Who says that a little pressure doesn’t work these day? Singapore and Liechtenstein have both apparently decided that they wanted to be one of the cool kids after all. This week, both countries received word that they are slated to be removed from the dreaded gray list of the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

The gray list is a list of countries – more than 30 currently – who have made noise about increasing financial transparency but have not taken the necessary steps.

In the case of Singapore, it had publicly endorsed the transparency standard for tax purposes earlier in the year but had not signed the requisite number of financial agreements with other countries. It will hit the magic number *12* when it signs an Avoidance of Double Taxation Agreement or DTA with France this week. Singapore has also renegotiated agreements or signed new agreements with Mexico, Qatar, Norway, Austria, Australia, the Netherlands, UK, Denmark, New Zealand, Belgium and Bahrain.

Similarly, Liechtenstein has agreed two new treaties with Belgium and the Netherlands, respectively. Liechtenstein has also signed agreements with Germany, France, UK and the US. It is negotiating with Italy, Sweden and Norway.

The countries follow on the heels of Switzerland and Austria, which were removed from the grey list in September. This brings to 15 the number of countries which have been moved to the “substantially implemented” category since April 2009. The fallout from UBS is widely viewed to have contributed to the rush to be considered “mainstream.” The OECD is laughing all the way to the, er, transparent banks…Similar Posts:

• Liechtenstein Inquiry Grows
• What? Tax Changes Benefit the Wealthy?
• Germany Tired of Holes in Swiss Policy
• A Handful of Tax Havens Turn a Corner
• Homes Raided in Massive German Tax Evasion Crackdown

As part of the continuing discussions about health care reform, the spectre of how to pay for it has risen again. Yeah, cause that’s how it apparently works in Congress. Much like college students, the plan is to figure out how to pay for all the binge-spending “later.”

So, with that in mind, consider this: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is seeking yet another source of funding for health care reform. This one would raise Medicare payroll taxes on couples who make more than $250,000 a year. Yep, these are the same folks that are likely getting hit with an increase in regular ol’ income taxes to pay for health care reform.

Reportedly, the increase would make up for concessions being made with respect to those Cadillac plans. If you believe the chatter, those thresholds may increase – to $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for couples. The resulting gap will be narrowed by those increased Medicare payroll taxes.

The proposal isn’t much in terms of dollars. It would simply raise the payroll tax to 1.75% from 1.45% for individuals earning more than $200,000 a year and couples making more than $250,000. Popular for the middle class, sure, and for unions who have opposed the Cadillac tax plans.

But not so popular with high dollar wage earners who feel as though they’re being looked at to pay for, well, everything. Need a dollar? Jack up taxes on the wealthy. It’s just so easy.

But maybe – and I’m just throwing it out there – there’s not an endless pool of money out there. Maybe exerting pressure at every turn on high wage earners to make up the difference could have unintended consequences. John Goodman (not the actor who plays Roseanne’s husband but President of National Center for Policy Analysis) claims that the extra Medicare tax “takes money out of the system needed to create jobs.”

That’s not something to be taken lightly in this economy. And the GOP knows it. All of the Republicans in the Senate are opposed to the bill. To push it through and put the kibosh on Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), Sen. Reid needs the okay from everyone else. Everyone. I’m not sure he’ll get it. Just doing a little bit of math here… But Lieberman kind of counts as one of those “everyone else”, right?Similar Posts:

• Health Care Reform and Taxes
• Dear Nancy, Please Don’t Raise Taxes To Pay For Health Care…
• The House Has a Plan to Pay for Health Care (Yes, There’s a Catch)
• Health Care Plan Leaves Huge Hole in the Budget
• Obama Opposes Taxing Health Care Benefits

I just received a notice last week from my health insurance provider that rates at my office would be increasing an average of more than 25%. It’s not unexpected. Apparently, health insurance is one of the few industries which can regularly raise their prices by double digits each year without retribution.

