I'm glad to pay taxes. I like a lot of what my taxes buy (not war, but a lot of the other stuff). For a number of years, I've been filing my state taxes on-line. It's really pretty simple, as you put in your income, and how much tax you've paid, and normally, enough deductions have been taken to cover the tax.
This year, Pennsylvania implemented something that is unreasonable to those of us who can do a lot of arithmetic in our heads, although it's obviously a money-maker for the state. Until this year, when you put in your W-2 amounts, you put in dollars and cents. Since it's live on-line, when you hit the button, the state would compare what you put in to what they knew from W-2's, and then they would round your income to the nearest dollar. But this year, there was no ability to put in cents, only dollars. And you had to put in the dollar amount no matter what the cents were. I had two W-2s from last year, one ending in 79 cents and the other ending in 91 cents. I therefore chose to round up, until the program told me my number was down. It would only accept the dollar amount. I was then informed by the program that my deducted taxes were short by $2.00. (Had they taken the cents, the amount owed would have been $0.00) The state said I could send a check, or pay on line with a "convenience fee" of $2.49.
Face it, there are 12 million residents of Pennsylvania. If half of them fill out tax forms, and if half those tax forms have a W-2 that rounds down when it should round up, that's $3 million to the state coffers. It's creative.....
So - enjoy tax day: get those form in, get those freebies. And leave any taxing stories in the comments!
On the front page of yesterday's USA Today, in the lower left hand corner, the daily snapshot indicated that in 2008, the last year for which numbers are available, 36.3% of people who filed tax returns paid no US income taxes. This compared to 25.6% in 1999 and 16% in 1969. That number seemed very high. So I checked the source and found this:
A family of four earning more than $50,000 can have no income tax liability after taking the standard deduction and the child tax credit.
"Two records were set in 2008: the most nonpayers and the highest-earning nonpayers," said Tax Foundation President Scott Hodge, who authored Tax Foundation Fiscal Fact, No. 214, "Record Numbers of People Paying No Income Tax; Over 50 Million 'Nonpayers' Include Families Making over $50,000." [...]
"Nonpaying status used to be a sure sign of poverty, but thanks to increased use of the tax code to deliver social benefits, incentivize behaviors and funnel money to targeted groups, middle-class families have now been pulled into the growing pool of nonpayers," Hodge said. "We're now in a situation where a record number of tax filers are completely disconnected from the cost of government."
It strikes me as outrageous. This means that people earning above the median income don't have to pay any income tax. It does not mean they pay no taxes: these are just income taxes. Likely a lot of these folks pay state tax, sales tax, Medicare/Social Security tax, use taxes, property taxes, etc.
Some people will talk about how all tax is bad, and no one should pay any tax....but there will always be idiots. Paying taxes is a necessary part of having a functional government, and it's wrong that more than a third of people who have to file don't have to pay anything. Remember that these are FILERS - so already excluded from the statistic are people who earn no income and therefore don't have to file, people who earn under a certain amount of money and don't have to pay, dependents, etc. Therefore, it appears that well over 50% of the people in the US who benefit from government programs and services pay nothing. Perhaps even 60%.
We all benefit from the money the government spends. Sure, we don't like the government fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, but would we really want to NOT have a military? Taxes at work. Those federal taxes also go to pay for things like transportation, education, infrastructure, national parks, all sorts of things we take for granted.
I bring this to your attention because the next time someone says "we should keep the Bush tax cuts" - point out that in addition to helping the rich, those cuts have been helping to turn us into a nation of freeloaders. There is no overall benefit to having a tax system where most people don't pay into it: it just means that the government will target more and more groups (think cigarette smokers, liquor drinkers, soda drinkers, junk food eaters, not to mention people who use national parks, want to fish and hunt, air travelers, people who drive, people who take public transportation, anyone who buys anything shipped by truck or train....etc.) to shoulder a bigger burden.
