Paula

If you didn't understand or believe my [1], you shoulda said that in the first place, rather than your "No American is happy . . .etc", coulda saved us a lot of time.

Stucki,

If you're truly interested in "saving us a lot of time," you can:

(a) stop pulling stuff out of your own ass,
(b) get your facts straight before you post your smug repetitive boring bullshit,
(c) just STFU altogether.

:)

Stuck: I disagree with your entire premise. You're simply making assertions and "connections" out of your own assumptions.
______________________

You're simply making assertions and "connections" out of your own ass.
______________________

Fixed it for you, Paula. *grins* ;)

What "match"? It's fairly clear the woman responded to the rhetorical usurious interest rate without ever relating to the point of my post.

"Rhetorical usurious interest rate"?! *laughs* Neil is exactly right about your boring "smugness."

By the content of this latest pathetic smug boredom fest of yours contained above and in comment [1], I can only assume that you believe it's merely a coincidence that the overwhelming majority of major credit card issuers are based in states with NO usury laws and with NO interest rate caps on credit cards, and therefore by legal definition there exists no such thing as a "usurious interest rate" on the majority of credit cards.

The highest interest rate charged to date by a credit card company is 79.9% on a First Premier Credit Card in 2010... and totally legally. The highest interest rate currently charged happens to be 36%... by the same bank, actually: First Premier Bank. However, the average credit card rate isn't remotely 36%... more like 19%... so the "average American" (your term) isn't "happily" or "willingly" paying anything near a 36% credit card interest rate because that rate is an outlier and not remotely an average.

It's getting pretty clear that Chris was the only one around here perceptive enough to get my point.

It's getting pretty clear that you have no idea what you're talking about on a fairly frequent basis. Next. :)

Actually, I've been warning about this ever since the bill passed, pretty much. I can dig out articles from a year ago, if you'd like. I thought it was sneaky to try to frontload the benefits but then not have the realization come until AFTER the midterms had happened. Pretty crafty of the GOP, gotta admit.

But as to your other point, you're right but not all of them see it the same way.

Some people know that they could change things, but voluntarily don't. They see it as the government's "forcing me to save up" program, kind of. The only time each year they get a big chunk of extra money is tax refund time. So some people actually plan for it -- "I'll add $200 extra each month to my withholding, then I'll get back $2,400 at the end of the year!" Some go into it eyes wide open, in other words. Not all, and likely note even some -- but a few of the big-refund people know exactly what's going on.

Of course, for them, they can use the reverse-engineering advice, and just add whatever they want to what they should be paying. I know several people who do precisely that, in fact.

"I need $200 a week to cover the taxes, but I'm going to take out $250 a week so I get a big check that maybe I can use as a downpayment on a new car or something else I need."

-CW

I missed Warren's conference address to which you refer. I'm wondering if she made any attempt to lay blame for the "missing and murdered indigenous women"??

Probably wouldn't have been "indigenous" men, right? Gotta be palefaces!

Mark Kelly, Gabby Gifford's astronaut/husband launches his campaign for Senate.

Dems continuing to have cool candidates around the country. Great little video.

Warren received a standing ovation from tribal leaders and other Native attendees as she approached the stage. She called on Congress to take more action on Native issues, including “the alarming number of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls,” suicide rates among Native people, housing, health care and addiction.

I presume that I'm correct in concluding that what got you going on this was the media buzz recent days to the effect that many people are distraught to discover that they're not going to get a refund of the magnitude comparable to previous yrs.

In that case, it's counterproductive for you to explain to them how the system works and how rational people should manage it. If the media people are correct, it means people prefer a large refund, and don't WANT to manage it rationally.

Paula responds that we (I) have no right to presume they're being stupid, and who knows, if the irrational system makes them happy, perhaps best to leave them to their financial ignorance.

But AFTER you do your 2018 taxes, you can use this method to fix things for your 2019 withholding. Then you'll be OK next year under the new system.

-CW

OK, the Spinal Tap reference was funny!

Just had to say that...

C. R. Stucki [17] -

Whoa there... I didn't agree with your whole point, just the sub-point. The smart way to do things for taxpayers as things stand is to reverse-engineer the withholding tables.

Start with: I'm going to owe X in taxes for the year (pretty much what I paid last year) as long as my circumstances don't change. Then divide X by the number of pay periods per year (monthly, divide by 12; weekly, divide by 52). That's what you should be paying.

Now go to the tax table, find the chart for your pay period (monthly, weekly, whatever), and match the number you just got to the chart. Err on the upside in the chart, so you'll be a tiny bit over at the end of the year. Then see how many exemptions you should be claiming (or whatever the magic number is called on the W2 or W4 -- I'm doing all this from memory, sorry). Fill out a new W2 or W4 with that number on it.

At the end of the year, you won't get a big refund, but you won't have to pay much either, no matter which way the fine-tuning details work out.

I'm amazed at how many people don't do this, personally. It's not all that tough, and the withholding tables are publicly viewable (they're not some secret documents only HR departments get or anything...).