But what is unexpected is that the increase is creeping us slowly towards what the Senate Finance Bill is calling a Cadillac plan. My bare bones little plan (no dental, no vision) now costs about $5,000 per year for individuals and $15,000 for families. And I happen to have one of the latter.

The Senate Finance Committee had proposed a 40% tax on the portion of insurance which exceeds $8,000 per year for individuals and $21,000 per year for families. If we get similar increases in our health care plans for the next two years, I’ll be extremely close to being at risk. God forbid we add dental (and I have three kids with crooked-y teethed parents so there’s no dispute that this will likely be a necessity at this point). Who knew that I had a Cadillac plan?

Notwithstanding public options and other controversial parts of the health care reform bill, the real issue that remains of concern to many is how the plan is going to be paid for… In addition to the 40% tax on those Cadillac plans proposed by the Senate, the bill as recently passed by the House would impose a 5.4% income tax on individuals making more than $500,000 and joint filers making more than $1 million. If existing tax cuts expire in 2011, which appears increasingly likely, the top income tax rate would grow to 45% – a 10% increase.

But here’s a thought. In an increasingly dim economy, isn’t it a little scary to rely on higher taxes from top wage earners to foot the bill?Similar Posts:

• New Health Care Reform Ad Airs
• Obama Opposes Taxing Health Care Benefits
• Dear Nancy, Please Don’t Raise Taxes To Pay For Health Care…
• Fix the Tax Code Friday: Health Care Reform
• Ooh… I Get It… We Still Have to Pay For This Thing

Don’t get too excited. It’s not a huge tax break – but it’s not a bad one either. A bill that was rushed through recently passed in Congress, known as The Worker, Homeownership and Business Assistance Act of 2009, will allow businesses to apply losses retroactively.

The bill, which was tacked onto the homebuyer’s credit extension/expansion, would allow businesses which suffered losses in 2008 or 2009 to retroactively apply those losses to any five years prior to 2008. Known as a “net-operating loss carryback” or “NOL carryback”, those losses could previously only be carried back for two years. It’s an expansion of the NOL provisions under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).

There are some restrictions. The one that’s been getting the most press bars businesses which have accepted TARP money from utilizing the expanded NOL carryback. That is, of course, so that Congress appears to be taking a hard-line against those businesses (all while allowing them to engage in the same kinds of risky behaviors as before).

The expansion is estimated to cost just over $10 billion over 10 years. The homebuyer’s credit is estimated to cost about $10 billion over 10 months.

Is it just me, or does this feel very “Old MacDonald” all of the sudden?

Here, $10 billion, there $10 billion, everywhere $10 billion…

Similar Posts:

• Fun Stimulus Bill Facts
• Obama Proposes Tax Cuts: What’s In It For You?
• Health Care Bill Update
• Economic Stimulus Plan Is (Almost) Law: What Made the Cut?
• Federal Estate Tax Makes News Again

When it comes to economics, the US and UK tend to find themselves on the same page. A recent example is their consolidated front over the need for banking transparency – both countries took a tough approach with respect to the banking secrecy laws of in Switzerland and Luxembourg.

But this weekend, the US and the UK took decidedly different views over a proposal to tax financial transactions to support future bank rescues.

UK Prime Minister (for now) Gordon Brown is in favor of such a tax, referred to as a so-called “Tobin Tax”, as a way to take the burden off taxpayers in the midst of financial crisis. The idea would be to implement a tax or levy, also characterized as an insurance fee, to be implemented across the board on financial institutions in all economic centers including the US, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Brown described it as a “just distribution of risks and rewards.”

But US Treasury secretary Timothy Geithner has said he would not support such a tax, adding that it should not be the position of those today to pay for future risks. He did not, however, rule out the idea of any responsibility by banks to pay for the economic crisis – he just apparently feels that it’s too soon to consider a tax in the face of other alternatives.

Interestingly, Russia appeared to be in agreement with the US with Russian finance minister, Alexei Kudrin, also voicing skepticism over the tax. Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty also expressed concern over the tax.

