If lucky you get almost 8 Bucks a week from the stimulus bill

Under the "stimulus" bill that President Obama signed today some people will be getting close to 8 bucks per week, others will be paying higher taxes--a higher marginal tax rate.

Let's get to the good news first. If you are single and make less than $75,000 a year you get $400. Married and making less than $150,000 bucks you get $800. So look at it this way, if you are lucky you can expect a little less than 8 bucks a week.

The theory behind giving you a little bit each week is you will spend it. It appears many people saved the money from the Bush stimulus. We no longer like people to save in this country. Spend, Spend, Spend. Uh, isn't this what got us in trouble in the first place?

Now to the bad news. If you are single making over $95,000 forgetaboutit--you get nothing (double that for married folks). If you are in that little window between $75,000 and $95,000 your marginal tax rate is going up by two percent. Ditto, if you are married and making between $150,000 and #190,000.

They say this is $116 billion in tax credits for 95% of Americans. I am a bit confused. Close to 45 million Americans are in the zero tax bracket. Another 13 million or so retirees don't need to file a tax return. As far as I can tell, you won't be getting your 8 bucks a week. If you are making money the easy way, you know, from social security, dividends or interest I don't know if you get to play. In the Bush version your social security qualified you for $300-$600 bucks. Which you received all at once as opposed to 6 bucks a week.

Two thirds of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is retail sales. So if everyone spends their 8 bucks, it would be a good thing. Maybe enough to keep your favorite luncheonette in business until the economy picks up.

The Wall Street Journal has a nice article on the latest attempt to boost consumer spending.

Subscribe to All American Investor via Email

Plan Tries Slow, Steady Stimulus to Revive Spending

By SUDEEP REDDY

The Obama administration is betting that an extra $8 a week in most Americans' paychecks will boost consumer spending and help pull the U.S. out of its downturn.

One piece of the $787 billion economic recovery package, which President Barack Obama plans to sign Tuesday in Denver, is an experiment in consumer behavior. The $116 billion in tax credits for 95% of Americans will come largely through reduced tax withholding from paychecks, over two years, rather than one-time payments.

The idea: let money trickle out to consumers so it feels like a permanent income boost.

When the government sent lump-sum checks for the 2001 and 2008 stimulus packages, Americans stashed most of the cash in savings or paid off debt. Neither of those actions fulfills the goals of a stimulus intended to offset weak consumer spending.

The tax break, one of Mr. Obama's campaign pledges, will provide up to $400 per worker or $800 for couples filing jointly. The credit begins phasing out for individuals making $75,000 a year and couples earning $150,000, eliminating 2% of income above that level from the tax break. That means that for every $1,000 over the cap, $20 of the credit is subtracted.

For example, someone earning $40,000 would receive the full $400, while someone who makes $85,000 would get $200, and a worker who earns $95,000 would receive nothing.

The first payments are expected to start hitting paychecks this spring, once the Internal Revenue Service releases new tax tables for employers to adjust payrolls. While the benefit for individuals amounts to $7.69 a week, the tax break for most workers this year should be about $12 to $14 a week to make up for the early months of 2009. Taxpayers who don't receive the break through employer payrolls can claim the credit as a refund on their 2009 taxes or by changing their quarterly withholding.

Whether the tax break boosts the economy in the short run depends in part on how stretched households have become and how consumers see the tax credit.

Getting money in a paycheck may indicate a steadier income gain, especially if recipients see it as a permanent middle-income tax cut -- as the Obama administration wants it to become eventually. "Spending something that's going to be a monthly or weekly flow would be the rational thing to do," said Matthew Shapiro, a University of Michigan economist who studied the 2001 and 2008 stimulus packages.

Consumers might connect a relatively large, single check in the mail to a credit-card debt or other loan that needs to be repaid. Or they could realize the need to save money in a downturn or in response to lower housing or investment values. That is what appears to have happened last year, when then-President George W. Bush's $152 billion stimulus package gave most Americans checks of $300 to $1,200. About a third was spent over the course of a year, while the personal saving rate shot up from zero in April 2008 to 4.8% the following month when the checks hit mailboxes.

At the time, consumers also were facing skyrocketing fuel prices as gasoline topped $4 a gallon. For many consumers, the government stimulus payments went largely toward offsetting the higher fuel bills, providing only a modest cushion to consumer spending as the economy continued to weaken.

"I don't care how you give it to me as long as I get money," said Matt Randolph, 26 years old, who is in the U.S. Navy. Last year, he and his wife, April, received a $1,200 check and said they used it to pay off credit-card bills.