Debate if you like whether tax should be income-based or sales-based, but for now, we DO have income taxes, and people should pay them.
Let's start in Philadelphia where Mayor Nutter is proposing, as part of his plan to improve the dire financial situation in the City, two new taxes. The first is an annual per household charge of $300 to pick up the garbage. (Each and every one of you over a certain age should have read "pick up the garbage" hearing Arlo Guthrie's voice in your head.) Also a 2 cent per ounce tax on sugary sodas. The garbage tax is a minor slope: most people pay to have their garbage picked up. The problem in Philadelphia is that they haven't looked at what it actually costs to pick up the garbage as opposed to privatizing the service. The real issue is the soda tax. Most people are up in arms about it being two cents per ounce. To give you an idea of what that means, a two litre bottle costs about a dollar (on sale), and has about 67 ounces in it, making the total cost $2.67, or almost three times the cost. I don't have a problem with that per se: the slippery slope theory has said all along that once you start taxing cigarettes and liquor outrageously, they'd start taxing everything else in bits and pieces. So, now we're on to soda. Next up will be potato chips and cookies and then meat....it won't stop.
The bigger problem is that for some reason people think that "soda" is appreciably worse than those 10% fruit drinks which have the same amount of added sugar, and are only missing the carbon dioxide, phosphoric acid and caffeine. Or worse than the diet soda, the fake sugars of which cause all sorts of direct organ problems. Or the other empty calories in the chips, cookies, and other junk food. Not to mention the fat content of hamburgers and hot dogs....it seems unfair to single out soda, but hey, you could see this one coming years ago.
Now, let's switch to Texas. I've been writing about the discussion there over history vs. religion for months and months. Finally, the Board voted, and it looks like Jefferson didn't make the cut. That's right, THOMAS Jefferson. Voting along party lines, 10 - 5, he doesn't make the history books, although Joe McCarthy does, as a hero. They also won't be allowing the separation of Church and State in their textbooks, plus all the other things we've been concerned about all this time. Think it doesn't matter? The State of Texas buys more textbooks than anyone else, and it's unlikely that the publishers will want several versions of the same books. The slippery slope here is that if other school boards agree to purchase these books, eventually history is revised to the point that it's only the Bible. Think that's hyperbole? Just wait and watch.
The goal of the Texas Board of Ed is to remove anything NOT related to the New Testament from school books. It's not just that they'll get history factually incorrect, this is an end run against teaching pure creationism in the schools.
Often, there's not much to do, but this time there is. If you have a child in a local school, or even pay taxes which go to support schools, say, um, property tax, contact your neighbors and other parents, and the teachers and the school board. Public comments will be taken over the next several months. Send in your comments saying that you won't pay taxes that go to Texas-compliant text books. Get the school boards to say they won't buy them. Send copies to all the publishers.
I'll add the addresses later today.....a mind is a terrible thing to waste, and a child's mind subject to propaganda and lies and then scrambled into pablum is even worse.
Pay attention Colorado and other states with wingnut candidates for Congress and Governor. This is EXACTLY what Jane Norton would do to the state if she wins in November.
COLORADO SPRINGS — This tax-averse city is about to learn what it looks and feels like when budget cuts slash services most Americans consider part of the urban fabric.
More than a third of the streetlights in Colorado Springs will go dark Monday. The police helicopters are for sale on the Internet. The city is dumping firefighting jobs, a vice team, burglary investigators, beat cops — dozens of police and fire positions will go unfilled.
The parks department removed trash cans last week, replacing them with signs urging users to pack out their own litter.
Neighbors are encouraged to bring their own lawn mowers to local green spaces, because parks workers will mow them only once every two weeks. If that.
Water cutbacks mean most parks will be dead, brown turf by July; the flower and fertilizer budget is zero.
