I make my living preparing tax returns. These last-minute changes are killing the whole tax prep industry. And now IRS won't even give a timetable for when refunds will be delivered. I believe Chief Wahoo is right. The administration wants to hold on to your interest-free (not tax-free) loan as long as possible. In the past, IRS opened about the 15th of January, and refunds started to be delivered about 10 days later. Now they're talking about 21 days between filing and funding. Ridiculous!

Oh, come on. There is nothing sinister about this. It takes time to change and test the computer applications. There is no possible way an organization as big as the IRS can change its systems in a few days. It has nothing to do with the float.

Nobody is obligated to overpay on their tax through the year and those who do are stupid. I've been taking my own interest free loan from my tax bill annually and writing and check on April 15th for as long as I've been filing a return.

Your clown lost. Elections have consequences. Get over it. America has spoken. Crawl back into your cave with the Tea Baggers.

Last-minute changes are due to the stalling tactics of the far right in Boner's corner. I'm another Obama voter who wants some small measure of intelligence from your side of the aisle (for a change). We won, and the people are with us, not Mitt's wealthy cronies.

Monk, most of the folks who elected BHO don't pay federal taxes, so don't much care what his tax policies do to you. They've raised envy of successful folk from a vice to a virtue.

George,

Great comment! You say you want a "small measure of intelligence"? Yet you begin your comment with "your clown lost" and then you proceed tell a guy who probably voted for said "clown" to crawl back into his cave with "Tea Baggers." And if that weren't intellectual enough, you call out "Mitt's wealthy cronies."

I guess if only we on the right could be as educated as folks like you, the country would be a Utopia! Money would just grow on trees and everyone would be rich!

Now picture me clapping with my elbows pinned at my hips saying something like "art...art...art..."

The Party of No made it necessary to let the 2% reduction in withholding expire Jan. 1st. Stop blaming Obama for everything. He got it reduced in the first place. Your ultra-right-wing, millionaire-loving, elitist class-warriors are responsible for what you complained about.

Oh, I forgot -- you watch Faux News and listen to Rush Limnburgers, so you have no clue.

Can i get an amen to that?

But Joe, at least with everybody paying 2% more in taxes the federal government has cut spending and the deficit has shrunk,,,, no wait! Spending actually increased and the debt got bigger? What?!

I'd like to see your paycheck, Joe. Why are you so quick to support the millionaires and billionaires? Are you one of them? If not, then you're the one being suckered. If you think the upper 1 percent give a rat's behind about you and yours, then you are sorely mistaken. I'll never understand why all these self-proclaimed Joe-Sixpacks are so enamored with protecting the rich.

The payroll tax cut was always supposed to be temporary.

Joe, the tax increase is on wages, and many of the folks here don't earn wages. Whatever BHO takes from you, he gives to them. That's how he got re-elected.

I agree Joe. Obama said "no tax increases on the middle class". Why then am I having $20 more taken out of my first paycheck of 2013 then?

Joe and John Q Public, please educate yourselves. The demographics don't support your statements. People with a college degree trend democrat. People that receive gov't subsidies vote republican. That's a fact.
republican=stupid

@ patrick, not according to this CNN exit poll.
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president
The education factor is basically even. Other then HS dropouts. 64% vote dem.
As do the majority of poor.

This exit poll after the 2010 HoR elections shows majority of educated (beyond HS) voting republican. Again, the HS dropouts vote dem, as do the poor.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/07/weekinreview/20101107-detailed-exitpolls.html

It's ok. Go look at the piece of paper that tells you you're smart. You'll feel better.

I'll just go count my money.

yo rizz wassup fellow lacey dude.....didn't the Dem controlled Senate exclude the SS tax holiday? Harry Reid didn't like it neither did Pelosi. Instead of your BS produce the bill the Dems introduced otherwise you're just another jacka$$. Come on big guy, show us the bill and the votes where the Dems in the Senate voted on it.

Oh man, Sméagol, did you really have to trot out that old worn-out argument about the rich and their fair share? You obviously learned your math in the "publik skool." What else would explain your ignorance?

