People in other countries think we Americans are a little weird in our work habits, and they may be right. The web site Expedia.com has recently conducted its ninth annual survey of international vacations, telling us how many vacation days are taken by workers of different countries. French workers get the most--38 days a year, on average, although they typically only take 36 of them. Italians receive 31 days, although, on average, they leave 6 of them on the table.
Americans? The web site reports that "throughout the eight years that the Vacation Deprivation survey has been conducted, the U.S. has long-held the dismaying distinction of being the country with the worst vacationing habits." Our workers, on average, receive 13 days of vacation time, less than any country in the developed world, including Japan (15), Australia and Canada (19 apiece), Germany (27) and Britain (26). Even so, more than a third of Americans don't take their full yearly allotment of vacation days; in 2009, the Expedia study found, we give back a total of 436 million of them.
To make matters worse, there is plenty of evidence, on the beaches, in restaurants and theme parks, that many workers are still slipping in an hour or two of productive labor on their days off, calling the office on their cell phones or earnestly consulting their blackberries. Expedia says that 24% of employed American adults do this, but this may be an undercount.
Meanwhile, 37% of employed American adults report regularly working more than 40 hours a week.
This compulsive work ethic may help explain another phenomenon that American financial planners frequently talk about at conferences: how difficult it is for some of their clients to spend their hard-earned money once they've accumulated more than they're ever likely to need.
It's not hard to find advice online and elsewhere for people who overspend and can't stay on a budget, but there seems to be no support or therapy available for a sizable number of Americans who long ago got in the habit of accumulating, and even when they've achieved the point where they no longer have to work, they still do, meanwhile living not beyond their means, but significantly--sometimes uncomfortably--under it. For some of us, stopping to enjoy what we've accumulated seems to be as hard as fully disconnecting from the office.
Is this really a problem? If your goal in life is to increase America's GDP and raise our average worker productivity statistics, then no, everything is fine. But one of the most poignant statements ever made at a financial services conference was offered by a rabbi who was asked to travel to Oklahoma City to offer grief counsel to the families of the victims of the bombing incident.
"In my line of work, I regularly sit with people in their last hour of life," he said, "and often people will tell me, with the benefit of hindsight, looking over the course of their lives, that they wish they had spent more time with their loved ones or children, or doing things that gave them pleasure. Never once, in all my years," he added, "has anybody expressed regret that they didn't spend more time at the office."
Link to the Expedia article: http://www.expedia.com/daily/promos/vacations/vacation_deprivation/default.asp .
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Boringly Powerful
In the financial planning world, we're all trying to get better at what we do, and so whenever we get together at conferences, we trade thoughts and ideas and insights.
One of the most informative stories you're likely to hear came from an advisor who told the audience that he hosts yearly client appreciation dinners. Lately, he's been grouping the guests according to how long they've worked with him. At one table, those who've retained his services for the past five years. Another, people he's been advising for ten years. There's a 15-year table, 20 years, 25 and, at the table in front, people who he's worked with for 30 years.
"As I looked over at the 30-year table," he said, "I saw people who, when we first started out, were not wealthy and never expected to be." Now they're worth millions and (more importantly) able to live their life on their own terms.
One woman in particular caught his eye, a school teacher who had come to him in the first year of her teaching career. She had gotten into the not-unusual habit of spending a little more than she made. She was in debt, and one of the first things they talked about was whether she could afford an expensive car that she'd talked to the local dealer about.
The advisor's advice, which she took, was to buy a much more affordable, serviceable vehicle. He worked with her to pay off the credit cards, and over the rest of her teaching career, he encouraged her put the maximum into her 403(b) plan and save ten percent of her income and managed her growing retirement portfolio. The change in lifestyle was not dramatic, but it had a huge impact on her life: the year of this particular dinner, she had accumulated enough that she could afford to retire and travel the world.
"What's interesting," the advisor told the audience, "is that when she told the other teachers that she was going to quit work, their first question was: how can you afford it? The other teachers," he continued, "were still in the habit of spending a little more than they made, living year-to-year, and couldn't afford to retire."