City recreation centers, indoor and outdoor pools, and a handful of museums will close for good March 31 unless they find private funding to stay open. Buses no longer run on evenings and weekends. The city won't pay for any street paving, relying instead on a regional authority that can meet only about 10 percent of the need. - Denver Post
As some folks start working their taxes I thought this would be a good topic to examine. With the recent discussion on how to pay for the Health Care bill, there is increased attention on who is getting taxed, but I want to look at things a bit differently. There was an interesting cartoon that shows the result of responsible taxing, and irresponsible tax cutting for the past few Presidents. Yes, that’s right, the “Fiscal Conservatives” Republicans versus the “Tax and Spend” Democrats.
If you're a Californian who has state taxes withheld from your paycheck, the first check you receive after today will have less money in it. The state isn't calling it a new tax, but it's sure going to feel like that: an additional 10% of state income taxes will be withheld. Theoretically, you'll get the money back next year.
The idea is that the state of California is taking a forced loan of $1.7 billion (with a "b") from the state's taxpayers. The state says that when you file your taxes next year for this year, you'll get the excess paid either in the form of an increased refund (if you're owed one) or the ability to pay less than you supposedly owe.
In reality, though, this is in addition to the .25% increase to all California state tax rates enacted back in February, and they're not going to be able to live without the additional income. Therefore, my guess is that you'll get your 2009 money back, but they'll continue to take it out of your check in 2010, and then give that back to you in 2011 and so forth.
This is a small amount of money, running generally from $12 to $40/month per wage earner. Still, it can easily affect spending. Assuming it's margin money, it's a chunk out of holiday spending or a dinner out. If you're already strapped, it makes you closer to lining up your monthly bills and saying "eenie, meenie, miney, moe" as you pick which bill won't get paid.
There is a risky way to avoid having the excess taken out of your paycheck. In actuality, it's risky for some, and a smart move for others. If you owe taxes every year - it's risky - DON'T DO IT. However, if you're one of those people who gets a tax refund every year (especially if you don't itemize) you have already been giving an interest-free loan to the government at all levels. Therefore, if you increase your deductions on a W-4, you'll have less tax money taken out by the Feds AND the state. You won't get money back next year, in fact, because of the way the rates work, you'll likely owe about $150 - $250 dollars, but you'll see the additional dollars now. So, it's a good idea if you want to put the money in your emergency savings account, but a bad idea if you need the extra tax money to live on.
Expect to see more of these creative tax systems in the future, not just in California, but in other states with financial issues. This creativity reminds me of the handbag story. I was shopping with a friend and her two sisters. The sisters are BIG FANS of a certain brand of very expensive handbags. The brand was on sale for 50% off, meaning they cost about $400 - $800 EACH. The end of the season ones had clearance prices. (Don't get me started.) One of the sisters decided to buy a $1600 handbag for $300. She said that this was a savings of $1300, and she could (I kid you not, she actually said this) "really use the $1300." I wanted to explain that she didn't GET $1300, she was still spending $300 ON A PURSE. Plus, she was going to have to charge it, so there would be interest charges. I found, however, that I was truly speechless. She attributed my facial expression to confusion on my part and explained that the $1300 would become part of her assets, thus offsetting other liabilities she had. And honest, while the specifics are different, the idea that "fake" money is the same as "real" money is specious, at best.
California will be in the hole until the state can find a way to either spend much less, raise much more in taxes, or a combination of both. If the state doesn't really give the money back next April AND stop taking the money ahead of time, it's actually a tax increase, however couched. The economists will tell you that I don't know what I'm talking about because I don't truly understand the difference between cash and accrual systems, but I understand that either you actually have dollars, or you don't.
Like many states, Pennsylvania is facing a deficit. Ed Rendell has proposed raising the state income tax. Personally, I think it's a great idea. Right now, the state is facing a budget shortfall of about $3.2 billion, and this would raise about $1 billion. The current rate is 3.07% of gross income, and the idea would be to raise it to 3.7% and then drop it back in a couple years. (Rendell has done the same thing before, and yes, it goes up and then down.)
