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.
Good Monday Morning. For many of you, this is "back to work" day for the first time in several weeks. If you are one of those people who has been off from work, and only accesses the internet from work, it's been a busy time. I cannot remember a late-December as jam-packed with politics as 2008. So, if you're returning to DCW from you office, welcome back, there's a lot to catch up on.
For everyone else, already up on things, let's talk stimulus. There are two major facets of government stimulus plans: what they give you directly (like a funded project, or a check mailed to your house) and things they take away (generally called "tax cuts").
We don't know yet what the direct stimulus will involve specifically, but there is some information on the tax cuts. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the cuts will approach $300 billion, meaning it will be less than 50% of the total package. (WSJ contends the percentage is 40%, but if so, they are the only ones who actually know the entirety of the stimulus plan.) Tax cuts are aimed, in this case, to get Republican support for the entire program.
From the campaign, we know that soon-President Obama will push for a tax credit of $500 per individual, and $1000 per family. There is no upset limit, but rumour has it that the phase-out will begin at around $200,000. This is the "bipartisan" part of the tax cut. The question is, will it work? It only works AS stimulus if people spend the money. It does not work if people save it, or pay already-incurred bills with it. (It's why I like debit cards for this purpose. The money can only be spent.)
The "Republican" part of the tax cut is aimed at business:
As for the business tax package, a key provision would allow companies to write off huge losses incurred last year, as well as any losses from 2009, to retroactively reduce tax bills dating back five years. Obama aides note that businesses would have been able to claim most of the tax write-offs on future tax returns, and the proposal simply accelerates those write-offs to make them available in the current tax season, when a lack of available credit is leaving many companies short of cash.
A second provision would entice firms to plow that money back into new investment. The write-offs would be retroactive to expenditures made as of Jan. 1, 2009, to ensure that companies don't sit on their money until after Congress passes the measure.
Another element would offer a one-year tax credit for companies that make new hires or forgo layoffs, which could be worth $40 billion to $50 billion. And the Obama plan also would allow small businesses to write off a broad range expenditures worth up to $250,000 in 2009 and 2010. Currently, the limit is $175,000.
The question about this is whether included elsewhere is a provision to keep jobs domestic. That is, whether the new hire/kept worker provisions apply only to on-shore jobs. And whether or not it will help businesses who didn't make enough money last year to pay income taxes.
As for the timing, it doesn't look like anything will be ready for President Obama to sign on 20 January. The new plan is before the mid-February Congressional recess.
Quick, name the Governor of Oregon. That's his picture on the left. He's also been a member of the state legislative and judicial branches. It's Ted Kulongoski, in case it was just on the tip of your tongue.
So what's up with Ted? He wants to revolutionize how transportation taxes are assessed. He's got a plan, and he's tested it. It's a paradigm shift, if it actually becomes reality. To wit:
[A] path to transition away from the gas tax as the central funding source for transportation.
In English, a move to replace gas taxes, with mileage taxes. The idea is that cars would be equipped with GPS monitors to gauge how far a car was driven, and a tax would be assessed. This answers to the problem of the state loss of gas tax revenues based on more fuel-efficient vehicles.
[A]bout 300 motorists in the Portland area and two service stations took part over 10 months, ending in March 2007.
A GPS-based system kept track of the in-state mileage driven by the volunteers. When they bought fuel, a device in their vehicles was read, and they paid 1.2 cents a mile and got a refund of the state gas tax of 24 cents a gallon.
The final report detailed the technical aspects of the program. It also stressed the issue of privacy.
“The concept requires no transmission of vehicle travel locations, either in real time or of travel history,” the report said.“Accordingly, no travel location points are stored within the vehicle or transmitted elsewhere. Thus there can be no ‘tracking’ of vehicle movements."
Governors have to make their budgets, and this is one way of adjusting for more fuel efficient cars. Ted believes that the program would eventually help create jobs: design, development and manufacturing jobs for automotive companies, and service station companies. From there, there would be installation and training jobs.
Certainly, it's thinking outside the box we know, but it raises some interesting questions. Because individuals lose part of the incentive for owning a gas sipper, is the tax regressive on those we should be encouraging? That is, the more mileage efficient your car, the higher the hit for gas taxes, relative to a cost per gallon.
Further, what about huge gas users, like trucks and buses? They will effectually be paying less per mile than they do with per-gallon taxes, but because of their weight, they contribute the most to the need for road maintenance. Should they be charged at a higher rate?
The governors are going to have to be creative, and this is certainly an early example.
Word comes from David Axelrod and others that President-elect Obama still plans the tax cut on which he campaigned. The calculator used during the campaign is still available, so if nothing changes (HA!) you can see how much you would save here. The original plan is here.
I'm thinking, though, that there may be a better, more immediate idea. Face it, even if you say $1000/year, you see the money in weekly or bi-weekly amounts, and an extra $20/week is not life changing.
My idea came to me yesterday when I was online looking to buy a new shredder. Let's just say I have a penchant for burning out the motors. Normally, this is a good time to buy a shredder or two, because when the new tax software comes out at all the office supply stores, there are a lot of freebies attached: normally software, but often shredders.
I found a $89.99 model on the Staples site, on-sale for $59.99 with a $40.00 rebate. This puts it in my price range for disposable, built-in obsolescence machinery. But I decided to check the "rebate" link, because there are often tricks hidden in there. I found out that it isn't an actual rebate, but rather a gift card. Now, I'm not buying the shredder because I object to my rebate coming in some form either than actual money.
But there is a lot of value in the idea of the government at least part of that proposed tax savings in gift cards, in lieu of a weekly dribble. Say they guestimate that the minimum most people will get is $300. It would be an easy thing to send out the cards to everyone who received a stimulus check earlier this year, and then adjust for the refund at the end of the year on tax returns. Or just give out the money.
Here's the logic. With a gift card, you have to spend the money. Especially if they put a 30-day limit on when the funds are available. Imagine if all of a sudden 150 million people had to spend $300 each in 30 days. Talk about economic stimulus! I know there's pent up demand. Even for those people who still have jobs, they feel poor, and are spending less. I know if the government gave me $300 that I had to spend, I would be out there with the masses, saving Main Street. I'd buy a good shredder, and a few other things I can afford, but don't want to spend on.
For people in limited financial shape, think groceries, gas, clothes and other necessities. I imagine that a lot of stores would offer 10% discounts if people swapped their Federal gift cards for store gift cards. Since the Federal cards would likely be accepted anywhere that Visa/MasterCard are, think car repairs, hair cuts, doctor visits, and other services people have been putting off. I imagine that car dealers would consider doubling the money for use as a car downpayment.
Sure, it's an unsustainable economic bump. But nothing else seems to be working....
We've cited some interesting potential new state taxes: miles driven in 
Good Monday Morning. For many of you, this is "back to work" day for the first time in several weeks. If you are one of those people who has been off from work, and only accesses the internet from work, it's been a busy time. I cannot remember a late-December as jam-packed with politics as 2008. So, if you're returning to DCW from you office, welcome back, there's a lot to catch up on.
Quick, name the Governor of Oregon. That's his picture on the left. He's also been a member of the state legislative and judicial branches. It's Ted Kulongoski, in case it was just on the tip of your tongue. 
Word 