Looking at this one person at the 30-year table, sitting among other people with stories like hers, he was struck by the huge difference a small course correction and a little financial coaching can have on somebody's life over longer periods of time: the difference between squeaking by financially and retiring with millions.
His first insight (which made the audience laugh) was: "I don't charge nearly enough for my services."
His second was: even though he worked hard to manage the portfolio efficiently, her rate of return was just about equal to what the market offered. That, in itself, is surprisingly extraordinary; according to data compiled by the Morningstar fund tracking organization, mutual fund investors, on average seem to get about half of market returns--because people tend to buy hot funds right before they cool off, and sell out of underperforming funds right before they hit a hot streak. By staying consistent with the schoolteacher's investments, the advisor added far more value than you'll likely find in any kind of fancy investment strategy.
But the real point--the most important insight--is that the difference between a table full of millionaires and their peers who spent thirty years spinning their wheels is a boringly powerful formula: consistent savings habits, avoiding debt, and living within their means in a world that constantly tempts us to overspend. When you reduce all the spreadsheet analyses, forecasts and formulas down to their purest essence, this is what most financial planners are trying to help people achieve in their lives. For the people at some of those 20-30 year tables, the real challenge now is how to use their excess money to have fun, and who they want to leave the excess to at the end of their lives.
Morningstar evaluations: http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=340334 ; http://www.morningstaradvisor.com/articles/article.asp?docId=18710
One of the most informative stories you're likely to hear came from an advisor who told the audience that he hosts yearly client appreciation dinners. Lately, he's been grouping the guests according to how long they've worked with him. At one table, those who've retained his services for the past five years. Another, people he's been advising for ten years. There's a 15-year table, 20 years, 25 and, at the table in front, people who he's worked with for 30 years.
"As I looked over at the 30-year table," he said, "I saw people who, when we first started out, were not wealthy and never expected to be." Now they're worth millions and (more importantly) able to live their life on their own terms.
One woman in particular caught his eye, a school teacher who had come to him in the first year of her teaching career. She had gotten into the not-unusual habit of spending a little more than she made. She was in debt, and one of the first things they talked about was whether she could afford an expensive car that she'd talked to the local dealer about.
The advisor's advice, which she took, was to buy a much more affordable, serviceable vehicle. He worked with her to pay off the credit cards, and over the rest of her teaching career, he encouraged her put the maximum into her 403(b) plan and save ten percent of her income and managed her growing retirement portfolio. The change in lifestyle was not dramatic, but it had a huge impact on her life: the year of this particular dinner, she had accumulated enough that she could afford to retire and travel the world.
"What's interesting," the advisor told the audience, "is that when she told the other teachers that she was going to quit work, their first question was: how can you afford it? The other teachers," he continued, "were still in the habit of spending a little more than they made, living year-to-year, and couldn't afford to retire."
Looking at this one person at the 30-year table, sitting among other people with stories like hers, he was struck by the huge difference a small course correction and a little financial coaching can have on somebody's life over longer periods of time: the difference between squeaking by financially and retiring with millions.
His first insight (which made the audience laugh) was: "I don't charge nearly enough for my services."
His second was: even though he worked hard to manage the portfolio efficiently, her rate of return was just about equal to what the market offered. That, in itself, is surprisingly extraordinary; according to data compiled by the Morningstar fund tracking organization, mutual fund investors, on average seem to get about half of market returns--because people tend to buy hot funds right before they cool off, and sell out of underperforming funds right before they hit a hot streak. By staying consistent with the schoolteacher's investments, the advisor added far more value than you'll likely find in any kind of fancy investment strategy.
But the real point--the most important insight--is that the difference between a table full of millionaires and their peers who spent thirty years spinning their wheels is a boringly powerful formula: consistent savings habits, avoiding debt, and living within their means in a world that constantly tempts us to overspend. When you reduce all the spreadsheet analyses, forecasts and formulas down to their purest essence, this is what most financial planners are trying to help people achieve in their lives. For the people at some of those 20-30 year tables, the real challenge now is how to use their excess money to have fun, and who they want to leave the excess to at the end of their lives.
