Higher federal income taxes on income <25K for 2010

[finfan]

Tonight my 67 yo mother showed me her statement for her 2010 pension. Her pension DID NOT increase from 2009. However her federal withholding DID increase. I thought the chosen one said there would only be tax increases on anyone making over 250K. I know that number (250K) has changed a lot but I never realized it went all the way down to 20K. Does anyone know about this? Maybe stinky or mosty can explain. BTW she voted for BO. She's officially disillusioned.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Tonight my 67 yo mother showed me her statement for her 2010 pension. Her pension DID NOT increase from 2009. However her federal withholding DID increase. I thought the chosen one said there would only be tax increases on anyone making over 250K. I know that number (250K) has changed a lot but I never realized it went all the way down to 20K. Does anyone know about this? Maybe stinky or mosty can explain. BTW she voted for BO. She's officially disillusioned.

How does she already have a 2010 pension statement? And how do you know 2010 withholdings increased vs. 2009 when neither yr is complete?

[ElKabong]

I'm sure this is just one big misunderstanding.....if 0bama were anywhere near DC I'm sure he'd invite y'all over for a beer in the rose garden

[bigmack]

Due to the Federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 that was signed into law in February, the Federal Withholding Rates for 2009 have changed.
http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/n1036.pdf

Let your mother know she is contributing to saved/created jobs. :ThmbUp:

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/12_30_09_17_46_15-1.png

[finfan]

How does she already have a 2010 pension statement? And how do you know 2010 withholdings increased vs. 2009 when neither yr is complete?
She worked for the state of NJ for 25+ years. She's been retired for 3 or 4 years now and at the end of each year she gets a statement showing the breakdown of the next years' monthly checks. They specifically put an asterisk next to anything that has changed from the prior year. Well the only asterisk was next to the federal withholding amount. I think she said it went up by about $20.

[Saratoga_Mike]

She worked for the state of NJ for 25+ years. She's been retired for 3 or 4 years now and at the end of each year she gets a statement showing the breakdown of the next years' monthly checks. They specifically put an asterisk next to anything that has changed from the prior year. Well the only asterisk was next to the federal withholding amount. I think she said it went up by about $20.

I see. The last poster explained the change, but it just impacts withholdings. So if you compared her 2009 withholdings to 2008, you should see a lower number for 2009. Marginal tax rates haven't changed.

[finfan]

Due to the Federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 that was signed into law in February, the Federal Withholding Rates for 2009 have changed.
http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/n1036.pdf

Let your mother know she is contributing to saved/created jobs. :ThmbUp:

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/12_30_09_17_46_15-1.png

Thanks bigmack. I'm still a little confused though. This all started when she told me that I would be paying more in income tax next year based on her reading of her statement. I surely don't make 250K. So are we all paying more in 2010? And if Barry signed it in Feb 09 then he broke a campaign promise barely a few weeks into office. n'est pas? (correct me if i'm wrong)

[Saratoga_Mike]

Thanks bigmack. I'm still a little confused though. This all started when she told me that I would be paying more in income tax next year based on her reading of her statement. I surely don't make 250K. So are we all paying more in 2010? And if Barry signed it in Feb 09 then he broke a campaign promise barely a few weeks into office. n'est pas? (correct me if i'm wrong)

There's a difference between withholdings tables and what you actually owe (or receive as a refund) at yr-end. Do you honestly think Obama's raising fed income taxes on people making $25k/yr? Give me a break.

BTW, I didn't vote for him and I plan on voting against him in 2012.

[finfan]

I see. The last poster explained the change, but it just impacts withholdings. So if you compared her 2009 withholdings to 2008, you should see a lower number for 2009. Marginal tax rates haven't changed.

Maybe I'm a tax idiot but I still don't understand. The state knows at the beginning of the year what her total pension will be and withholds the amount to satisfy her federal obligation. 2010 is the same as 2009 as far as her pension. Then why is her federal withholding more? Does she get this back at tax time?

[finfan]

There's a difference between withholdings tables and what you actually owe (or receive as a refund) at yr-end. Do you honestly think Obama's raising fed income taxes on people making $25k/yr? Give me a break.