I live in Chester County, where the median household income is estimated at just over $80,000/year. Thus the current payment is $2,456 for a median income, and the new rate would rise to $2,960, or less than $10/week. Most people in the state earn far less, with a median income of about $48,000 meaning the cost to an average Pennsylvanian household would be about 5 bucks and change a week.
Before you say that flat tax rates are regressive, and taxes are already too onerous, let's consider California. They've already held income tax rebate checks this year, the state is cutting services, the voters voted against any tax increases. Revenues to the state seems to fall weekly. They are facing a 30 June deadline. At that point, they will need to borrow money to keep the government operational, and to do so, the Governator will need to sign off, and Ah-nold has said no.
A loan would only "give them another reason why we don't have to do it now," the governor said. "What we need to do is just to basically cut off all the funding and just let them have a taste of what it is like when the state comes to a shutdown -- grinding halt."
I've been following the details in the LA Times. Every day, there is a slew of articles on the parade of people coming to make their case in Sacramento. I feel badly for the cities and counties that will have to step in, to the extent that they can. It's a bad cycle of businesses that will relocate if business taxes go up. Again, if they can: it's hard to move a farm to another state. But the thing that stabs my heart is the people who will die when the monies get cut. The millions who will be without medical care. The children who will go hungry because the schools can't afford their portion of the school lunch program, and therefore cut back on the sole daily meal many kids get.
So when my governor (with whom I disagree on so many things) basically asks: will you give up a latte a week to help make sure that we can continue to provide the safety net? I say absolutely yes. Finally, something we can agree on.
And as an aside, that $1,500 - $2,000 most households contribute to the state comes back to everyone in terms of education, police, roads, and all the other things the state takes care of, and we take for granted.
Of course, it's not politically expedient to raise taxes, except those on people most people "don't like" -- such as smokers and drinkers. So incredibly sad and short-sighted.
I want to state for the record that I am not personally opposed to paying taxes. I believe it's an obligatory payment for the decision to live in a free society. I prefer local taxes, because I like my dollars to support the local schools, libraries, police, roads, streetlights, etc. (Before anyone says anything about fire; where I live, the fire services are volunteer-supported, and I cut them an annual check, too.) I don't like everything that the government does with my money, but I still believe in paying.
In this morning's Post, there is an article on the VAT tax. This tax, I have really mixed feelings about. A VAT, or Value-Added Tax, is one where things are paid for at each step of production. It's hard to evade this tax because there are records at each step in the process, and the businesses subtract out their part in the process, with the end amount being paid by the consumer. The tax is the value-added at each stage of production. So the farmer pays a tax for corn seed, and then the silo owner pays a portion back to the farmer for adding "corn" to the value-added. The miller pays the silo owner, the manufacturer pays the miller, the packager pays the manufacturer, the trucker pays the packager, the supermarket pays the trucker, and each pays an additional tax for each step of added value. In the end, your Frito's cost 5% to 25% more dependent on the VAT rate charged.
It's a consumption tax, and it's incredibly regressive. It can be made progressive by making sure that people under a certain income level get back what they paid during the annual 15 April settlement, but it's still expensive every time you go to the supermarket. Or the car dealer. Or even the accountant, lawyer, doctor (unless their is Universal Health Care) because VAT is often not just for goods, but for services also.
But we may have no choice.
Another option is raising taxes on the uber-wealthy. The Wall Street Journalpoints out that Maryland tried this last year, and their millionaires disappeared.
One year later, nobody's grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller's office concedes is a "substantial decline." On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year -- even at higher rates.
Yes, some are making less money, so if you made $1.2 million in 2007, your income could have fallen to $999,999 in 2008. But from, say, $10 million to under a million? Unlikely. The Journal posits that the uber-rich have multiple homes, and just switched their primary residencies.
Government services cost money, and that's the bottom line. If we want services, and I contend we do, we need to contribute to their payment. Not run away. A VAT tax may be the solution. Painful, but necessary.