However, Max Lawson, the senior policy adviser for Oxfam was enthusiastic about the UK proposal, saying:

Gordon Brown today signalled that payback time for banks could be just around the corner. A tax on banks would be a major step towards clearing up the mess caused by their greed.

While the two day G20 Summit has ended, the matter is far from over. The International Monetary Fund is already looking into this very issue with an eye towards what it’s calling a financial sector tax. One way or the other, we’ll see further discussion on this…Similar Posts:

• PNC and Other Banks Benefit from Bad Debts
• Banks Get Approval To Repay TARP funds
• Looking for Bank Bailout News?
• Paulson Believes Taxpayers Will Benefit From Bail Outs, Also Promises Significant Weight Loss and Clear Skin
• And The Most Secretive Financial Jurisdiction in the World Is…? (Hint: there’s no cheese involved)

If you’re opposed to extending the first time homebuyer’s credit (I am), you’re probably in the minority. And you’re definitely not in the Senate. The Senate voted unanimously to approve the bill and the House is expected to follow suit (at least the approval bit).

Under the new law, the first time homebuyer’s credit would be extended to April 30, 2010 to sign a contract to buy a home and another sixty days to close. *Whew, just in time for the November elections.*

The bill also extends the credit to homeowners who have lived in their current home for five of the last eight years – those folks get a reduced credit of $6,500 for homes purchased after November 30, 2009 (but before the April deadline).

Additionally, income caps were raised to $125,000 a year for individuals and $225,000 a year for married couples.

Raising the income caps? The only sensible part of the plan.

The new law will cost taxpayers about a billion dollars a month. Yes, a billion.

According to a recent report released by Goldman Sachs economist Alec Phillips, all but about 200,000 of the 1.4 million first-time buyers who claimed the first time homebuyer’s credit in 2009 would have purchased a home even without the incentive. The cost to taxpayers? $8.5 billion. If you do the math, that means that the real “cost” to taxpayers for increasing home sales is about $42,500 per home. Let that sink in for a minute.

Goldman Sachs also estimates that all of that money only resulted in boosting prices by 5% – and that includes the idea that sellers increased their prices in anticipation of the credit, something that I was concerned about (you may recall that I wasn’t a fan of the bill in the first place).

I don’t think anyone will argue that the bill did nothing. It clearly did something – at least 200,000 felt compelled to buy under the plan. But I am concerned about the cost. I don’t think we can fix everything by throwing more money at it (except maybe baseball but that just makes me sound like a bitter Phillies’ fan). I guess I’m oddly more laissez-faire than Congress (who’d have thunk it?) but *gasp* what about the notion of letting the housing market right itself? We’ve had two years of housing credits (yes, there was a stimulus credit in 2008) and now we’re pushing off to 2010. When does it end?Similar Posts:

• First Time Homebuyer’s Credit Likely Expanded
• Fix the Tax Code Friday: Extending Tax Programs
• First-time Homebuyer Credit Viewed As a Success
• Ask the taxgirl: Co-signers and First Time Homebuyer’s Credit
• Ask the taxgirl: MFS and Homebuyer’s Credit

If you ask a Mainer about taxes, you’re liable to get an earful: Mainers have one of the highest tax burdens in the nation. Nonetheless, on election day, Maine voters turned down proposals to cut taxes.

In a slow economy, Maine voters were leery of a proposal that would result in cuts in services. The controversial ballot issue, Question 4, asked voters if they wanted to limit future increases in state and local government spending and taxes to the rate of inflation plus population growth. The measure was known as the Taxpayer Bill of Rights campaign, or TABOR. Those opposed to the measure referred to it as “TABOR II” since a similar proposal was turned down in 2006.

Those in support of TABOR claimed that the bill would put more money back in taxpayer’s pockets. Critics wondered what the actual result of would be, as many state and local services were already facing cuts. Public schools are already operating under frozen budgets.