This time around, Mrs. Randolph says, with the money spread out, "We'd think 'Oh a few more dollars. Let's go out to dinner.' For $16 a week, I am not going to go take a vacation somewhere."

Some economists are less optimistic than the White House about the boost from the stimulus. The personal saving rate in December jumped to 3.6% from 0.4% a year earlier, and Americans could decide to let the smaller payouts pile up.

"Because the economy is so much worse now and people are so much more panicked now, I do think it's more likely we'll get precautionary saving," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com.

That's what Madeleine Leach plans to do with her money. Ms. Leach, a vice principal in the Newark, N.J., school district, says the weak housing and job markets have made her wary of spending too much. "You can't just go on spending money because you never know whether you're going to be employed," she said. Ms. Leach, 34, plans to save the money for her wedding next year.

Write to Sudeep Reddy at sudeep.reddy@wsj.com



More from All American Investor

Ray Dalio on the current state of affairs in the market

Homebuyer Credit Won’t Stabilize Market, Analysts Say



Roubini Predicts U.S. Losses May Reach $3.6 Trillion



Six Errors on the Path to the Financial Crisis

Who Caused the Financial Crisis?

Option ARM--The Toxic Mortgage

Debt Binge--The Perfect Financial Storm

Senate’s Housing Tax Credit Favors Higher-Income Homebuyers

One potato, two potato, three potato, five?

I wrote previously Senate Advances Tax Break for Homebuyers

Look who sponsored the bill. Senator Johnny Isakson, Republican of Georgia, a former real estate broker. I wonder where Johnny gets most of his campaign dough? Senator Johnny says this amendment was modeled after the $2,000 home buyer incentive that helped lead the country out of recession in 1975. Minor differences? In 1975 that was a one year deal and only for new houses.

Upon further review it is apparant that this new version of the Senate's tax credit for home purchase favors the wealthy.

By replacing a $7,500 tax credit for first-time homebuyers earning less than $150,000 with a $15,000 break for all income groups as part of the economic stimulus package, senators are encouraging purchases by higher-income households with a reduced risk of default.

Here is the caveat, if you don't pay enough tax then you can't write off the full amount.

Subscribe to All American Investor via Email

Senate’s Tax Credit Favors Higher-Income Homebuyers

By Ryan J. Donmoyer

Feb. 7 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Senate is working to boost home purchases among six-figure-income households, turning away from Bush administration policies that helped fuel a property bubble.

By replacing a $7,500 tax credit for first-time homebuyers earning less than $150,000 with a $15,000 break for all income groups as part of the economic stimulus package, senators are encouraging purchases by higher-income households with a reduced risk of default.

A sponsor of the measure, Republican Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia, said the credit is aimed at helping restart the stalled housing market. It would do so without the “far too loosey-goosey” underwriting standards of recent years that spurred an explosion of defaults by unqualified borrowers, he said.

“By doing it the way we did, people making $120,000 are more likely to be motivated to buy a house,” Isakson said.

Unlike the current law, the $35.5 billion provision wouldn’t be restricted to first-time homebuyers. It also would end homebuyers’ ability to claim the full credit if it exceeds the amount they owe in taxes.

The effect would be to wipe out the $15,000 of income tax a family of four earning about $122,000 would otherwise owe this year if they bought a house. A family earning half that amount would get about $2,300 less in tax benefits for buying a home than they would under current law.

Stimulus Package

The Senate credit, approved Feb. 4, is included in a broader $780 billion stimulus package the chamber may vote on Feb. 10. The provision faces an uncertain future because it would have to win support in the House of Representatives to be included in the final economic stimulus plan. If enacted by Congress, it would take effect the day President Barack Obama signed it into law. Obama, 47, said this week in an interview with Fox News that tax cuts for people who buy homes or businesses “has some potential and I’m willing to take a look at it.”

Some lending experts said it isn’t clear whether the tax credit would jumpstart the housing market, especially while the broader economy is still in recession.

Concerns on Economy

“There are stronger forces at work here,” including fears about the economy, fears that housing prices remain too high, and expectations that Congress may still subsidize mortgage rates, said Ricardo Kleinbaum, a credit analyst at BNP Paribas in New York. “If you can’t afford a house today, it’s not going to make much of a difference.”