Morningstar evaluations: http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=340334 ; http://www.morningstaradvisor.com/articles/article.asp?docId=18710
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Which Financial Documents Should You Keep on File?
What should you store in one easily accessible place?
You might be surprised how many people have financial documents scattered all over the house – on the kitchen table, underneath old newspapers, in the hall closet, in the basement. If this describes your financial “filing system”, you may have a tough time keeping tabs on your financial life.
Organization will help you, your advisors ... and even your heirs. If you’ve got a meeting scheduled with an accountant, financial consultant, mortgage lender or insurance agent, spare yourself a last-minute scavenger hunt. Take an hour or two to put things in good order. If nothing else, do it for your heirs. When you pass, they will be contending with emotions and won’t want to search through your house for this or that piece of paper.
One large file cabinet may suffice. You might prefer a few storage boxes, or stackable units sold at your local big-box retailer. Whatever you choose, here is what should go inside:
Investment statements. Organize them by type: IRA statements, 401(k) statements, mutual fund statements. The annual statements are the ones that really matter; you may decide to forego filing the quarterlies or monthlies.
When it comes to your IRA or 401(k), is it wise to retain your Form 8606s (which report nondeductible contributions to traditional IRAs), your Form 5498s (the “Fair Market Value Information” statements that your IRA custodian sends you each May), and your Form 1099-Rs (which report IRA income distributions).1
In addition, you will want to retain any record of your original investment in a fund or a stock. (This will help you determine capital gains or losses. Your annual statement will show you the dividend or capital gains distribution.)
Bank statements. If you have any fear of being audited, keep the last three years worth of them on file. You may question whether the paper trail has to be that long, but under certain circumstances (lawsuit, divorce, past debts) it may be wise to keep more than three years of statemetns on file.
Credit card statements. These are less necessary to have around than many people think, but you might want to keep any statements detailing tax-related purchases for up to seven years.
Mortgage documents, mortgage statements and HELOC statements. As a rule, keep mortgage statements for the ownership period of the property plus seven years. As for your mortgage documents, you may wish to keep them for the ownership period of the property plus ten years (though your county recorder’s office likely has copies).
Your annual Social Security benefits statement. Keep the most recent one, as it shows your earnings record from the day you started working. Please note, however: if you see an error, you will want to have your W-2 or tax return for the particular year on hand to help Social Security correct it.2
Federal and state tax returns. The IRS wants you to hang onto your returns until the period of limitations runs out – that is, the time frame in which you can claim a credit or refund. The standard IRS audit looks at your past three years of federal tax records. So you need to keep three years of federal (and state) tax records on hand, and up to seven years to be really safe. Tax records pertaining to real property or “real assets” should be kept for as long as you own the asset (and for at least seven years after you sell, exchange or liquidate it).3
Payroll statements. What if you own a business or are self-employed? Retain your payroll statements for seven years or longer, just in case the IRS comes knocking.
Employee benefits statements. Does your company issue these to you annually or quarterly? Keep at least the most recent year-end statement on file.
Insurances. Life, disability, health, auto, home … you want the policies on file, and you want policy information on hand for the life of the policy plus three years.
Medical records and health insurance. The consensus says you should keep these documents around for five years after the surgery or the end of treatment. If you think you can claim medical expenses on your federal return, keep them for seven years.
Warranties. You only need them until they expire. When they expire, toss them.
Utility bills. Do you need to keep these around for more than a month? No, you really don’t. Check last month’s statement against this month’s, then get rid of last month’s bill.
If this seems like too much paper to file, buy a sheet-fed scanner. If you want to get really sophisticated, you can buy one of these and use it to put financial records on your computer. You might want to have the hard copies on file just in case your hard drive and/or your flash drive go awry.
