Entries Tagged 'Taxes' ↓

CNN recently ran a slideshow featuring seven families who utilized the $8,000 first time homebuyer’s tax credit to purchase a home.  I found the slideshow to be pretty interesting because it featured a good diversity of people, but quite a few of the examples were from California.  Here is a breakdown of the slideshow and my comments.

First,  there is a family of four from Adelanto, CA that is buying a home for $72,000.  Obviously for this family the tax credit is  a great deal.  They can only claim $7,200 because that is 10% of the price of the home, but hey, it is free money.  They are still waiting for approval on their purchase, and I hope they get it because it seems like an awesome deal for a 4 bedroom house.  However, the story indicates that they would have bought the house with the credit or not because they needed a new home and the price was right.

Next, there is a single woman from Michigan  who bought a $115,000 home for herself.  From the description she gave it seems that she has a good head on her shoulders and she has been saving for a downpayment.  This person also said that she would have bought the home anyway, and the $8,000 is really a bonus to her.  I think that is great for her, but this means that the stimulus did not really spur an additional sale here.

The next couple is actually from San Mateo County.  They bought a $750,000 home in San Carlos with an FHA loan.  This means that they put down 3.5% and their loan is somewhere around $723,000.  At 5.5% this is a mortgage of around $4100.  Throw in property taxes and that’s another $600 a month.  They will be paying pretty much all interest to begin with and  it definitely does not cost $5000 a month to rent a three bedroom in San Carlos.   This story makes me worry a bit because this couple is planning a wedding and they said that the $8000 tax credit is saving them.  If you do the math, $8000 is  1.06% of their purchase price.  Honestly $8000 would not even cover their closing costs on this purchase so it would seem that perhaps they are buying too much.  The story did indicate that they felt rushed into the decision because of the tax credit, and I don’t know if that is a good thing.

The next couple is from Baltimore and they purchased a $119,000 home that they fixed up with the tax credit and other grants for historic homes.  Again, I think in this case the $8000 is significant enough that it makes a lot of sense.

Another local couple from San Francisco is up next.  They got a $550,000, 2200 square foot home in San Francisco.  This is actually a pretty good deal if it is in a good area of San Francisco.  They used the $8,000 to partially pay for a $12,000 roof.  They indicated that they waited to buy their home because they heard that a refundable credit was coming out, but once again, $8000 is just a drop in the bucket for their purchase.  It’s great that they were pay for 2/3rd of their roof, though.

The next couple took advantage of the fact that the $8,000 could be used as a downpayment .    Essentially they got a 0% down loan from the government.  The home is $257,000 and they could not save up $9,000. It also seems that they got an adjustable loan?  In this case their only equity is the $8,000 tax credit,  so it was definitely crucial in their purchase decision.

The next guy also used the tax credit as a downpayment, but he bought a triplex and is renting out two units to pay for most of his mortgage.  So basically he became a little landlord on the dime of the US government.  That is a awesome deal for him and I hope he does well.

In conclusion, I would say that most of these folks would not have purchased a home this year if the tax credit weren’t there.  The two groups that used the tax credit as a downpayment could not have afforded what they bought.   In the two Bay Area  cases where the purchase prices were $550,000 and $750,000 the $8000 really was just a drop in the bucket so I feel like they shouldn’t have based their purchase decision solely on the credit.  Anyway,  it is nice to see that some people are able to take advantage of this in a smart manner even though I find it ironic that the government is giving out 0% down loans on one hand and wagging a finger at the “greedy bankers” with the other hand.  Honestly  I cannot wait for this credit to expire so that the housing market returns to normal.

Share This

Earlier this year California already raised income taxes by .25%, but now it seems that our income taxes will go up a little bit once again. This time it is due to deflation and it is not widely publicized.

This change will pretty much affect everyone who pays any income taxes because tax brackets are being pushed lower due to deflation.  In this chart from the LA Times you can see how the brackets are changing this year.    For us the increase will be around $150 on top of the extra 0.25% we are already going to pay.  It is not a huge deal, but it is interesting because this instance of lowering the tax bracket is very rare.