Voters also rejected a proposal to cut excise taxes on some vehicles and exempt hybrid and fuel-efficient vehicles from sales tax. Measures to encourage the purchase of cleaner cars are popular in states like Colorado but critics feared that tax cuts would have to be made up somewhere else. In that way, it wasn’t so much a tax cut as a shift in taxation.

While tax measures on the ballots were overshadowed by publicity over questions about making medical marijuana more available (yes) and gay marriage legal (no), the tax votes may be indicative of the mood of the nation on the eve of a huge election year… Only time will tell.Similar Posts:

• Election Results: State Tax Legislation
• California Faces Massive Deficit, Likely to Raise Taxes
• Surprise! NJ Doesn’t Like High Taxes
• Maine Really Is a High Tax State
• Stranger things have happened.

Despite three campaign appearances by President Obama, Governor John Corzine lost his gubernatorial seat in New Jersey to GOP challenger Chris Christie last night. Exit polls showed that the top two concerns for New Jersey voters were the economy and the state’s high property taxes.

How high are those property taxes? For the year 2008, New Jersey holds the distinction of the state with both the highest property taxes per capita and the worst business tax climate in the nation, according to the Tax Foundation (note: report will download as a pdf). New Jersey residents also ranked highest in the nation last year with respect to state and local taxes as a percentage of income. New Jersey taxpayers paid a whopping 11.8% of income in state and local taxes, more than 2% above the national average.

Of course, this is nothing new for New Jersey. Residents have generally put up with higher taxes because of what they thought it bought them: some of the best schools in the country, for example. But in the midst of a bad economy, that has changed. New Jersey residents increasingly believe that higher taxes buy them very little (ask Robert Flach) except possibly more corruption.

Governor (for now) John Corzine became the first New Jersey governor to lose a re-election bid since 1993, when then Governor Jim Florio lost to an up and coming GOP challenger Christie Todd Whitman. Whitman, who made cutting taxes a priority in her campaign, later bit at an offer by President Bush clearly intended to knock her out of the public eye and into obscurity.

So what does that mean for New Jersey residents? Luckily for them, they can only go down from here.

Technorati Tags:
tax, New Jersey, Corzine, Christie, property taxes

Similar Posts:

• NJ Taxes On the Rise
• New Jersey is #1!
• Maine Really Is a High Tax State
• Maine Says No To Tax Cuts
• NJ Applies Retroactive Tax To Lottery Winners

Get ready for it… $10.8 billion.

This is an estimate for the extension portion only – the initial credit cost just over $8 billion.

Call it welfare, a bailout, an “incentive plan” – I call it bad policy.Similar Posts:

• First-time Homebuyer Credit Viewed As a Success
• Cheater, Cheater, Pumpkin Eater: Home Buyer Credit Fraud Rampant
• Fix the Tax Code Friday: Extending Tax Programs

You know what they say in Congress, if it’s not broke (enough), keep trying until it is…

So, with that in mind, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has announced an extension of the first time homebuyer’s credit.

Despite evidence that the credit has been used inappropriately – and perhaps criminally – lawmakers have agreed to extend the credit through the end of April. In addition to the expanded credit for first time homebuyers, a reduced credit of $6500 would be available to home buyers who have been in their current residence for a consecutive five-year period in the past eight years.

Income limits under the new bill would be increased to $125,000 for singles and $250,000 for couples, from the current $75,000 and $150,000. The credit phases out for people making more than those amounts.

Does that cover everybody? Does everyone get a tax credit now? Cause we wouldn’t want to be handing out that free money and leave someone out.

And the National Association of Realtors? They’re sleeping well? Good.

But just to make sure it passes, the bill is reportedly being tacked on to a measure that would extend unemployment benefits. Of course. Because nobody would vote against the jobless.

Sheesh.Similar Posts:

• Housing Credit Extended – What Else Is New?
• First-time Homebuyer Credit Viewed As a Success
• Ooh… I Get It… We Still Have to Pay For This Thing
• Fix the Tax Code Friday: Extending Tax Programs
• Ask the taxgirl: Same Sex Couples and the Homebuyer’s Credit