Citations
1 - kiplinger.com/columns/ask/archive/2004/q0206.htm [2/6/04]
2 - ssa.gov/mystatement/currentstatement.pdf [1/10]
3 - irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98513,00.html [4/8/08]
You might be surprised how many people have financial documents scattered all over the house – on the kitchen table, underneath old newspapers, in the hall closet, in the basement. If this describes your financial “filing system”, you may have a tough time keeping tabs on your financial life.
Organization will help you, your advisors ... and even your heirs. If you’ve got a meeting scheduled with an accountant, financial consultant, mortgage lender or insurance agent, spare yourself a last-minute scavenger hunt. Take an hour or two to put things in good order. If nothing else, do it for your heirs. When you pass, they will be contending with emotions and won’t want to search through your house for this or that piece of paper.
One large file cabinet may suffice. You might prefer a few storage boxes, or stackable units sold at your local big-box retailer. Whatever you choose, here is what should go inside:
Investment statements. Organize them by type: IRA statements, 401(k) statements, mutual fund statements. The annual statements are the ones that really matter; you may decide to forego filing the quarterlies or monthlies.
When it comes to your IRA or 401(k), is it wise to retain your Form 8606s (which report nondeductible contributions to traditional IRAs), your Form 5498s (the “Fair Market Value Information” statements that your IRA custodian sends you each May), and your Form 1099-Rs (which report IRA income distributions).1
In addition, you will want to retain any record of your original investment in a fund or a stock. (This will help you determine capital gains or losses. Your annual statement will show you the dividend or capital gains distribution.)
Bank statements. If you have any fear of being audited, keep the last three years worth of them on file. You may question whether the paper trail has to be that long, but under certain circumstances (lawsuit, divorce, past debts) it may be wise to keep more than three years of statemetns on file.
Credit card statements. These are less necessary to have around than many people think, but you might want to keep any statements detailing tax-related purchases for up to seven years.
Mortgage documents, mortgage statements and HELOC statements. As a rule, keep mortgage statements for the ownership period of the property plus seven years. As for your mortgage documents, you may wish to keep them for the ownership period of the property plus ten years (though your county recorder’s office likely has copies).
Your annual Social Security benefits statement. Keep the most recent one, as it shows your earnings record from the day you started working. Please note, however: if you see an error, you will want to have your W-2 or tax return for the particular year on hand to help Social Security correct it.2
Federal and state tax returns. The IRS wants you to hang onto your returns until the period of limitations runs out – that is, the time frame in which you can claim a credit or refund. The standard IRS audit looks at your past three years of federal tax records. So you need to keep three years of federal (and state) tax records on hand, and up to seven years to be really safe. Tax records pertaining to real property or “real assets” should be kept for as long as you own the asset (and for at least seven years after you sell, exchange or liquidate it).3
Payroll statements. What if you own a business or are self-employed? Retain your payroll statements for seven years or longer, just in case the IRS comes knocking.
Employee benefits statements. Does your company issue these to you annually or quarterly? Keep at least the most recent year-end statement on file.
Insurances. Life, disability, health, auto, home … you want the policies on file, and you want policy information on hand for the life of the policy plus three years.
Medical records and health insurance. The consensus says you should keep these documents around for five years after the surgery or the end of treatment. If you think you can claim medical expenses on your federal return, keep them for seven years.
Warranties. You only need them until they expire. When they expire, toss them.
Utility bills. Do you need to keep these around for more than a month? No, you really don’t. Check last month’s statement against this month’s, then get rid of last month’s bill.
If this seems like too much paper to file, buy a sheet-fed scanner. If you want to get really sophisticated, you can buy one of these and use it to put financial records on your computer. You might want to have the hard copies on file just in case your hard drive and/or your flash drive go awry.
Citations
1 - kiplinger.com/columns/ask/archive/2004/q0206.htm [2/6/04]
2 - ssa.gov/mystatement/currentstatement.pdf [1/10]
3 - irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98513,00.html [4/8/08]
Thursday, August 12, 2010
WILL THINGS IMPROVE FOR MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY?