BTW, I didn't vote for him and I plan on voting against him in 2012.

Well I guess you answered my question. Thanks.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Maybe I'm a tax idiot but I still don't understand. The state knows at the beginning of the year what her total pension will be and withholds the amount to satisfy her federal obligation. 2010 is the same as 2009 as far as her pension. Then why is her federal withholding more? Does she get this back at tax time?

Fictional example:

In 2008, she received a $25k pension and federal withholding tables dictated $2,000 be withheld (money held back as she received checks)...when she files her 2008 return, she receives a $400 refund...net taxes paid: $1,600

In 2009, she recieved a $25k pension and federal withholding tables dictated $1,800 be withheld...when she files her 2009 return, she receives a $200 refund...net taxes paid: $1,600

In 2010, she recieved a $25k pension and federal withholding tables dictated $2,000 be withheld...when she files her 2010 return, she receives a $400 refund...net taxes paid: $1,600

*note standard and personal exemptions change each yr, but I held them constant for this example

**I assume her pension has an annual COLA adjustment - I ignored it b/c it doesn't have anything to do with your question

[finfan]

Fictional example:

In 2008, she received a $25k pension and federal withholding tables dictated $2,000 be withheld (money held back as she received checks)...when she files her 2008 return, she receives a $400 refund...net taxes paid: $1,600

In 2009, she recieved a $25k pension and federal withholding tables dictated $1,800 be withheld...when she files her 2009 return, she receives a $200 refund...net taxes paid: $1,600

In 2010, she recieved a $25k pension and federal withholding tables dictated $2,000 be withheld...when she files her 2010 return, she receives a $400 refund...net taxes paid: $1,600

*note standard and personal exemptions change each yr, but I held them constant for this example

**I assume her pension has an annual COLA adjustment - I ignored it b/c it doesn't have anything to do with your question

Mike thanks for the explanation. I will relay it on. It still begs the question, if marginal rates haven't changed for an income level then why have withholding rates changed?

[johnhannibalsmith]

So that they can be guaranteed your individually mandated health insurance is covered or close to it and simply retain the excess in lieu of hounding you for proof of insurance or the penalty.

[mostpost]

This is the opposite of what happened to me. I recently received my "Notice of Annuity Adjustment" from the Office of Personnel Management. (They handle retirements for USPS) My withholding went down $27 per month, and my checks will go up $27 per month. Are you certain you read the statement correctly? Because I thought the idea was to give us more money in our pockets to stimulate the ecoonomy at the present time. Increasing the withholding would have the opposite effect. If possible, I would check with the state of New Jersey.

[bigmack]

This is the opposite of what happened to me. I recently received my "Notice of Annuity Adjustment" from the Office of Personnel Management.
I don't believe the Office of Personnel Management represents the State of New Jersey.

You apparently have good representation. It almost seems like an inside job. :cool:

[finfan]

Are you certain you read the statement correctly? Because I thought the idea was to give us more money in our pockets to stimulate the ecoonomy at the present time. Increasing the withholding would have the opposite effect. If possible, I would check with the state of New Jersey.

Yes I read the statement correctly. As I said in an earlier post, an asterisk indicated this was a change from the previous year. (if it was a screwup by NJ i will let you know)

I don't believe the Office of Personnel Management represents the State of New Jersey.

You apparently have good representation. It almost seems like an inside job.

Must be nice to work for the Federal gov't. Otherwise they take extra, earn interest on it and give it back if you ask for it.

[mostpost]

I don't believe the Office of Personnel Management represents the State of New Jersey.

You apparently have good representation. It almost seems like an inside job. :cool:
It just seems odd that one person (Me) would have a decrease in withholding, while another (finfan's maternal parental unit) would have an increase in withholding of almost the same amount.

[finfan]

It just seems odd that one person (Me) would have a decrease in withholding, while another (finfan's maternal parental unit) would have an increase in withholding of almost the same amount.

Thanks most for the information you provided. Maybe it will help to get to the bottom of this... but...

I hate to hijack a thread I started but when you refer to my mom as a "maternal parental unit" I'm not sure you can get any more PC than that. In fact it's beyond PC. It really shows how indoctrinated you are.