Yo smedley. What is the fair share of the 50 % who don't pay income taxes? 50 % x zero is still 0. I think you should have to pay at least 500 to get to vote otherwise why wouldn't a bunch of non payers vote for someone to give them free stuff. Ain't like they are payin so who cares

Since 5% pay ALREADY pay 40% of all taxes, 'fair share' has a different meaning for our left wing brethren. Democrats have successfully manipulated human 'envy' into a winning political theme.

>> "I am none of the above I'm in the middle."
Yea, and I'm dead in the center myself and have no biases like everybody else. Do you even believe what you write because when you start telling me how moderate you are it begins to sound like noise? BTW, you're a real bastion of objectivity when it comes to what you think of yourself.

Maybe if our government didn't spend money it did not have, we would not have to offer tax free bonds...

You can invest in munis. These shelters are legal entities created by Congress both Republican and Democrat. Do rich democrats pay higher rates then rich republicans.

You can buy into PA tax-free mutual funds at Vanguard, and you don't have to be rich to do it. Also, where did you learn that the average American is paying a 65% to 75% tax rate. All my taxes combined do not equal 75%.

I didn't say I wanted to get rid of tax free bonds. And it doesn't matter who gets in obummy or rummy. Our country is high on spending and there no end in site. Especially military spending, bombing and killing people world wide so the rich can get even richer. It can't go on forever. In 20 or 30 years we'll probably be a third world country.

Well I must know something about economics my house is paid off, my vehicles are paid off, I have 0 credit card debt and some money in the bank. Made every penny myself.

I'm not exactly sure of your point, Smedley. Are you suggesting somebody else made my money? Gosh, and all along I thought I was earning it the old fashioned way...

Yo smedley that is the smartest thing you wrote. The other stuff mostly sounds like you have no clue. Good for you. I wish Washington would do it too. The problem isn't defense and cutting defense is ok but will cost jobs. the problem is medicare and medicaid which are in the red about 600 billion a year but no one wants to put it on the table. We owe 16.5 trill going to 25 trill under obummy. The interest costs NOT principal on that debt cost us hundreds of billions a year. You said you have no debt so why does dc borrow and never pay it back? They borrow to pay interest. Is that smart?

@Paul, did you consider that maybe the 50% was for illustrative purposes. Does it really matter if the number is 42, 45 or 50 when a LARGE percentage of the population doesn't contribute to paying the bills.

The actual number is 47. As in 47% of taxpayers pay ZERO federal income tax. That leaves 100% of the burden on the 53%.

The top 10% of payers earn 45% of all AGI and pay 71% of all taxes. It doesn't get much more unfair than that.

If by destroyed, you mean we will still spend trillions we dont have in an irresponsible and unpatriotic manner, leave 20+ million unemployed and bankrupt our future, then I guess you are right.

I mean who would vote for anyone who wants you to be responsible when the other person is offering to give you free stuff?

So...you are in favor of a lower- and middle-class tax hike. I get it. Just say so.

Why do 42% pay no federal income tax? Because, in large part, we've have a 33 year crusade - that's a third of a century - to lower tax rates. And now that the GOP has won on tax policy...they whine about the consequences of winning.

He was destroyed when you consider the modern day electoral map - we have wide swaths of the nation 'locked in' and very few swings states. Obama won every swing state. Every one. That's a landslide, we may never see that again in our lifetimes.

JT - my tax bill is pretty damn responsible. What "free stuff" did I get? Please, I have no idea where to redeem my goodies.

I'm paying the full 15.3% for SE. Is your employer paying half of yours? So who's looking for handouts between us?

Definition of a landslide:

"Reagan's 525 electoral votes (out of 538) is the highest total ever received by a presidential candidate. Mondale's 13 electoral votes is also the second-fewest ever received by a second-place candidate"

That's antiquated 20th century thinking. We used to live in a nation where anRepublican (Reagan) could win California or a Democrat (Clinton) could win in the deep South.