The healthcare reforms may lead to some short-term aid.
Could Medicare soon be in better shape? Maybe. At the start of August, Medicare’s trustees reported to Congress that Medicare should remain financially in the black through 2029, a 12-year improvement over last year’s estimate.1 They credited the healthcare reforms carried out by Congress and the Obama administration, citing greater efficiency that would translate to savings for the program.
However, there is no guarantee that Medicare will get to retain those federal savings, and no certainty that the savings projected by eliminating subsidies paid to private insurers will result.
Additionally, as Concord Coalition executive director Robert Bixby told the Los Angeles Times, “You can’t spend the same money twice.”2 It would seem unwise to use Medicare savings to expand Medicare coverage.
The Medicare trustees claimed that with the projected $192 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage plans, home health care and hospitals across the next ten years, both the 75-year shortfall for its hospital fund and projected costs of the Medicare Supplementary Insurance program will shrink. More alterations will be needed to keep Medicare running in decades to come, the August report notes.1,3
Social Security’s fortunes could be enhanced in 2019. Why 2019? In that year, a new tax is scheduled to kick in for so-called “Cadillac plans” – health insurance packages with annual premiums of $8,000 or more for individuals or $21,000 or more for families. In 2019, insurers offering these plans will have to pay a 40% federal tax for every dollar spent over the $8,000 or $21,000 cutoff.1,4
That tax is projected to give Social Security a bit of relief. In 2010, Social Security is paying out more than it is taking in – and by previous federal estimates, that wasn’t supposed to happen until 2016. According to government forecasts, it can continue using payroll taxes and interest income to cover benefits until 2024.1
The projection that Social Security’s accumulated surplus will run dry in 2037 is unchanged. After 2037 (assuming things don’t change), Social Security’s program revenues would only cover about 75% of its expenses – so payroll taxes would have to increase, or benefits would have to be scaled down.1
Until both programs receive true long-term fixes, we will all have to make do with these short-term encouragements.
Citations
1 - nytimes.com/2010/08/06/health/policy/06medicare.html [8/5/10]
2 - latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sc-dc-0806-social-security-20100805,0,6306255.story [8/5/10]
3 - csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0322/Health-care-reform-bill-101-What-does-it-mean-for-seniors [3/22/10]
4 - slate.com/id/2232434 [10/14/09]
Could Medicare soon be in better shape? Maybe. At the start of August, Medicare’s trustees reported to Congress that Medicare should remain financially in the black through 2029, a 12-year improvement over last year’s estimate.1 They credited the healthcare reforms carried out by Congress and the Obama administration, citing greater efficiency that would translate to savings for the program.
However, there is no guarantee that Medicare will get to retain those federal savings, and no certainty that the savings projected by eliminating subsidies paid to private insurers will result.
Additionally, as Concord Coalition executive director Robert Bixby told the Los Angeles Times, “You can’t spend the same money twice.”2 It would seem unwise to use Medicare savings to expand Medicare coverage.
The Medicare trustees claimed that with the projected $192 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage plans, home health care and hospitals across the next ten years, both the 75-year shortfall for its hospital fund and projected costs of the Medicare Supplementary Insurance program will shrink. More alterations will be needed to keep Medicare running in decades to come, the August report notes.1,3
Social Security’s fortunes could be enhanced in 2019. Why 2019? In that year, a new tax is scheduled to kick in for so-called “Cadillac plans” – health insurance packages with annual premiums of $8,000 or more for individuals or $21,000 or more for families. In 2019, insurers offering these plans will have to pay a 40% federal tax for every dollar spent over the $8,000 or $21,000 cutoff.1,4
That tax is projected to give Social Security a bit of relief. In 2010, Social Security is paying out more than it is taking in – and by previous federal estimates, that wasn’t supposed to happen until 2016. According to government forecasts, it can continue using payroll taxes and interest income to cover benefits until 2024.1
The projection that Social Security’s accumulated surplus will run dry in 2037 is unchanged. After 2037 (assuming things don’t change), Social Security’s program revenues would only cover about 75% of its expenses – so payroll taxes would have to increase, or benefits would have to be scaled down.1
Until both programs receive true long-term fixes, we will all have to make do with these short-term encouragements.