[acorn54]

i say it's all pap and a yard wide. does anyone have a hole i can get sick in?

[Tom]

Thanks most for the information you provided. Maybe it will help to get to the bottom of this... but...

I hate to hijack a thread I started but when you refer to my mom as a "maternal parental unit" I'm not sure you can get any more PC than that. In fact it's beyond PC. It really shows how indoctrinated you are.

Like something out a movie....zombies, pod-people, 1984.....scary stuff...in all seriousness. Scary stuff.

[mostpost]

Thanks most for the information you provided. Maybe it will help to get to the bottom of this... but...

I hate to hijack a thread I started but when you refer to my mom as a "maternal parental unit" I'm not sure you can get any more PC than that. In fact it's beyond PC. It really shows how indoctrinated you are.
I believe that phrase is from "Third Rock From The Sun". My usage was an homage to that show. It had nothing to do with PC. Sheesh!!

[Tom]

Bottom line is this - everyone's taxes are going to go up. Obama lied yet again.

[hazzardm]

Because I thought the idea was to give us more money in our pockets to stimulate the ecoonomy at the present time.

I'd say odds are a bout 0.00005% of this happening.

[traveler]

Of course if she'd worked in private industry, chances are she'd have a 401K if any retirement plan and the balance would be way down as a result of the market downturn. Virtually nobody today has a true pension plan except government workers, she should relax and be thankful.

[jonnielu]

Bottom line is this - everyone's taxes are going to go up. Obama lied yet again.

The entire system is a sham, why would anyone expect to hear any truth from any of the perpetrators?

How could a free person, living in a free country, incur an obligation to the rest of society? The concept of equality, and the federal income tax, can not and do not stand in the same place at the same time.

jdl

[Tom]

I have no problem with kicking in my fair share, to pay stuff that government should provide for us, being that individuals cannot do it all, like building roads, say.

But I read in the Post today that NYC is paying $32,000 to issue printed instruction booklets on how to use heroine!!!!

NYC has lost it's connection to the real world. If I lived there, I would be heading to that idiot Bloomberg's house wsith a pitchfork or torch in my hand. As NY state taxpayer, I now whole-heatedly support western NY ceceding fro the state.

Here's hoping this next decade is the one in which we wake up and end the current form of disgraveful, corrupt government we have known all our lives.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I have no problem with kicking in my fair share, to pay stuff that government should provide for us, being that individuals cannot do it all, like building roads, say.

But I read in the Post today that NYC is paying $32,000 to issue printed instruction booklets on how to use heroine!!!!

NYC has lost it's connection to the real world. If I lived there, I would be heading to that idiot Bloomberg's house wsith a pitchfork or torch in my hand. As NY state taxpayer, I now whole-heatedly support western NY ceceding fro the state.

Here's hoping this next decade is the one in which we wake up and end the current form of disgraveful, corrupt government we have known all our lives.

But your state taxes would most likely go up - as NYC sends more money to the state than they receive back in return.

Don't you want drug addicts to use heroine safely and effectively? How unfeeling of you.

[Tom]

Get rid of the state mandates on localities and we could do just fine without the east half of the state. I'll let you worry about the junkies, if that is your calling.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Get rid of the state mandates on localities and we could do just fine without the east half of the state. I'll let you worry about the junkies, if that is your calling.

I was being sarcastic about the heroine addicts - I just refuse to use the over-used emoticons to signify sarcasm.

It would interesting to see how much money flows to western NY from the state. I would assume there's a very large Medicaid population in western NY, driven by the economy and long-term care costs (older than avg population, I'd guess). Then there's education funding that flows to the area. But perhaps you're right on the mandates as offsets. I just know I used to make the same argument as yours (while living in the Albany area), and it turned out I wasn't correct.

[skate]

Welp. i'm not saying this to be the case herebut, "these people Lie", not every time, but often .


BtheO says "no increase" but the bill will be passed on to the States.

I have a property tax that went up , last year, almost three times. You can't fight it and come out with a win, no way.

The Feds can Print, the States have to increase Taxes.

[Tom]

It would interesting to see how much money flows to western NY from the state.