That isn't the case anymore. The nation is too polarized. You will never see margins like that ever again.

So when a man wins EVER single state in play, that means something. That's what we call, in political science, a "whoopin'".

The modern electoral footprint of states "in play" is PA, VA, FL, CO, OH, NV, and maybe a NC or MO. Quite frankly, Romney's performance was every bit of an embarrassment as a Dukakis or Dole.

Could you be dumber. Tax rates peaked at record high in 07 when spending was 2.9b and revs were 2.7b. Today spend is 3.8 t and revs are 2.6t. Does that sound like spending is flat. What a dope. No wonder collingswood is junk bond status

Whatever, troll. Taxes did not peak in 2007, what a joke. Learn something, we're all paying for it.

I mean, Winston. You are not a serious human being.

@porter - you forgot to factor this into your analysis. The Democrats can only win an election if they cheat. That's why they don't want voter ID. Consider this: Obama lost every state that has voter ID. Many places that Obama won had over 100% turnout, meaning more votes than registered voters. Lines in swing states like Va and Ohio was the result of union drones flocking to polls late armed with voter lists provided by the Democrat party. In some districts in Phila Obama got 100% of the vote - a statistical impossibility. So before you think that the socialist in the White House got some sort of mandate, all he got was a tainted Chicago-style victory on his way to turning America into a third world country.

That's right, I totally forgot that. Thanks for reminding us.

Here is an open invite, I will drive you through the parts of North Philadelphia where Romney got zero votes. We will go block by block and door to door and see if we can find one person who did / wanted to vote for Romney. Will drive, pay for gas, and buy you a happy meal at McDonalds. Let me know what day works best for you. I am sure there are tons of Romney votes in those districts.

It is "impossible" to believe that a place comprised of people Romney personally attacked on camera wouldn't come out and vote for him. I mean, I am sure Obama got at least 50% of former KKK members, no? Maybe a trip to Mississippi is in order to, Matlock.

Oh, and while I plan our next trip to Utah (where, shocker, Obama was shut out in a few areas comprised of older white wealthy Mormons) to investigate fraud there - have you gotten to the bottom of all those made-up polls that came out prior to the election?

@porter - it must be difficult having to defend the worst, most inept president this country has ever seen, but I must give you credit for your bunker-like attitude. Forgot to mention the fact that Obama has racked up more debt than all previous presidents combined, went to bed upon hearing that an American ambassador was murdered, poured $500 million into Solyndra, gave away billions to his union buddies through the so-called "stimulus" and real unemployment still hovers around 14% - wow, I'm exhausted so I'll stop there. Oops, one more - 49 million on food stamps. Ok, one more welfare is now the single largest line item in the federal budget. No wonder the Democrats have to cheat to win - what a record!

Joe, I'm not going to waste more time on you. Because no matter what facts or offered, you'll tune right back in to Fox and Limbaugh, and it will be all be for naught.

And I want you to watch what your party does to Christie in 2016 - when they smear and destroy him so that some ideological pure unelectable clown can get trounced by Biden or Clinton.

Maybe we can catch up then. And you know how you can tell Romney got trounced in an epic way? Because he didn't win a single state that Gindrich wouldn't have. He didn't win a single state YOU wouldn't have.

I'm sorry you aren't doing well and struggling, and hope better times are ahead for you.

And, Joe, I have to leave anyway because it's tax day tomorrow and I need to get that stuff in. But you wouldn't know about that, would you? Because you get a handout tomorrow from your employer. They're taking care of half your payments.

But I'm the moocher and you are the self-reliant capotalist. Suuuuuuuuuure.

Yo naz how do you have a flat tax that is progressive?

The American Taxpayer Relief Act made changes to the AMT for 2012 for one. As the IRS stated: their computers were programed for the revision to the tax rates and policy as is was before the Bush tax cuts, including the AMT. The existing law(2012) would have set the threshold at $45,000 for married couples. The new law now raises it to $78,750. The other item pertains to yearly fiscal business filings: doing away with some energy tax extenders, which gets kind of complicated to explain, as the IRS now has update those forms. This was all changed at the last minute...