Citations
1 - nytimes.com/2010/08/06/health/policy/06medicare.html [8/5/10]
2 - latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sc-dc-0806-social-security-20100805,0,6306255.story [8/5/10]
3 - csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0322/Health-care-reform-bill-101-What-does-it-mean-for-seniors [3/22/10]
4 - slate.com/id/2232434 [10/14/09]
Monday, August 9, 2010
Thinking About Investing
Have you ever felt anxious about your investment portfolio? Who hasn't? A recent presentation at one of our professional conferences pointed out that five out of every six years will produce a stock market return sequence that either triggers anxiety or smacks your portfolio so hard that you wonder why you ever trusted the markets to begin with.
This is normal. Many people simply cannot handle stock market volatility, which is why the people who DO have, historically, tended to make more, over multiple ups and downs, than the people who kept all their money stashed away in Treasury bonds.
The question is: is there better way to handle the inevitable anxiety that comes with buying stocks?
Psychologist Ken Haman, who now works at the investment firm AllianceBernstein, says that the key is to stay rational. He points to studies of the human brain which shows that all of us actually have two brains. One is the neocortex, where all of your higher thought processes take place. Below the neocortex is a primitive brain which is about as smart as an alligator, and this lower brain happens to be where all of our survival instincts are housed. Whenever you experience panic, the primitive brain immediately takes over and shuts down the neocortex--which allows you to respond instantly (rather than thoughtfully) on those many occasions when a saber-toothed tiger is running in your direction.
So when the markets have spent the past quarter giving up all the gains they generated in the first quarter, what do you do? First, talk with somebody who actually listens to you about how you're feeling. Then start to engage your neocortex. What do you imagine is going to happen in the future? Then move to: is that what you think, or how it feels?
When your neocortex is functioning again, you can look at some of the past market declines and see what happened next, or look at your financial situation and take stock of your progress toward your financial goals.
People who can handle the stock market roller coaster without getting sick seem to have an unfair advantage over everybody else in the investment world. It seems to depend on which part of your brain is in control.
This is normal. Many people simply cannot handle stock market volatility, which is why the people who DO have, historically, tended to make more, over multiple ups and downs, than the people who kept all their money stashed away in Treasury bonds.
The question is: is there better way to handle the inevitable anxiety that comes with buying stocks?
Psychologist Ken Haman, who now works at the investment firm AllianceBernstein, says that the key is to stay rational. He points to studies of the human brain which shows that all of us actually have two brains. One is the neocortex, where all of your higher thought processes take place. Below the neocortex is a primitive brain which is about as smart as an alligator, and this lower brain happens to be where all of our survival instincts are housed. Whenever you experience panic, the primitive brain immediately takes over and shuts down the neocortex--which allows you to respond instantly (rather than thoughtfully) on those many occasions when a saber-toothed tiger is running in your direction.
So when the markets have spent the past quarter giving up all the gains they generated in the first quarter, what do you do? First, talk with somebody who actually listens to you about how you're feeling. Then start to engage your neocortex. What do you imagine is going to happen in the future? Then move to: is that what you think, or how it feels?
When your neocortex is functioning again, you can look at some of the past market declines and see what happened next, or look at your financial situation and take stock of your progress toward your financial goals.
People who can handle the stock market roller coaster without getting sick seem to have an unfair advantage over everybody else in the investment world. It seems to depend on which part of your brain is in control.
Monday, August 2, 2010
WILL THE BUSH-ERA TAX CUTS BE SAVED?
What might happen if they went away? The debate is gaining volume.