Still, every once in a while I find there is some place that money has gone, or, in the case, is sitting, and it could have a better use, and could be used to fund a more worthwhile program.
There is a program in Philadelphia called "Universal Feeding." It was started almost 20 years ago as a trial balloon, and while it has worked very well in Philadelphia, and other cities want it, somehow it has never been migrated to other places. The idea of the program is that if you have a very poor community, you feed breakfast and lunch to all the kids in the schools without the parents needing to fill out paperwork. Before you ask "how hard can that paperwork be?" remember that paperwork is a struggle if you cannot read, if you're addicted to drugs, in jail, or overwhelmed by extreme poverty. The USDA has decided that the 120,000 families in Philadelphia will have to fill out paperwork for their kids to continue to receive free breakfasts and lunches. (Philadelphia Inquirer, page B1, 24 May). Statistics indicate that 75% of the children in these schools are considered low income. New York and Los Angeles have asked to be part of the program for their schools with high numbers of low income children. But no, the USDA is canceling the program, and expect that the Philadelphia school district will need to pay at least $800,000/year to process the paperwork. Close to a million dollars that could be going to food for hungry kids.
I hate that there are hungry people. Especially hungry kids. Millions and millions of hungry kids: with over 11% of Americans on food stamps...well, you do the math.
So here's what I'm thinking for a good use of tax dollars. There is $300 billion sitting in an account that will never be used for the foreclosure program I wrote about last weekend. $300 billion would feed a whole bunch of hungry kids. And isn't that the sort of thing you want your tax dollars going for?
They say that all that is certain in life is death and taxes. If you're an American, today is April 15th, generally the day of tax reckoning.
So, as a public service: remember to file your taxes today if you haven't already. If you are subject to taxes and you really just can't get it done today, click here, fill out the form, and get your automatic extension.
Some places, in an attempt to make the day a little more palatable, have today-only specials. There are more, but here are a few I know of:
McCormick & Schmick's has discounted some entrees to $10.40, and is giving $10.40 coupons for later use.
PF Chang's has a 15% discount.
Maggie-Moos is giving out free single-scoop cones at most of its locations.
Cinnabon is handing out free mini-buns in the evening.
TGI Fridays is giving out gift cards based on how much you spend on tax day.
Best promo: Taco Del Mar. Their tagline - "Taxes suck. Tacos don't." Click here for a coupon for a free taco.
I know, smoking is bad for you. I've read the research. This isn't a piece about personal health, it's a piece about financial health.
Right now, the $0.62 increase in the Federal per-pack smoking tax is earmarked for S-Chip, the childrens' health program. This is a great program which is a step in the right direction towards Universal Health Care. What worries me is the precariousness of funding a program with monies that could go up in smoke disappear if people quit smoking. Not to mention the state monies that are generated by smoking taxes. The states are truly hurting for money, and assessing all sorts of increased taxes and fees and service cuts, which will only get worse if everyone quits smoking.
Here's the math. It is somewhat sloppy order-of-magnitude math but you'll get the idea.
Population of the United States: 307,212,123 Adult population of the United States: 79.8% Percentage of adult Americans who smoke: 20% Assume the average smoker smokes one pack a day.
Cigarette taxes:
2008 Federal: $ 0.39 2009 Federal: $ 1.01 2008 average State taxes: $ 1.00 2009 average State taxes: $ 1.23
Yield:
Number of smokers = (307,212,123 times 79.80% times 20% = 49,031,054.83)
Facet
Amount
Total Number of Smokers
49,031,054.83
1 pack/day * 365 days
17,896,335,013.24
2008 Fed Tax (*.39)
$19,122,111.38
2009 Fed Tax (*1.01)
$49,521,365.38
Increased Fed Revenue
$30,399,254.00
2008 State Tax (*1.00)
$49,031,054.83
2009 State Tax (*1.23)
$60,308,197.44
Increased State Revenue
$11,277,142.61
That's a little over a hundred million dollars of tax income in 2009. Studies show that when cigarette taxes go up, people either quit or cut down. So, the total could go down. It could also be higher if teenagers smoked, or if the average was more than a pack a day.
