Posts tagged as:

economic stimulus

One of the most controversial measures in the soon-to-be-law American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 has nothing to do with tax cuts, earmarks or CEO pay caps. But the inclusion of one little sentence has set off a firestorm of complaints all over the world. The sentence?

None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for a project for the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public building or public work unless all of the iron, steel, and manufactured goods used in the project are produced in the United States.

Who knew that we even had manufacturing in the US anymore? Certainly not this girl who moved from rural North Carolina, where her father’s job was more or less shipped to Mexico, to Philadelphia, where once bustling warehouses, now empty, line the streets of North Philly…

But apparently we do. (Where? Pittsburgh? Detroit? I just don’t see it.)

And we’ve decided it’s that important that we want to slap a “Buy American” on the stimulus package.

A move to kick start prosperity – or a recipe for disaster?

Gary Shapiro, president of the Consumer Electronics Association, thinks it’s the latter: “The ‘Buy American’ provisions … will signal to our trading partners around the world that the United States is returning to the bad old days of protectionism and economic nationalism.” (You can read his entire statement here.)

The bill still requires that the US act in a manner consistent with existing trade pacts, a measure that was pushed by President Obama. This means that the countries that we like (Canada, those in the European Union and Japan, to name a few) may still get a share of the new infrastructure projects. But those countries that we don’t like do not have a trade pact with, such as China, India and Russia, get nothing.

Proponents argue that it’s just common sense to require American projects to be built with American goods – especially if those projects are being support with taxpayer dollars. But opponents argue that the measure will make projects more time consuming and more expensive (estimates are that the final costs will be at least 25% more expensive with the “Buy American” provisions), which will penalize taxpayers.

It’s an interesting question, for sure, and one we’ve tackled on the blog before. You may remember that last year, I challenged my readers to think about how they spent their day and to make a note of which products they used and where those products were made. It was so much fun, I’m doing it again!

So again, I’d love for you to play along. Throughout your day, if you see a “Made in…” label, please stop by and leave a note in the comments.

I am anxious to see how much of our purchases are American…

{ 7 comments }

It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.
- Franklin D. Roosevelt

Clearly, something isn’t working in America. With mounting job losses, creeping retail sales, record foreclosures, it was clear that something had to change. What wasn’t abundantly clear was how to effectuate that change.

Congress thinks it has an answer. After weeks of back and forth, the compromise version of the stimulus package, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, has passed both houses of Congress. It now moves to President Obama’s desk where it is expected to become law on Tuesday, February 17, 2009.

The bill has been both touted and criticized on both sides. We’ve heard cries of “it’s too much!” and “it’s not enough!” by both sides of the House and Senate. Now, with the details finally hammered out, it’s your chance to weigh in.

First, the specifics. The estimated price tag of the new bill is $789.5 billion, just over the amount pledged as part of the TARP bailout signed into law by then President Bush. Nobody even flinches at the “b” anymore. It is, however, less than the original versions proposed by the Senate, the House and President Obama.

Sixty five percent (65%) of the bill reflects increased expenditures. Roughly half of those expenditures are direct benefits spending for food stamps, jobless benefits and the like; the remaining amount is appropriated for infrastructure and other projects.

The remaining thirty five percent (35%) are tax provisions which will have a direct impact on tax bills for businesses and individuals. Here are a few highlights:

1, No rebate checks. Most tax professionals, myself included, have speculated for months that a second check would not be included in the final version of the bill, despite rumors to the contrary. The reality is that the prior administration just did not get the “bang for the buck” that they had hoped for in exchange for mailing out rebate checks. It was an expensive and most would argue, failed, attempt to inject consumer cash into the economy. So, no rebate checks this go round (but see #2 and #3 below).

2, Making Work Pay Credit. Rather than rely on rebate checks, the new bill includes a tax credit, the Making Work Pay Credit, which will provide up to $400 per individual worker and $800 per working married couple. Excluded from eligibility are nonresident aliens and those who can be claimed as a dependent on another taxpayer’s return. The credit will be administered through cuts in withholding – you’ll see a few dollars extra in your paycheck each pay period (and I do mean a “few” dollars!). The full credit would be available to those earning $75,000 or less ($150,000 per married working couple). Phase-outs would allow a partial credit for individuals up to $100,000 and couples earning up to $200,000. The credit, which would be administered by cuts in federal withholding, would also be refundable, so that if you do not have enough withheld to result in dollars back throughout the year, you can likely apply it to your tax return (this includes those who are self-employed).

