Americans Are Delaying Health Care Until Tax Refunds Arrive

Post by wsdfsayy » Sat, Apr 13, 2019, 7:31 PM UTC

briandear wrote: post #44

wsdfsayy wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone living in a state with high income and/or property taxes will likely pay more this year given the $10k cap on deductions for state and local taxes which was previously unlimited before the 2018 tax year...

“Anyone?” That isn’t accurate because you’re ignoring the doubling of the standard deduction. Higher income people who itemize would be the only ones affected. And with the reduced tax rates offset some of that lack of SALT deductibility. That SALT change only really affected less than 7% of taxpayers (10.9 million filers out of 153 million who filed returns.) https://www.cbsnews.com/news/salt-tax-deduction-on-2018-t…

Post by purple-again » Sat, Apr 13, 2019, 7:32 PM UTC

tax_breaks_ wrote: post #21

lotsofpulp wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a big fan of those either, but at least give access to invest the funds in a savings account or the market. I’d rather we teach some basic finance and civic responsibility in school.

Gee, you mean "civic responsibility" like not rewarding tax avoidance and tax cheats like the orange buffoon and his ilk? Yeah, we're all in favor. These tax changes have raped the lower and middle classes. Trying to be disingenuous about "civic responsibility" and "basic finance" is pretty shitty.

Post by justin66 » Sat, Apr 13, 2019, 7:47 PM UTC

jfk13 wrote: post #51

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you don't actually have that money. Suppose that the state and the federal government each had a 55% tax rate. Then you would make $1 and owe $1.10. You would owe more in taxes than you make, so you would quit your job. Of course, there is a simple way for the states to fix this -- move the taxes to the business side. Instead of having state income tax, have payroll tax paid by the employer. Then the employer…

If both the state and federal governments each had a 55% tax rate, you'd be justified in questioning the rates and voting for a different government! Just as I expect people would complain if there was just a single tax authority, but it set a rate of 110%. Assume for now that we accept the federal government is entitled to raise money for its programs by taxing people's incomes (yes, some people might disagree, but…

Post by vuln » Sat, Apr 13, 2019, 7:56 PM UTC

koolba wrote: post #45

briandear wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it the only option? If withholding is less, what’s stopping people from saving the reduction? A refund is essentially an interest free loan repayment from the government. Refunds should ideally be zero.

> How is it the only option? It’s not but it’s a lot easier for many people if they don’t realize they have the money. > If withholding is less, what’s stopping people from saving the reduction? Reality. It’s no different then walking around town with a couples $20 bills vs walking around with your pockets empty. Sure you could just not spend any of it but it’s a hell of a lot easier if you don’t even have the option…

Post by nightski » Sat, Apr 13, 2019, 7:59 PM UTC

octorian wrote: post #47

zamadatix wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether you get a huge tax refund or not is about how much you chose to overpay on withholdings not how much you were taxed.

And typically lower-paid people have higher deductions on their taxes (versus withholdings) and usually get the larger refunds. So much so that they basically depend on it. That's why everyone is in such shock right now. Meanwhile, I've never been one to get a large refund at tax time. And I've always planned for my big annual expenses upfront (sometimes using an automatic bank account transfer to "incrementally save…