I would take the loss to stop the bull crap that flows out of Albany. NYS is a pathetic excuse of a state run by morons and crooks. ANYTHING would be an improvement over what we have now. I'd even agree to have only one senator. That's basically three more than I have now! :D

[jonnielu]

I have no problem with kicking in my fair share, to pay stuff that government should provide for us, being that individuals cannot do it all, like building roads, say.

But I read in the Post today that NYC is paying $32,000 to issue printed instruction booklets on how to use heroine!!!!

NYC has lost it's connection to the real world. If I lived there, I would be heading to that idiot Bloomberg's house wsith a pitchfork or torch in my hand. As NY state taxpayer, I now whole-heatedly support western NY ceceding fro the state.

Here's hoping this next decade is the one in which we wake up and end the current form of disgraveful, corrupt government we have known all our lives.

You kick-in for roads and such with the taxes on gasoline. With the income tax, you kick in for socialism, by paying for booklets for heroine addicts. The government might not be so corrupt if everybody weren't kicking-in for all of its vote-buying schemes.

jdl

[Saratoga_Mike]

I would take the loss to stop the bull crap that flows out of Albany. NYS is a pathetic excuse of a state run by morons and crooks. ANYTHING would be an improvement over what we have now. I'd even agree to have only one senator. That's basically three more than I have now! :D

How Patterson named Gillebrand to be your US Senator is beyond me. Of course she's cut from the same cloth as Schumer. He's a big KG booster b/c it gives him the spotlight once again. Rudy isn't running, so your only hope to beat her is maybe Pataki.

On fiscal matters, Patterson is more conservative than most of the state's Republican assemblymen and Senators. You do have a pitiful bunch.

[Tom]

How Patterson named Gillebrand to be your US Senator is beyond me.

An unelected governor appoints an unelected senator.
What a great state.
Pataki?
He's garbage. Three days old.

[Saratoga_Mike]

An unelected governor appoints an unelected senator.
What a great state.
Pataki?
He's garbage. Three days old.

Moderately to the right of KB, though. I'm sorry he's moderately to the right of SENATOR KB. He was to the left of CONGRESSWOMAN KB. She changed all of her important positions when she was named senator.

[WeirdWilly]

As NY state taxpayer, I now whole-heatedly support western NY ceceding fro the state.

Can Michigan (outside of Detroit, Flint, Lansing, Saginaw, and Ann Arbor) join this new state?

Better yet, we will give the cities to Ohio, just like we did with Toileto, I mean Toledo :cool:

[bigmack]

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/1_6_10_21_41_26.png

http://biggovernment.com/2010/01/06/dems-tinker-with-withholding-tax-tables-for-2010/#more-54654

How does this compare to this?

mostpost]This is the opposite of what happened to me. I recently received my "Notice of Annuity Adjustment" from the Office of Personnel Management. (They handle retirements for USPS) My withholding went down $27 per month, and my checks will go up $27 per month. Are you certain you read the statement correctly? Because I thought the idea was to give us more money in our pockets to stimulate the ecoonomy at the present time. Increasing the withholding would have the opposite effect. If possible, I would check with the state of New Jersey.[/QUOTE

[mostpost]

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/1_6_10_21_41_26.png

http://biggovernment.com/2010/01/06/dems-tinker-with-withholding-tax-tables-for-2010/#more-54654