In July, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said that very few taxpayers would be affected if the landmark tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 expired. “I do not believe it will affect growth,” he calmly commented on ABC’s This Week.1 Many legislators and observers on Wall Street and Main Street are far less calm about their potential end.
Why should they end now? The federal government undeniably needs more revenue to help shrink the deficit, and Geithner feels that letting these tax cuts go would not trigger a double-dip recession, as they affect only 2-3% of U.S. taxpayers.1 However, many Republicans and more than a few Democrats see danger here as the richest Americans are also the most influential in job creation.
Deutsche Bank says “don’t do it”. Analysts at the banking titan recently offered their opinion: letting the Bush tax cuts expire would exert a drag of anywhere from 1.1% to 1.5% on U.S. GDP.2 The analysts warn that letting the tax cuts sunset as the federal stimulus winds down could create an economic scenario in the U.S. akin to the one Japan experienced back in the 1990s.
Grassroots momentum gathering. A new website created by the conservative League of American Voters (ReviewTheTaxCuts.com) is gathering signatures in conjunction with a TV ad campaign starring ex-presidential candidate Fred Thompson. This effort comes on the heels of Rasmussen and Gallup polls showing increased concern about taxes. In a mid-July Rasmussen Reports poll, 68% of Americans surveyed said taxes had become a “very important” issue. In April, 63% of Americans surveyed by Gallup felt their taxes would rise in 2011, the largest percentage to respond this way since 1977.3
A battle this fall in Washington. Republicans on Capitol Hill ardently want the tax breaks to remain in place. Democratic leaders in the Senate are striving to introduce a bill in September that would seek to preserve the cuts for the middle class only. Most Democrats seem to favor letting the tax cuts expire for households earning more than $250,000. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is among the voices contending that they didn’t aid the economy much in the first place. Closer to the White House, Secretary Geithner feels that letting the cuts expire would send a message to the world that America is serious about tackling its deficit.3
This is an election year for many members of Congress, and it wouldn’t be surprising if some seats changed hands as a result of the influence of this issue.
More voices. Former Federal Reserve vice-chairman Alan Blinder favors letting the cuts expire. “We couldn't afford them then (and knew it), and we can't afford them now (and know it),” he recently told the Washington Post. “What might be the argument for retaining the tax cuts even though the long-run budget is deeply in the red? That America needs more income inequality? Seems to me we have enough.”4
MoodysEconomy.com chief economist Mark Zandi calls for moderation. Zandi feels the 2001 and 2003 cuts “should be extended permanently for families with annual incomes of less than $250,000 and should be phased out slowly for those making more than that.”4
If the sun sets on these cuts, taxes revert to pre-2001 levels. EGTRRA gave us six tax brackets (10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35%). If EGTRRA went away, so would the 10% tax bracket (the lowest bracket would become 15%) and the 25%, 28%, 33% and 35% rates would be respectively bumped up to 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6%. (Households earning more than $379,650 would pay taxes at the 39.6% rate.)5
Then we have capital gains, of course. The ceiling on capital gains tax rates would move back up to 20% if these cuts expired. Additionally, qualified dividends would again be taxed at a taxpayer’s regular rate … which could be as high as 39.6% (see above).5
The death of EGTRRA would also wipe out the child tax credit, restore the “marriage penalty” (married joint filers wouldn’t be able to take 2x the standard deduction allowed for single filers) and bring back the phase-out for the personal exemption and itemized deductions.
There is much to consider. This will, most likely, become one of the hottest issues on Capitol Hill and across the country as we get closer to November.5
Citations
1 – nytimes.com/2010/07/26/us/politics/26geithner.html [7/26/10]
2 – cnbc.com/id/38467149 [7/29/10]
3 – blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/07/27/tax-cut-debate-grows-louder/[7/27/10]
4 – washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/30/AR2010073004758.html [7/30/10]
5 - forbes.com/2010/07/22/expiring-bush-cuts-affect-personal-finance-taxes.html [7/22/10]
In July, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said that very few taxpayers would be affected if the landmark tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 expired. “I do not believe it will affect growth,” he calmly commented on ABC’s This Week.1 Many legislators and observers on Wall Street and Main Street are far less calm about their potential end.