On the flip side, it is possible that deflation will lower the assessments of property taxes for Californian homeowners next year.    This depends on the California Consumer Price Index numbers in October.  If this happens then Californians may see their property taxes go down a little bit, but it is also not significant considering that the deflation number is around 0.7% right now.  So on a $300,000 assessment with a 1.1% property tax rate, the 0.7% deflation will save a homeowner around $23 for the entire year.

I don’t think most Californians will feel the tax changes due to deflation, but it is possible that deflation could affect federal tax brackets next year, too.  Additionally, the IRS uses annual CPI to figure out limits for things such as IRA and 401k contributions, so those limits may not increase.  Although the deflation rate is quite small now, it is definitely something to keep an eye on.

Share This

It is already July, and the ludicrous budget plan I wrote about  a week ago did not end up passing.  Now California is starting to issue IOUs for many of its obligations.  These IOUs are actually called “registered warrants”, and they will yield a 3.75% annual interest rate.  The state plans to repay them in October.  So what happens if you receive one?

Apparently many IOUs would be sent to residents who are still owed a tax refund.  Many small businesses that sell to the state will also receive them.  A full list of the various agencies and groups that will be paid with IOUs is here. Right now the large banks such as Bank of America, Chase, and Wells Fargo are willing to cash the IOUs for customers.  However, this only lasts until July 10th, so this means that if you need the money now you better hope that you receive your IOU before then and get it to the bank.

It is also possible to sell the IOU to other lenders and investors.  Afterall, whoever holds the IOU at the time of maturity will collect the interest accrued. There is a risk of default from the state, but I can see some people getting into the business of buying up IOUs from people who need the cash.  Most likely these folks will pay less than the value of the IOU since they want to make a profit.

If you do not need the cash right away it might be best just to hold on to the IOU because the interest accrued is not taxable.  3.75% tax free is a lot better than any CDs and bank accounts out there now, but it really means nothing if you need to pay your bills right now.

I hope that the state gets its act together by July 10th because otherwise many people may have to resort to less safe venues to cashing their IOUs.   Small businesses may not even be able to survive without the ability to keep the lights on and making payroll.  Needless to say, this is a complete debacle, and I hope it does not cause too much damage.  Additionally, this round of IOUs for those who have a tax refund is further proof that it is better to owe the government money.  If you are in this group it is probably a good idea to withhold less from your checks.

Share This

I have found that I like the LA Times’ reporting a lot more than the SF Chronicle’s.  Today an article gave some details on Sacramento’s plan on how to balance the state budget, and some of it is truly hilarious.  Here is a short summary.

• State workers’ June paycheck would be paid on July 1st, thus pushing $1.2 billion of expenses into the next fiscal year.  Umm… this saves money how?
• $1.7 billion of school funding would be delayed until the next fiscal year.  Once again, this is another paper fix
• Withhold 10% more taxes from every working Californian starting Jan 1st 2010.  This is essentially an attempt to collect almost $2 billion in taxes in advance.  What prevents people from changing their withholdings and owe the state money even with a 10% increase?
• 3% tax withholding on payments to independent contractors.  This is another gimmick to advance tax payments, but the independent contractors could get the money back if they don’t owe 3%.
• $1 billion proposed money grab on local gasoline tax revenues.  This is already being fought by the League of California Cities with a lawsuit.
• $1.50 per pack extra taxes on cigarettes.  When New York imposed a huge hike of taxes on each pack of cigarettes some New Jerseyan “entrepreneurs” simply bought cigarettes with lower taxes from other states and imported them to New York and made a profit by selling them at the tax inclusive rate.  I’m guessing some Nevadans or Oregonians will be into this business in California now.
• Illegal immigrants in prisons are being sent to immigration to be deported.  They really should have done this years ago.  Isn’t this really common sense?