How does this compare to this?
I know what is happening. :jump: The American Recovery and and Reinvestment Act Of 2009 provided for a temporary rollback of withholding in order to provide Americans with more money in their pockets. Those rollbacks have now expired and we are returning to the withholding rates in 2008 under George W. Bush. Actually we are not. The 2010 rates are still lower than 2008.
Here are copies of publication 15 circular E for 2008, 2009 and 2010.
FOR PURPOSES OF COMPARISON ALL OF THESE ARE BIWEEKLY PAYPERIOD FOR A SINGLE PERSON.
For 2008
TABLE 2—BIWEEK
(a) SINGLE person (including head of household)—
If the amount of wages (after
subtracting withholding The amount of income tax
allowances) is: to withhold is:
Not over $102 ..............$0
Over— But not over— of excess over—
$102 —$396 . . . 10% —$102
$396 —$1,306 . . . $29.40 plus 15% —$396
$1,306 —$3,066 . . . $165.90 plus 25% —$1,306
$3,066 —$6,404 . . . $605.90 plus 28% —$3,066
$6,404 —$13,833 . . . $1,540.54 plus 33% —$6,404
$13,833 ................ $3,992.11 plus 35% —$13,833
For 2009
TABLE 2—BIWEEK
(a) SINGLE person (including head of household)—
If the amount of wages (after
subtracting withholding The amount of income tax
allowances) is: to withhold is:
Not over $276 ............. . $0
Over— But not over— of excess over—
$276 —$400 .. . 10% —$276
$400 —$1,392 .. . $12.40 plus 15% —$400
$1,392 —$2,559 .. . $161.20 plus 25% —$1,392
$2,559 —$6,677 .. . $452.95 plus 28% —$2,559
$6,677 —$14,423 .. . $1,605.99 plus 33% —$6,677
$14,423 ............... . $4,162.17 plus 35% —$14,423
For 2010.
(a) SINGLE person (including head of household)—
If the amount of wages (after
subtracting withholding The amount of income tax
allowances) is: to withhold is:
Not over $233 .............. .$0
Over— But not over— of excess over—
$233 —$401 .. .10% —$233
$401 —$1,387 .. .$16.80 plus 15% —$401
$1,387 —$2,604 .. .$164.70 plus 25% —$1,387
$2,604 —$3,248 .. .$468.95 plus 27% —$2,604
$3,248 —$3,373 .. .$642.83 plus 30% —$3,248
$3,373 —$6,688 .. .$680.33 plus 28% —$3,373
$6,688 —$14,450 .. .$1,608.53 plus 33% —$6,688
$14,450 ............... .$4,169.99 plus 35% —$14,450
I worked up a table of representative salaries in each range to show the difference in withholding in 2008, 2009 and 2010.

2008 2009 2010
$300 $30 $30 30
$1000 $120.00 $102.40 $106.65
$2000 $339.40 $313.20 $317.95
$2800 $539.40 $513.20 $521.87
$3500.00 $727.42 716.43 $715.89
$4500 $1007.42 $996.43 $995. 89
$9000 $2397.92 $2375.88 $2371.49
As you can see the amounts for 2010, while higher than for 2009 in most cases, are always lower than for 2008. I AM SHOCKED, SHOCKED TO FIND THAT Ms. Hiller did not mention this in her article. I am also shocked that while she mentioned how the minimum wage at which you would have to pay witholding had dropped from $276 in 2009 to $233 in 2010 she said nary a word about the fact that it was $102 in 2008. (Based on biweekly figures) The printer must have missed that line. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[mostpost]

The Hiller piece is typical right wing and typical Breitbart. They give you part of the information and hope you don't look for the rest. And in all cases, you guys don't. So Ms. Hiller tells us that Democrats are raising our taxes. She "Proves" it by citing the differences is withholding from 2009 to 2010. Two things she does not mention. First, the withholding rates in 2009 were temporarily lowered due to economic conditions. (Of course everybody forgets this) Second, the new rates are still lower than the rates under George W. Bush in 2008.
If you think this is an oversight on their part, please contact me about the ocean property I have for sale in Kansas.

[dartman51]

The Hiller piece is typical right wing and typical Breitbart. They give you part of the information and hope you don't look for the rest. And in all cases, you guys don't. So Ms. Hiller tells us that Democrats are raising our taxes. She "Proves" it by citing the differences is withholding from 2009 to 2010. Two things she does not mention. First, the withholding rates in 2009 were temporarily lowered due to economic conditions. (Of course everybody forgets this) Second, the new rates are still lower than the rates under George W. Bush in 2008.
If you think this is an oversight on their part, please contact me about the ocean property I have for sale in Kansas.





So.......let me get this straight. If I hired you to work for me at the beginning of 2008, and paid you $20 pr hr, then in January of 2009, I raise your pay to $30 pr hr, then in 2010, I drop you back to $21 pr hr, I'm not really cutting your pay???? I am paying you more than in 2008. :confused:

[Tom]

I know what is happening. :jump: The American Recovery and and Reinvestment Act Of 2009 provided for a temporary rollback of withholding in order to provide Americans with more money in their pockets.

