Bailey21

What Proposed Tax Credits Would Mean to You - Raleigh - MyNC.com

I thought the campaign promise was tax cuts for families with income under $200K? Now the income limit is $150K for a family and $75K for an individual? Also, I get the impression that the credits are phased out as you you approach the income limit. Meaning that a family with income of $140K will not see the full $1000, probably less than half.

Vderon

"A single working person who makes less than $75,000 would receive a tax credit of up to $500. Working couples making less than $150,000 would receive a tax credit of up to $1,000.

Local CPA Doug Dreher said the $500 tax credit, if spread out over the course of a year, equals $10 per week or about $38 per month. The $1,000 tax credit, again spread out over the course of a year, would pan out to about $20 per week or $77 per month."

I think Obama would do this to satisfy the promise he made to provide tax cuts to the middle class. Since it's really not enough to make much of an impact, maybe he should consider using it for some other purpose that would stimulate the economy.

I'm not an economics genius. We have a couple here - maybe you guys could offer an opinion? Is there a better way to spend this money that would truly help the economy?

carolyn

Of course, Nancy Pelosi and her cronies have already said that they feel that Obama's plan has "too much" in the way of tax credits, so it is doubtful that all of his proposals will go through, despite the "honeymoon" effect all new presidents enjoy initially.

mini

It DOES have way too much in the way of tax credits. We've been down this road before....

aapride

mini:

This tax credit is a political ploy to keep middle class happy. Then government will take it right back somewhere in property tax, school tax, and so for so on.

mini

I'm all for higher property taxes, school taxes, and all progressive taxes.

Why is everything about the middle class? Doesn't "middle" (which in this country is roughly $57k/year) mean that there are people below it?

aapride

Mini:

“I'm all for higher property taxes, school taxes, and all progressive taxes.”


Do you think government will ever abolish suburbia and give students from rural and urban equal footing as compare to suburbia by implementing progressive taxes? I cannot say never, but let me say probably it may take a very long time.

bulletandpima

Real Estate tax lesson.

Home owners pay a different rate than corporate. In reality towns with no corporate businesses will have the worst school system (i.e. rural), even worse than urban, b/c their tax base is lower without the business tax. It is not about anything more or less than having a business base to prop up the area

JustAMomOf4

Are your property taxes high enough?
Out here on the East Coast - Northeast especially, property taxes are outrageous. I never really cared much about Federal income tax cuts since my state, local and property taxe bills are much higher - and keep going up - than what I pay to the Feds.

Not sure how a property tax is "progressive" since it has nothing to do with the ability to pay. They tax you on what you own.

Vderon

"Out here on the East Coast - Northeast especially, property taxes are outrageous. "

Worse yet, they are charging you property taxes based on inflated prices. With the downturn in housing values, we are really getting hosed. If I could sell my house for what it is assessed at, I'd be happy, but I can't.

"I'm all for higher property taxes, school taxes, and all progressive taxes. "

mini, how much do you make? Not that I expect you to answer with that private information, but I'm just making a point. To be willing to pay more than you should for all those things suggests you are not the one who will be paying it. If you did, you would not be too thrilled about giving money away in the form of taxes, especially if your home was not valued correctly.

bulletandpima

You can always fight it with the county. My Mom and my brother has done that. It is simple, ask a realtor to give you a CMA for houses that have sold in the last yr and those that are listed and under contract. Try to keep any foreclosures or short sales out of the mix. The county can't sit there and say your house is worth this when the cold hard facts is that it isn't

There is a downturn to doing this, the more people do this, the higher the chance will be that the county will change their mill rate. So yes, your home will be assessed for less, but the rate will be higher and you will pay the same.

Do it, but just don't tell the neighbors LOL

My Mom's and brother's assessments went down 2K and 1700 respectively

sueinphilly

they are talking about raising property taxes in Philly.

OTOH, for the past many years, EVERY new (or rehabbed and sold as new) property has come with a 10 year tax abatement.

Yup, my taxes go up and people buying new condos in center city pay NOTHING for 10 years (and if they sell in less than 10 years the tax abatement extends to the new owner).

This was done to spur construction. Nice job city hall. Oh, my city wage tax (on top of real estate taxes) is nearly 4% and sales tax is 7% (1% higher than the state rate of 6%)

Just let me bend over and give it to me slowly

bulletandpima

Yes, but at least for NoVA, there are requirements, such as:
1. At least a certain age
2. Only in a certain area (usually areas that are downturning and many times have been abandoned)
3. Must do a certain amount of rehab

We do not in PW county get it for 10 yrs, it is 5 yrs and it is only reduced, not abated. However, the majority of these homes were bringing in pennies of any at all...so it wasn't/isn't as much as a factor.

Finally, by people moving into an area and rejuvenating many times businesses will follow (grocery stores, restaurants etc) which pay higher amts to the tax system than the homeowner. A new Whole Foods in the neighborhood would pay more than 25 of those condos. A new restaurant would pay for at least 5-10 of those homes. They would also bring new employment starting from the construction worker and continuing to the employee at the grocery store, which all adds into the amount of money that is being churned up and into the economy.

I lived in Philly decades ago and I remember South Street going under its rejuvanation, they started on one block and every yr you could see it move out just a little bit more, each time it did it was more money being pd into the tax base.

crescent22

Fiscal policy because it will be on a lag is generally ineffective over the short-term. Even the Democrats concede there will be very little spend on the Obama stimulus before 2H 2009. Therefore any bad news coming 1H 2009 from all the problems when the economy went to crap around 9/08 will be met with nothing unless the government does more on the monetary side.

Bernanke was right when he said last week the best way to inject help over the economy short-term is to continue providing liquidity to the market - whether through short-term means as they have been doing supporting interbank lending or greater efforts buying mortgage securities and providing capital to banks with TARP.

It's not satisfactory to the progressives here who think you just let the government run wild with all their effectiveness and spend on the lower class, but it is the best bang for the buck- give the banks more capital- it will help keep the situation from getting worse short-term (even if you don't notice because it does not get net-net better because credit keeps getting worse among loan borrowers), and it has multiplication effects on the way out.

Things are really really bad for the banks, folks - they are still reducing credit net-net and you would too if you were a bank because you don't know how bad your current book will get in terms of defaults short-term. There is a good NYT article today about a fairly safe homebuilder who was foreclosed by Chase and went out-of-business. There is a decent chance the government will end up nationalizing most large banks in 2010 or 2011. Would be a reflection of the situation rather than bad decisions about TARP in the first place.

-Allmusic-

Give the banks more capital? What did they do with the first $350B? Oh, that's right; we don't know, because there was no oversight and no reporting on use, even which banks received the funds.

It's a criminal use of taxpayer money, IMO. No wonder there is lack of trust in the government; there is no transparency, but continued requests for OUR money (which is worth less and less, and will continue to devalue).