So, I'm just saying: I know a hundred million doesn't sound like much compared to the trillions we've been hearing about, but it's a lot of money. Where will it come from if all the smokers quit?
We've cited some interesting potential new state taxes: miles driven in Oregon (yes, this idea has also been floated nationally by Ray LaHood), and carbonated, sugar-sweetened sodas in New York. And now we hear from California, where Assemblyman Tom Ammiano is proposing legalizing, and then taxing, pot.
As a proud Boomer, I am loving this. No snark, I know this will never happen, but I love the idea. For all of us who don't smoke pot ONLY because it is illegal, this would be the ultimate happiness in a dismal economy.
Seriously, we lost the "war on drugs" years ago. It's expensive and never really gets anywhere. The old discussion was a joint at the end of the day vs. several drinks at the end of the day. In a head-to-head comparison, alcohol doesn't come out the winner. When people get drunk, they drive too fast and can get into accidents involving themselves and others. People can get violent. (Yes, I know, there are docile drunks and angry drunks.) With pot, things s-l-o-w down. Users are generally happy, and hungry. (We ALL know Coke, Pepsi, Doritos and Chips Ahoy should be behind this movement big time.)
Of course, some people believe "that evil marijuana" is the devil's work. To wit, the 1936 cult classic Reefer Madness.
But think about it - how much money will be saved by pot being legal? Less work for the Border Patrol and the DEA. Fewer people in prison. And on a more pedestrian basis, people will be able to plant a garden and lovingly watch their crops grow. If you buy commercially, no more trips to the head shop and that tough decision on which flavour Alfa Paper to buy. (They might even bring back chocolate mint.) No more cleaning stems and seeds.
People can say that "pot is bad" and my answer is - not as bad as trans fats, meat, alcohol, cigarettes, cigars, pthalates, glutamates, and high fructose corn syrup, not to mention a host of prescription meds that have side effects far outweighing the good they do. It's decades past the time this should have been done. The legalization: I'm not all that crazy about the taxes, but it's a small price to pay.
The President's budget will be released today. We'll have the link when it's available. It used to be that when these budgets came out, they covered 10 years of projections. The Bushies reduced that to five, but the Obama administration has reverted to ten.
The big thing will be tax increases. First, on those families earning more than $250,000/year. They will be able to Take deductions at 28% instead of 35%, in addition to watching the Bush tax cuts expire. And when the Wepublicans start screaming "you're killing small business" don't believe them - owners of REALLY small business very rarely gross $250,000. And taxes are on net business income. That is, if you file a Schedule C for your small business, you may take in $300,000 in gross sales, but then you subtract wages you paid your employees, rent, utilities, insurance, and all the other costs of doing business. That final number is what you pay taxes on.
The second "tax" will actually be a permit fee assessed on companies blowing past the emissions caps.
Obama will use the additional funds as a downpayment on health care. You know this IS my issue, and you'd think I'd be turning cartwheels (yes, I can) but I'm concerned about Max Baucus whose Senate plan is pro-business, and is never going to cotton to the idea of tax increases on the wealthy. Therefore, I suspect he'll stick some offsets in his health care bill. (If only Tom had paid his taxes....)
So, we'll see once the budget comes out what everyone has to say about it.
UPDATE: You can view the budget and associated documentation here.
As reported in the Quick Hits earlier today, Nancy Killifer has withdrawn her name from nomination. From HuffPost:
Nancy Killefer, who failed for a year and a half to pay employment taxes on household help, has withdrawn her candidacy to be the first chief performance officer for the federal government, the White House said Tuesday.
And it's not like this wasn't a known thing....