3, Credit for Retirees and the Disabled. Since those who are retirees and/or disabled would not qualify for the Making Work Pay Credit, they will receive a one time payment of $250. The specifics aren’t yet public but I’m guessing that it will be in the form of a check, as with the rebate.

4, AMT Relief. The bill includes yet another one-year provision, called a “patch”, to shield middle class taxpayers from the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax). The exemption amount is bumped up a few hundred dollars. The exemption amounts for 2009 are now $70,950 for married couples and $46,700 for individual taxpayers.

5, Partial Unemployment Compensation Exemption. Unemployment compensation is generally taxable as income for federal tax purposes. The new bill allows a federal income tax exemption for the first $2,400 received in federal unemployment benefits in 2009. Amounts above that limit remain taxable.

6, Child Tax Credit Income Limit Lowered. The income threshold for eligibility for the child tax credit will be lowered to $3,000. That means that families will begin qualifying for the credit (up to $1000) at each dollar earned over $3,000. This temporary reduction is only applicable for 2009 and 2010.

7, Increase in Earned Income Tax Credit. The amount recoverable under the earned income credit will be increased to 45% of qualifying earnings for low-income families with three or more children. There is also a provision to offer “marriage penalty” relief incurred in the credit. Like the child tax credit income, this provision is only applicable for 2009 and 2010.

8, American Opportunity Tax Credit. A temporary provision to expand the Hope Scholarship tax credit is included in the bill. The applicable amount has been increased to $2500 and applies for all four years of college. The two year credit (for 2009 and 2010) is also partially refundable.

9, 529 Plan Qualified Expenses Expanded. Taxpayers can now add computers and computer technology, which could include educational software and internet, to the list of expenses which qualify under a 529 plan. This exception applies to 2009 and 2010 only.

10, Sales Tax Deductions for New Car Buyers. Taxpayers can deduct state and local sales taxes paid on the purchase of a new car, light vehicle, recreational vehicle or motorcycle on their federal income tax (leased vehicles do not qualify). The deduction is above-the-line deduction, meaning that you don’t have to itemize to qualify. There’s a $49,500 limit on the cost of the vehicle and income restrictions apply (upper limits of $125,000 for individual taxpayers and $250,000 for married taxpayers). The deduction is available through the end of 2009.

11, No Car Loan Interest Deduction. Finally, some common sense. You know I wasn’t a fan of the $10 billion proposed break in personal interest for car loans. It was removed from the final bill.

12, Temporary Credit for Home Buyers. The final version of the bill increases the size of the existing temporary, refundable first-time home buyer credit to $8,000 – the Senate version was largely scrapped. The requirement that the credit be paid back over 15 years has been removed; however, if you sell the home within three years (some exceptions for hardship and divorce apply), the credit must be paid back. Income is capped at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for married taxpayers for qualifying taxpayers. This credit is applicable from January 1, 2009 through November 30, 2009. Homeowners who previously qualified for the 2008 tax credit are not affected.

13, Expansion of Residential Energy Credits. The residential energy property tax credit has been increased from 10% to 30%, with a cap of $1,500, total, for 2009 and 2010. Qualifying modifications include energy efficient insulation, exterior windows (including skylights) and doors, central air conditioners and some water heaters or furnaces.

14, Transit Accounts. Pretax accounts for commuting have been capped at at $230 per month for parking and for public transit. Finally!

15, Small Business Owner Estimated Tax Break. Under prior law, estimated tax payments were required to be at least 100% of the tax liability for the prior year in order to escape penalty. In 2009, estimated tax payments for individuals with a majority of income derived from a small business (meaning 500 or fewer employees) will be allowed a “safe harbor” of 90% of the 2008 liability.

16, Financial Institution Compensation Capped. Despite rumors that the compensation caps were not included in the final bill, the provisions did make it in – and the final version is much much strict than those imposed by the White House. Bonuses for executives at all financial institutions receiving TARP money will be limited to no more than 1/3 of annual compensation. The bonuses must be paid in company stock, not other perks, which is restricted for sale until after the TARP money is repaid. These limits apply to top executives and the highest-paid employees at all 359 banks receiving “bail out” money.

- – - – - – - – - – - – -

It’s a massive bill. To summarize pages and pages into readable bits is quite challenging – and I’m sure that I left something out that somebody cares about (NOLs for businesses, anyone?). But I tried to cover what I think is most interesting to you. If you don’t see something that you were looking for – or if you have questions – just ask. I’m happy to try and muddle through to find the answers.