-CW

[17] Stuck: As I read it your "point" is that there are unnamed people out there who have high-interest loans and are, in your construction, simultaneously overwithholding on their taxes in order to get a tax refund and you think they are stupid.

I reject your formulation on several fronts. You have no idea if high-interest loan ppl knowingly or willingly overwithhold on their taxes. You have no idea why they have the high interest loans. You have no idea what they think about either or both or whether they connect the two.

I thought I cleared that up when I switched terminology from "happy" to "willing".

What "match"? It's fairly clear the woman responded to the rhetorical usurious interest rate without ever relating to the point of my post. Sorry it took me so long for that to sink in, coulda just as well skipped the exchange.

It's getting pretty clear that Chris was the only one around here perceptive enough to get my point.

People who lose a limb to flesh esting bacteria don't go beaming about how great their amputation was...they accept it's the better alternative than death. Acceptance of something is not the same as being happy about sometimg. I give the match to Paula on points.

Trump should have claimed a stunning victory and lied like hell about all the details. His Base would buy that! Instead, Trump said he was diasppointed. He admitted he lost. His game is all about winning, or at least pretending you are winning. The MAGA crowd is not going to be happy with a 75 mile privacy fence not payed for by Mexico. I suppose Trump has time to pivot and pretend he didn't say what he said.

If you didn't understand or believe my [1], you shoulda said that in the first place, rather than your "No American is happy . . .etc", coulda saved us a lot of time.

It is obviously a major humiliation, but he MAGA crowd will call that "Fake News" and cheer their amazing win - it is vital that somebody inside the cult doesn't convince them otherwise.

I'm certain that is true, but what does it have to do with having overwithholding in order to get a tax refund, while you still pay high interest on your credit card balances, which is what got this conversation started???

You could call the compromise a fig leaf, and Trump can try and sell that as a dashing accessory to his base, who have so far been willing to buy pretty much everything he sells.

If you find the image of Trump clad only in a fig leaf off putting, avert your mental gaze and focus on a scene from the still highly watchable film Spinal Tap. Congress is offering up a 1 foot tall Stonehenge with a bunch of little people dancing around it to look more impressive. If you're high on MAGMA this "forced political perspective" may actually work for you.... and it's G rated.

Or rather, the inverse.

OK, how about 'Willing' then, because a helluva lot of people are doing just that.

https://www.axios.com/automobile-sales-trump-tax-plan-smaller-refunds-13c98a56-a442-4be0-98ee-9e15e3e7eea3.html

The car industry is said to be concerned about the impact. On the other hand, it looks like there were consumers who felt flush, perhaps because of the increase in take home, who bought more cars in 2018 than expected.

Sadly for the GOP, most people like to eat their dessert after their broccoli, not before it.

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2019/02/08/ftp517/#comment-131336

C. R. Stucki -

I didn't even go into the whole "you are in charge of your own withholding" thing, or the "interest-free loan to the government all year" thing either. The article is long enough as it is.

But I did think about it, because you're right about that interest-free loan thing. Some people used to put 99 down on their W-2 (W-4? whichever one you have to fill out when you get hired...), so that they would get every dollar back all year. Then they'd stick it in a savings account and get the interest themselves, and pay their tax bill in full at the end of the year. The IRS put this to an end by saying if you claim more than (9? 19? I forget) at the start, then you'll put yourself under immediate scrutiny...

Paula -

Something else I should have added, but didn't have time to look up: I think H.W. Bush got in the same pickle, by telling the IRS to give people more money back to make a tax cut look bigger. At the end of the year, people weren't happy. I don't fully remember the details, but I know this has bitten the GOP on the rear end before...

-CW

I have a strange income situation and so have to two estimated payments per year, one in Q2 and one in Q4. I do this for both State and Federal taxes. My goal is to pay about $250 more on each and then have a small refund (otherwise I get dinged on interest charges - it is a thing and it pisses me off).

So this year, Q2 rolls around and there are no documents ready to help my calculations, so I just use an estimate based on the most similar prior year.

Come Q4 I find that there is a handy-dandy IRS calculator for people like me, so I plug my best guess on my numbers in and out pops a pleasant surprise. I write the check, take a swing in the dark for my state taxes and tell my wife we can afford to give CW a couple of bucks to keep his column up - happiness abounds.

Then I finally get my copy of TaxAct! and plug everything in - turns out the IRS calculator was out by $3,000 the wrong way - so I owe taxes and an interest penalty.

Thus if the IRS couldn't provide a calculator that worked by Q4, what chance did accounting departments have figuring out the withholdings.

Most employed (vs. self-employed) people also have zero control over how much $ is being withheld from their paychecks. That's just abstractions versus cash in their pockets they can actually spend or save. So you can't really blame them - especially if withholdings have been too high, thus generating refunds year after year - if they feel upset that rather than getting the refund they've become accustomed to they get less, or none, or even an unexpected bill.

It doesn't help that Blotus and Repubs were trumpeting how they'd put money in working people's pockets as though it was a tax cut, when much of it was simply a withholding adjustment. That was dishonest.

Stupid hardly does it justice!