When her selection was announced by Obama on Jan. 7, The Associated Press disclosed that in 2005 the District of Columbia government had filed a $946.69 tax lien on her home for failure to pay unemployment compensation tax on household help.
Here's the part I like best:
The AP reported that on March 7, 2005, the D.C. Department of Employment Services slapped a tax lien on her home in the tony Wesley Heights neighborhood. The local government alleged that just three years after she left the high-powered Treasury post she began to fail to pay unemployment compensation tax for a household employee. And she failed to make the required quarterly payments for a year and half, whereupon a lien for $946.69 was placed on her home.
That sum included $298 in unpaid taxes, $48.69 in interest and $600 in penalties. Killefer didn't get the lien extinguished for almost five months, not until July 29., 2005.
During that period, Killefer and her husband, an economics professor, had two nannies to help care for their teenage son and daughter, and she had a personal assistant to run her life when she was on the road, she told Harvard business students back then.
Tax season is well under way, and embattled Rep. Charlie Rangel — a man who has had, ahem, some trouble with the IRS — has inspired legislation that could have taxpayers everywhere jumping for joy.
Introduced on Wednesday by Rep. John Carter, the Rangel Rule Act would amend the tax code to allow any U.S. citizen who writes the phrase “Rangel Rule” on the top of their tax return to be exempt from penalties or interest on any back taxes they might have to pay.
The Texas Republican says he was inspired to pen the measure after learning Rangel hadn’t paid any penalties or interest on the $10,000 worth of back taxes he owed from rental income on a Caribbean property. While Rangel did eventually pay the back taxes, it remains unclear if he ever will pay any penalties.
I thought this might be an early April Fool's joke, but no, it's actually HR 735.
Nancy Pelosi was on Fox News yesterday and said that she wanted to repeal the Bush tax cuts now. Incredibly soon President Obama has signaled his preference to let them run out on their own.
Obama campaigned on repealing tax cuts for those making over $250,000 a year. Not mentioned, but part of that would likely be the repeal of capital gains tax of 0% on the first $64,000 (couple)/$32,000 (individual) of capital gains (calculated as the margin after other income.) The cuts expire on their own next year.
So the question is whether to yank them now.
The reasons for repealing them now are that first and foremost, we need the money sooner rather than later. Second, this is something that does not affect the overwhelming majority of people, and that they voted for, as in "this was a visible part of the change we were promised." It moves the progressive agenda forward, and will be helpful in the reelection of Congressional Democrats (okay, and others) who vote for it, in their 2010 battles.
One reason against immediate repeal is that it curries favour with "purple America". A lot of people who have no shot at ever making $250,000 a year (or $1,000,000 in annual capital gains) like to see the rich gets breaks because they want to believe that they, too, will someday achieve "The American Dream" and therefore, want to pay less in taxes when they, too, are rich. (I kid you not, it's a mind set.) More importantly, it is also a bargaining chip to get Congressional Republicans to buy into other proposals.
But the real question is: how goes the battle? Will Pelosi blink first? Will Obama? The question of how this tiff plays out will set the stage for how the White House and the House of Representatives play together in the same sandbox. And make no mistake: this is the intersection of promise and rhetoric versus action, and the first real test of "centrist" versus "progressive."
Will Obama keep one of the most repeated public PROMISES of his campaign? Has the economy changed enough so that there is political benefit which overrides the promise?
My opinion is that the tax cuts go away now. And I am glad that Nancy Pelosi is standing up for them. I hope that others stand with her, and I hope that all of you will call your Congressmen/Congresswomen and say "repeal the taxes."
My reasons for this are not economic (although I see the benefit), and not political (although I certainly believe in the progressive agenda). It's more basic and important than that.
He promised.
He said he would.
I didn't work my heart and soul out for the promise of change, I did it FOR CHANGE.
Yup, it's TODAY. If you haven't filed, you have until midnight to postmark. If you can't get it together, file for an extension by filling out and filing
We've cited some interesting potential new state taxes: miles driven in 