Likewise, I’d love to know what you think about the final bill. Is it all that you hoped it would be and more?

And here’s my disclaimer: I’ve read the bill (you can, too, by going to thomas.gov). And some of the amended versions – there were a staggering 485 amendments. And the compromise version. And the “final” version. My head hurts from so much “strike section 1(a)” and “insert section 2(b)” here nonsense. It’s been quite a whirlwind of additions and deletions. Until the ink is dry on the page, however, this bill is not law. So, keep that in mind, okay?

Technorati Tags:
, , ,

{ 11 comments }

Taxpayer asks:

I recently did my taxes through Turbo tax and during the process Turbo tax informed me that I qualify for a rebate of $300.00 (stimulus payment) beings I did not work 2007 and missed out on the 2008 rebate. Here is what turbo tax said “your situation has changed, and you qualify for a rebate of $300.00 when you file your 2008 return” The IRS has approved my taxes and i am just waiting for the check in the mail. My question is will I get the $300.00 or should i at lest get the $300.00 with my tax return? If not how or when will I get the refund? Is there anything i need to do to make sure i get the refund? Thank you!!

Taxgirl says:

If you qualify to receive the rebate this year (because you didn’t qualify last year or your situation has changed), you don’t need to take any further steps beyond filing your return. The credit will be applied towards any refund you might be due. On its site, the IRS states very clearly that “taxpayers will receive a single refund that includes any recovery rebate credit to which they are entitled. The IRS will not be issuing separate recovery rebate credit payments.”

Like any good lawyer, I need to add a disclaimer: Unfortunately, it is impossible to give comprehensive tax advice over the internet, no matter how well researched or written. Before relying on any information given on this site, contact a tax professional to discuss your particular situation.

Have a question? Ask the taxgirl!Now on Facebook!

{ 6 comments }

As of this evening (Monday), it seems that the Senate version of the housing bill will make it intact to the vote on tomorrow. And you know that I’m not a fan. I promised that I’d explain why I think it’s a bad idea. It’s taken a few extra days (yes, a plague of biblical proportions seems to have fallen on my house) but here goes…

The original bill, as passed in the fall, was a $7,500 federal income tax credit for “first time homebuyers” that had to be repaid over 15 years. In that way, it was like an interest free loan. Phaseouts apply for single taxpayers at $75,000 and married taxpayers at $150,000.

The second version of the bill, which was not made law but passed in the House, was to revoke the repayment requirement, and offer a straight $7,500 federal income tax credit for “first time homebuyer.”

The final (?) version of the bill, which is not yet law, is a $15,000 federal income tax credit with no repayment requirement. A key difference in this final version from the House version is that this credit is nonrefundable, meaning you can only receive the credit if owe federal income tax; the Senate bill would also allow taxpayers to tax the credit over a period of two years. The Senate version of the bill is not limited to “first time homebuyers” and will be effective as of the date the bill is signed into law. It would not be retroactive and it would last for one year. A repayment requirement would apply if the home is sold within two years.

Whew. So much wrong, I almost don’t know where to begin.

Let’s start with the obvious: who is buying these homes? You would think, from all of the incentives in this bill to encourage home buying, that the problem is one of demand. But that’s not true. The current housing crisis is not due to a lack of buyers, but a lack of qualified buyers. In the current economic crisis, there is a lack of housing credit. Even banks that have taken TARP money, ostensibly to free up assets in order to extend credit, are not offering credit as easily as before. Perhaps that’s a good thing. But the bottom line is that with limited mortgage credit available, home ownership will not increase, tax credit or no tax credit.

Which brings us to the next issue: how much are these homes? I’m betting about $15,000 more than they would be without the credits. Credits are dollar for dollar reductions in tax due (not like deductions which are reductions in taxable income). More or less, a tax credit is like a “dollars off” coupon. That means extra dollars in your pocket. Good, right? Well, wait a second. If I’m selling you a home and I think you’ll pay $150,000, what do you think I’ll ask for the home? Not $140,000. These tax credits will likely have the result of artificially inflating market prices – remember, sellers now understand that there’s a huge credit at play.

Think I’m kidding? The NY Times ran a great piece that linked the capital gains tax breaks for homeowners in 1997 to the “bubble” that contributed to the current crisis. The tax break is said to have created a “consumption binge”, encouraging folks to buy and sell more than they would have otherwise. The Times cites a recent study by an economist at the Federal Reserve suggested that the number of homes sold subject to the capital gains tax break was almost 17% higher over the last decade than it would have been without the law. Buyers who took advantage of the capital gains break also reported spending more money and buying “more house” than they might have otherwise – a choice which many later regretted.