The credit, which is worth the lesser of $15,000 or 10 percent of a house purchase price, was added to the stimulus bill along with a break to spur car purchases. That provision gives a credit to people who have bought a new car since Nov. 12, 2008, or buy one before Dec. 31, and also gives the biggest savings to higher-income earners.

The Senate-passed credit for homebuyers, unlike the existing $7,500 credit, isn’t refundable, which means house purchasers who owe less than $15,000 in federal income tax won’t get the full benefit in a single year.

Instead, the Senate provision would allow homeowners to split the $15,000 into two separate tax credits of $7,500 to be taken in successive years. To pay $7,500 in federal taxes, a family of four would have to earn about $92,125, according to Internal Revenue Service tax tables.

No Refund

Lower-income people whose taxes over two years don’t total $15,000 won’t get the full benefit and in many cases would get a better deal under current law, which requires the government to send a check for the difference between taxes paid and the $7,500 credit.

Under existing law, the $7,500 has to be repaid. The Senate bill wouldn’t require the $15,000 credit to be repaid. In its version of the economic stimulus bill, the House agreed only to waive the repayment requirements, though it left the refundable credit at $7,500 and preserved income limits for eligible users.

Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center in Washington, said the new housing credit would stabilize housing prices, though he questioned whether such intervention is necessary.

“This is saying we’re going to put a floor underneath how far housing prices are going to fall,” Williams said. “It may well induce a lot of people to buy houses who otherwise might not have,” he said.

‘Awful Lot of Money’

At the same time, Williams said, the measure may not have a big effect because a large number of people would still buy a house even without the benefit. “If they’ve really given it to everybody then its spending an awful lot of money on activities that will already happen,” he said.

Stephen Fuller, a housing economist at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, said the credit is similar to a $5,000 break enacted in 1975 for buyers of newly constructed, never-occupied homes that reduced backlogged housing inventories to the point where demand for new construction was stimulated.

“The logjam right now is in the trade-up market,” Fuller said. “There’s a lot of pent-up demand. They’re ready and able once they get the go-ahead signal; this may be that kind of signal.”

Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, said the risk is the tax credit will act as an incentive for people who don’t need one, because the Senate measure favors higher-income earners.

“It’s close to the craziest thing I could think of,” Baker said. “The vast majority of users will just be people shuffling houses.”

‘Game the System’

In some cases, he said, people will try to “game the system” and engage in sham sales with trusted relatives or business partners to claim the credit, although tax lawyers said anti-abuse rules in the tax code may limit such fraud.

The breaks for car purchases, championed by Maryland Democratic Senator Barbara Mikulski, are limited to families that earn less than $250,000 that spend less than $49,500 on a new car. A 6 percent sales tax on a $25,000 minivan would be $1,500; deducting that would save a family between $150 and $495 in federal taxes, depending on their income-tax bracket. Tax savings from interest deductions also would vary depending on tax brackets.

“The deduction for the automobile purchases is going to be more valuable for middle-income and higher-income people,” said Robert Carroll, vice president for economic policy at the Tax Foundation, a Washington research group.

Carroll questioned the wisdom of both breaks, saying they would artificially prop up failing industries while encouraging overleveraged taxpayers to borrow more.

“Propping up a failing industry is certainly outside the scope of stimulus,” he said. “Households who are overleveraged and businesses that are overleveraged are much more susceptible to financial distress. You’d think Congress would know better.”

To contact the reporters on this story: Ryan Donmoyer in Washington at rdonmoyer@bloomberg.net

Senate Advances Tax Break for Homebuyers

One potato, two potato, three potato, four.

The Senate voted to expand the economic stimulus package with a tax credit for homebuyers of up to $15,000. Change right?

Look who sponsored the bill. Senator Johnny Isakson, Republican of Georgia, a former real estate broker. I wonder where Johnny gets most of his campaign dough? Senator Johnny says this amendment was modeled after the $2,000 home buyer incentive that helped lead the country out of recession in 1975. Minor differences? In 1975 that was a one year deal and only for new houses.

The problem with the housing amendment? When you buy a new house you stimulate the economy. When you buy an existing house you do not. My house has been sitting here since 1981. You buy it and it does nothing to stimulate the economy. It does take away $15,000 in tax revenue though. Who knows? Maybe I buy a new house, or maybe I buy an existing house. Or maybe I am really smart. So happy I actually sold my house, I rent. Put the gain on the sale in the three month Treasury bill. Nice and safe.