Why should they end now? The federal government undeniably needs more revenue to help shrink the deficit, and Geithner feels that letting these tax cuts go would not trigger a double-dip recession, as they affect only 2-3% of U.S. taxpayers.1 However, many Republicans and more than a few Democrats see danger here as the richest Americans are also the most influential in job creation.
Deutsche Bank says “don’t do it”. Analysts at the banking titan recently offered their opinion: letting the Bush tax cuts expire would exert a drag of anywhere from 1.1% to 1.5% on U.S. GDP.2 The analysts warn that letting the tax cuts sunset as the federal stimulus winds down could create an economic scenario in the U.S. akin to the one Japan experienced back in the 1990s.
Grassroots momentum gathering. A new website created by the conservative League of American Voters (ReviewTheTaxCuts.com) is gathering signatures in conjunction with a TV ad campaign starring ex-presidential candidate Fred Thompson. This effort comes on the heels of Rasmussen and Gallup polls showing increased concern about taxes. In a mid-July Rasmussen Reports poll, 68% of Americans surveyed said taxes had become a “very important” issue. In April, 63% of Americans surveyed by Gallup felt their taxes would rise in 2011, the largest percentage to respond this way since 1977.3
A battle this fall in Washington. Republicans on Capitol Hill ardently want the tax breaks to remain in place. Democratic leaders in the Senate are striving to introduce a bill in September that would seek to preserve the cuts for the middle class only. Most Democrats seem to favor letting the tax cuts expire for households earning more than $250,000. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is among the voices contending that they didn’t aid the economy much in the first place. Closer to the White House, Secretary Geithner feels that letting the cuts expire would send a message to the world that America is serious about tackling its deficit.3
This is an election year for many members of Congress, and it wouldn’t be surprising if some seats changed hands as a result of the influence of this issue.
More voices. Former Federal Reserve vice-chairman Alan Blinder favors letting the cuts expire. “We couldn't afford them then (and knew it), and we can't afford them now (and know it),” he recently told the Washington Post. “What might be the argument for retaining the tax cuts even though the long-run budget is deeply in the red? That America needs more income inequality? Seems to me we have enough.”4
MoodysEconomy.com chief economist Mark Zandi calls for moderation. Zandi feels the 2001 and 2003 cuts “should be extended permanently for families with annual incomes of less than $250,000 and should be phased out slowly for those making more than that.”4
If the sun sets on these cuts, taxes revert to pre-2001 levels. EGTRRA gave us six tax brackets (10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35%). If EGTRRA went away, so would the 10% tax bracket (the lowest bracket would become 15%) and the 25%, 28%, 33% and 35% rates would be respectively bumped up to 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6%. (Households earning more than $379,650 would pay taxes at the 39.6% rate.)5
Then we have capital gains, of course. The ceiling on capital gains tax rates would move back up to 20% if these cuts expired. Additionally, qualified dividends would again be taxed at a taxpayer’s regular rate … which could be as high as 39.6% (see above).5
The death of EGTRRA would also wipe out the child tax credit, restore the “marriage penalty” (married joint filers wouldn’t be able to take 2x the standard deduction allowed for single filers) and bring back the phase-out for the personal exemption and itemized deductions.
There is much to consider. This will, most likely, become one of the hottest issues on Capitol Hill and across the country as we get closer to November.5
Citations
1 – nytimes.com/2010/07/26/us/politics/26geithner.html [7/26/10]
2 – cnbc.com/id/38467149 [7/29/10]
3 – blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/07/27/tax-cut-debate-grows-louder/[7/27/10]
4 – washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/30/AR2010073004758.html [7/30/10]
5 - forbes.com/2010/07/22/expiring-bush-cuts-affect-personal-finance-taxes.html [7/22/10]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)