Of course, the tax law in and of itself did not result in the fall of the housing market. There are a host of factors at play: poor lending practices, unpredictable interest rates and overconfidence in the market all contributed. But what the tax provision did is favor one asset, real estate, over all over assets. The bill didn’t encourage savings or other investments. It didn’t encourage small business owners to invest in their own businesses. The bill simply encouraged folks to buy (and sell) real estate. And isn’t this what we’re doing all over again?

Why aren’t we encouraging saving? Why aren’t we offering real tax incentives for small businesses? Why not encourage re-investments in other markets? Instead, we’ve again singled out real estate as the most important asset in our investment arsenal. And in the process, I think we’ve changed what it means to own a home. Buying and selling homes as assets is a recent development. Prior generations bought houses to live in, not sell.

Of course, it makes sense in the abstract. Home ownership in the US is the “American dream.” In fact, we already subsidize home ownership through a mortgage interest deduction that, according to the Tax Foundation, will cost the government $100 billion for 2008. That is nearly half, annually, of what taxpayers are expected to contribute to rescue Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. It is nearly ten times more each year than the entire housing bailout is estimated to cost taxpayers. But we don’t mind because that deduction benefits all Americans, right? Nope. Only about 30% of American taxpayers claim the deduction on their tax returns. Statistically, not overwhelming. Yet, we continue to push the idea of home ownership through tax policy.

By linking home ownership to the American dream, we’ve come to equate home ownership with the idea of prosperity. But here’s some food for thought. Home ownership in the US traditionally hovers about 70% – less than that of Mexico and India, nations that most believe are less prosperous than the US. That number is also far above the home ownership rates in Japan and Germany, which (at least before the global plunge) most would argue are countries with thriving economies.

So this all begs the question: why make home ownership the cornerstone of our economic revival?

We talk about trying to encourage those who could not otherwise do so to “follow the American dream” and purchase a home as if it will make everything better. The reality is, however, that this tax credit (as with the mortgage interest deduction) does not facilitate access to affordable housing for most Americans and it may do more harm than good. I’ve said before – and I’ll say it again – following the spectacular fall of the real estate market, perhaps it’s wise to reconsider whether promoting home ownership through tax policy is really the best use of our government dollars. What do you think?

{ 12 comments }

Slight Majority of Americans Favor Stimulus

9 February 2009

As the stimulus plan works its way through the Senate, it appears to be losing popularity among US taxpayers. At the end of 2008, taxpayers were clamoring for a stimulus package, although there was not a lot of agreement as to what should be included. So Congress and President Obama went to work. [...]

10 comments Read the full article →

Looking for Bank Bailout News?

9 February 2009

You won’t get it today.
Newly confirmed Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner was slated to announce details of the revised bank bailout plan on today but that’s not going to happen. The Treasury is moving the planned speech ahead to tomorrow in order to focus on the economic stimulus bill. The bill is [...]

2 comments Read the full article →

Vote on Stimulus Bill Expected on Monday

7 February 2009

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has indicated that the newly “trimmed” stimulus package will go to a vote in the Senate on Monday. The bill now costs approximately $827 billion.
You would have thought that the Senate had found the cure for cancer, as they congratulated each other for finally agreeing on something. They [...]

5 comments Read the full article →

Fix The Tax Code Friday: Economic Stimulus Package

30 January 2009

It’s Fix the Tax Code Friday!
We’ve been talking about the proposed economic stimulus package for weeks now. It’s seems like everyone has an opinion about what should be included – and what should be left out.
Today’s Fix the Tax Code Friday question is:
What would you like to see included in a final stimulus package?

16 comments Read the full article →

Ask the taxgirl: Do I Qualify for the Recovery Rebate Credit?

29 January 2009

Taxpayer asks:
We were granted the full rebate but granted a partial rebate as that the difference was applied to IRS taxes owed, would we recive that difference this year?
Second question, my son did not work in 2007, worked in 2008, he is a dependent/student on my return, can he file for the rebate. I understand [...]

6 comments Read the full article →

Modified Version of Stimulus Bill Passes House

28 January 2009

If this was to the be dawn of a new era of bipartisanship, it didn’t look like it today. President Obama’s stimulus package, a modified version of the original $825 billion plan, shaved off a few billion and still did not manage to get one Republican “yes” vote in the House. The final vote [...]

12 comments Read the full article →