Now here is a novel idea. How about you buy my house and I buy your house and we each get a tax credit? Or better yet, I buy a sack of potatoes from you for 1000 bucks and sell it back to you for 1000 bucks then you sell it to your neighbor for 1000 bucks and he sells it back to you for 1000. The economy was stimulated by 4000 bucks right? Maybe not. Numbers looks great though, don't they?

Subscribe to All American Investor via Email

Senate Advances Tax Break for Homebuyers

By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
WASHINGTON — The Senate on Wednesday voted to expand the economic stimulus package with a tax credit for homebuyers of up to $15,000, a provision championed by Republicans as addressing a root cause of the recession.

The vote to add the tax credit, at a cost of about $18.5 billion, came as Senate leaders seemed to be nearing completion of negotiations. The majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, suggested that a final vote on the stimulus plan could come on Thursday.

Moderate lawmakers in both parties are pushing to reduce the overall cost of the measure and to focus it more tightly on provisions that will quickly spur spending and create jobs. The vote came as President Obama met with centrist lawmakers to address concerns about the package.

Mr. Obama, while expressing willingness to compromise, also issued a warning to some Republican critics who have said they will press for major changes to the bill, including the removal of many spending programs in favor of wider tax cuts.

“I’ve heard criticisms of this plan that echo the very same failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis, the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems, that we can ignore the fundamental challenges like energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive,” he said.

“I reject that theory,” Mr. Obama continued, “and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change. So I urge members of Congress to act without delay.”

And, as if taking a cue from their president, Senate Democrats on Wednesday evening used their newly strengthened majority to swiftly reject a series of Republican amendments intended to cut spending or broaden the tax package in the stimulus bill.

Presuming Senate Democrats muscle the bill through, the final legislation must be reconciled with the $820 billion measure approved last week by the House.

The tax break for homebuyers, which the Senate approved by voice vote without opposition, was the second amendment in two days intended to encourage consumers to make major purchases. On Tuesday, the Senate approved a tax incentive for car buyers, sponsored by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland, that would allow the deduction of sales tax and loan interest on purchases made this year.

But while both of those incentives were applauded by lawmakers who said that the bill should quickly induce consumer spending, some economists said they were short-sighted and lacked the forward-thinking approach Mr. Obama has demanded.

Adam Posen, deputy director of the Peterson Institute of International Economics, said that homebuyers would have trouble accessing loans because of the continued tightness in the credit markets and that the car buyer incentive fell short by not focusing on fuel-efficient vehicles, and that the money might be better directed at mass transit.

“They are also structurally unsound,” Mr. Posen said of the two provisions, “reinforcing the attempts of industries that are too large — housing construction, automobile production — to survive based on government distortions.”

He called them both “terrible, pandering ideas.”

But Senator Johnny Isakson, Republican of Georgia, a former real estate broker, who was the prime sponsor of the homebuyer credit, said it was modeled after a similar, $2,000 homebuyer incentive that helped lead the country out of recession in 1975.

“We do have a history in this country with housing and it goes back to the crash of 1974, which actually in terms of inventory and price declines was comparable to what’s happening now,” Mr. Isakson said at a news conference.

“Within one year of the inception of that tax credit, two-thirds of the available inventory that was on the market was gone. The market moved back to a balanced inventory, values stabilized and things became very healthy. The only reason I know all of that is I was selling houses in 1974, that’s what I was doing to feed my family and make a living.”

The tax credit would give buyers 10 percent of the price of a primary residence bought within one year, up to $15,000, and is intended to stabilize plummeting home prices, which caused a wave of foreclosures and led to the near collapse of the financial system as Wall Street firms wrote down billions in mortgage-backed assets.

With Wednesday’s additions, the cost of the Senate package has climbed well above $900 billion — the limit that Mr. Obama has set for the final legislation. Intense negotiations seemed likely over how to reduce the price tag.

At the White House on Wednesday, Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, personally delivered a list of cuts, totaling about $100 billion, that she said should be made.

Ms. Snowe met one-on-one with Mr. Obama in the Oval Office, and the president met later in the day with Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, and Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska. Ms. Collins and Mr. Nelson have been working on a substitute bill that would strip out spending that they said would not provide an immediate jolt to the economy.

Ms. Snowe, leaving the White House, said it was imperative that “every provision has a job creation component.”

Initiatives that critics hope to remove from the bill include $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, $14 million for cyber security research by the Homeland Security Department, $1 billion for the National Science Foundation, $400 million for research and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, $850 million for Amtrak and $400 million for climate change research.

Jeff Zeleny contributed reporting.