You understand that this was no ta tax cut, yes?
The rate remained the same, but less was withheld, so now more is due in April.

[mostpost]

So.......let me get this straight. If I hired you to work for me at the beginning of 2008, and paid you $20 pr hr, then in January of 2009, I raise your pay to $30 pr hr, then in 2010, I drop you back to $21 pr hr, I'm not really cutting your pay???? I am paying you more than in 2008. :confused:
Nice try. :rolleyes: In 2009 I got a ten dollar raise. In 2010 my salary was cut $9. Two seperate things. Overall for the two years I got a $1 raise.

In her article SusanAnne Hiller is trying to make us believe that Democrats are raising withholding rates. She is not telling us that Democrats had previously lowered these rates. She is not telling us that when Democrats lowered withholding rates, they told us that the reduction was for one year only. (Nine months actually) And she is not telling us that when Democrats returned us to the previous rates, they actually lowered those rates too.

[mostpost]

You understand that this was no ta tax cut, yes?
The rate remained the same, but less was withheld, so now more is due in April.
I do understand that this was no ta tax cut. Just kind of a loan.
BTW I'm sorry I didn't go higher than $9000 in my table of bi-weekly salaries. I know you would have liked to see your comparative withholding for the three years.

[mostpost]

I do understand that this was no ta tax cut. Just kind of a loan.
BTW I'm sorry I didn't go higher than $9000 in my table of bi-weekly salaries. I know you would have liked to see your comparative withholding for the three years.
And it wasn't a ta tax raise when the withholding went up.

[Tom]

I do understand that this was no ta tax cut. Just kind of a loan.
BTW I'm sorry I didn't go higher than $9000 in my table of bi-weekly salaries. I know you would have liked to see your comparative withholding for the three years.

My point was that the lying SOBs in DC have been calling this a tax cut. And so many morons out there are buying it.

[dartman51]

Nice try. :rolleyes: In 2009 I got a ten dollar raise. In 2010 my salary was cut $9. Two seperate things. Overall for the two years I got a $1 raise.

In her article SusanAnne Hiller is trying to make us believe that Democrats are raising withholding rates. She is not telling us that Democrats had previously lowered these rates. She is not telling us that when Democrats lowered withholding rates, they told us that the reduction was for one year only. (Nine months actually) And she is not telling us that when Democrats returned us to the previous rates, they actually lowered those rates too.

No, it's the SAME thing. If you pay MORE taxes it 2010 than you did in 2009, that's a tax INCREASE. You can try and justify with your usual left wing BS way, but it's STILL a tax INCREASE. I don't care what you paid in 2008 or before. I don't care what I paid in taxes in 2008 OR 2009, I only care what I have to pay in 2010. If it's more than I paid in 2009, for the same income, THAT'S A TAX INCREASE. :bang:

[mostpost]

No, it's the SAME thing. If you pay MORE taxes it 2010 than you did in 2009, that's a tax INCREASE. You can try and justify with your usual left wing BS way, but it's STILL a tax INCREASE. I don't care what you paid in 2008 or before. I don't care what I paid in taxes in 2008 OR 2009, I only care what I have to pay in 2010. If it's more than I paid in 2009, for the same income, THAT'S A TAX INCREASE. :bang:
Thank you for "Bolding" the words "THAT'S A TAX INCREASE". The subject here is withholding. An increase in withholding is not an increase in taxes. A decrease in withholding is not a cut in taxes. Even Tom and I agree on that. (See his #41 and my #43 & #44). So there was no Tax increase. And the point still stands that WITHHOLDING will be lower in 2010 than it was in 2008. Deny that if you can. :p

[johnhannibalsmith]

What if your additional withholding was retained at refund time by the IRS to bring you into compliance with certain provisions of a hypothetical bill, like for example, a health care bill?

Would it then constitute a new tax? Or is having part of your pay withheld to subsidize a federal program not really taxation, but rather 'compelling compliance' or some such nicety?

Of course, I'm not speculating that such a thing could actually happen... just sayin'...

[Tom]

A lower withholding means you write a bigger check at the end or get a lesser return.