A lot of these attempts to delay or advance payments really add nothing to the bottom line.  In fact, I think some of them would backfire.  For example, if you usually get a state tax refund now, perhaps it is time to change your withholdings so that you end up owing money at the end of the year because the state is trying to milk more money out of you this year anyway.  Also we all know that the state delayed refund payments for months and months this year so why should they receive your money early?  Chances are this would happen again if they do not change the fundamentals of how they are operating.    If enough people change their withholding strategy then this advance grab of tax dollars would not work at all.  If you calculate your withholdings correctly it is possible to owe just enough to not have to pay a penalty.

I’m kind of annoyed to see that a lot of the original proposed cuts on some social programs are gone and all of these gimmicks are going on.  So they are pushing one month’s salary into the next year, what will they do the next year?  Push the salaries again?  Soon enough state worker’s will be getting their pay budgeted for years into the future.  That’s pretty pointless.

I really do not mind paying taxes if it is being used responsibly, but it does not seem like the government knows how to manage money properly.  Add that to the fact that Californians themselves control the law making proposition system you just get a complete mess.   Of course noone wants to cut education, healthcare, and freebies, and of course noone wants to increase taxes.  So what you have left over is a very dysfunctional state and another reason to hate California.

Share This

The Silicon Valley is a fairly liberal place that has generally supported many of the Obama Administration’s moves, but yesterday  many in the tech industry do not seem happy about Obama’s proposal to effectively raise taxes on foreign income by billions of dollars.

Currently, U.S. based companies can defer corporate taxes on foreign income as long as they keep the income in another country.  Additionally, U.S. companies can deduct the foreign taxes and costs  they already paid against their income.  The Obama administration argues that this ships jobs overseas.  The problem with that argument  is that many U.S. based companies actually make more than 50% of their income from citizens of other countries.  Imagine if you are selling 1000000 units of something here in the United States, and you are selling 1000000 units of the same thing to the rest of the world, then you would absolutely need staff and offices in the rest of the world.  There is a Walmart in my hometown in China, and sure, it is staffed by Chinese people, but it also earns money from Chinese people.  Does the Obama administration think that taxing this Walmart more will bring those jobs to America?  That is absolutely ridiculous.  What it will do is that it would cut the profit margin of the Walmart in China, and the Chinese will have to suffer higher prices and they will probably just shop elsewhere.  This will reduce the competitiveness of American companies in other countries because other stores have to pay only the local taxes.

I really think this plan to enact protectionism via the tax code is really short sighted.  America has 5% of the world’s population, and a lot of the large multinational corporations have little room to expand in this country.  Just think of how many iPods and McDonalds you see everyday and you would understand that the United States is absolutely saturated with a lot of products and services and the growth rate for a company that stayed exclusively in the United States would not be as large as a company that sells to the rest of the world.  So why would the United States government punish corporations for making money from the rest of the 95% of the world?

Another consequence of this initiative that was not mentioned by the administration is that this will affect the stock prices of the bluest blue chips.  When you see those earnings per share numbers, they do include foreign earnings.  For example, Johnson and Johnson is a company that gets more than 50% of its earnings from foreign countries.  So imagine that half of its earnings suddenly had a tax of 30% compared to 2% the year before.  This will cut into the earnings per share significantly.  The result would be lower stock prices, and the further erosion of 401ks and pension funds.  What a great way to destroy more retirements.

The worst consequence is that large corporations could just pack up and leave the United States completely.  Just imagine all of the Silicon Valley greats like Oracle, Google, and Cisco reincorporating in another country with more favorable corporate tax systems and taking away tens of thousands of jobs permanently.  That would be a huge blow to the United States economy, and it may be irreparable.

So far, the reception to this plan has been somewhat hostile from many industry groups and foreign nations.  The Register in the UK states that “Obama declares war on Ireland” for its low business taxes.  In some ways, that is true.  U.S. based companies employ millions of people in foreign countries, and if the administration specifically targets foreign taxes, it is essentially targeting the livelihoods of these people.  It is also ridiculous to think that laying off foreign workers is good for America, because as the living standards of everyone else improves, they also purchase American goods.  If you take away those good paying jobs around the world, it is really worse for everyone.  The plan will supposedly raise $210 billion for the Treasury in the next decade, but at what cost to the global economy and America?

Share This