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/412730-Tax-Provisions-in-ATRA.pdf

I agree. The Tax Schedule they are talking about should be for 2013, not last year.
Has nothing to do with the rich! So what is up?

They pay the legally required rate, just like Mitt does. If the wealthy will be taxed more, they all will pay more. What's your point? Are you implying that somehow Dems get away with paying less?

And the famous 47% includes members of the armed forces overseas (no income tax), seniors on Social Security and Medicare (federal benefits which they paid into for years), etc. Stop whining about "freebies." Stop defending millionaires.

Martin, what's Your point? That higher-income earners don't pay enough? The only people paying income taxes are those who make above average income. Are you saying they don't may enough? Why not? tell me: how much income is too much for someone to have? Who gets to decide?

Martin talks like one of those liberals who can only make it in life if something is taken from someone and given to him. Obama can destroy the economy, jack up taxes, reward illegal aliens with every benefit under the sun, turn his back on Israel, our only ally in the Middle East, kiss up to the jihadists, let his wife spend hundreds of millions on jetsetting around the globe, and shred the Constitution, but as long as Martin is given stuff taken from others, Obama is the man.

My post was that tax rates have declined since JFK. And you can check that. That's absolutely true, it's a point I have made many many times on this site and no one has ever addressed it.

If you are talking to me about volume of non-inflation adjusted dollars, that's not apples:apples. I'd just then point out that revenues were high in 2007 because GDP was high in 2007, but of course we know that economic scenario was built on a unsustainable house of cards and a housing bubble the crashed. And fueled by massive debt - both consumer and government - that haunts us to this day.

And as for the other point, I'm not sure that you'd disagree that spending - based on every 4 year increments - has been flat to up. Probably increased every year.

@Porter, I would agree that generally speaking marginal rates have come down and the outcome has been higher revenues. Even JFK advocated for lower tax rates back when there were still decent Democrats.

Isn't the economy today fueled by massive debt - up $6B since BO was inaugurated & projected to grow to $25T next 10 years along with Fed Reserve money printing? The Federal Gov borrowed 293 billion in the first 3 mos of FY2013 budget.

Ever look at the Federal Budget?

2004 spending - $2.29T
2008 spending - $2.98T
2012 spending - $3.6T

Sustained spending in 2012 was 50% higher than 2004 levels and 20% higher than 2008 (not one time items like Stimulus). Flat? Now that's funny

Source OMB Table 1.3

Joe - again, flat to up when you look at 4 year increments since the 1950's. And the top tax rate were 95% under Ike. Think it went down to 65% under JFK. Down to 50% under Reagan.

My focus is not to put people down (the Jesse Pinkman guy above being an exception). What I try to illustrate in all of my posts is a simple fact - things are they way they are because everyone, in some way, wanted them that way.

So we have tax rates down almost every administration (sometimes by huge margins) with slight exceptions (Bush I, Clinton, now Obama). All the while, your costs were increasing as the Boomers aged and a large % of the population began to use gov't services. The cost of those services, by the way, were skyrocketing the whole time. So the answer was borrowing. My question is this - what other outcome was there? How were we not supposed to end up here with huge debt?

And now, having bankrupted the country and consistently voted to expand the benefits they now enjoy, the older citizens of this nation are asking the younger ones to write of their expectations about social security and medicare. Despite that fact that we're paying payroll taxes too.

And the future must be debt driven because no tax increase will pass the House.

So, again, how is it supposed to be any other way than it is? This is what voters have voted for since 1980 at least.

A 50% increase in spending is flat?

Spending more than you earn isn't the cause of deficits? WOW!

In 2022, the Fed budget projects spending at $6T which I guess to you will be flat from $3.8T today yet revenues will never be close.

Right, it's a revenue problem

JFK wanted lower taxes. Not higher spending.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU

Joe, you are misquoting the post you are responding to. Repeatedly. At this point, I have to think that it is intentional. Oh, well. So much for a constructive dialogue between two people. Have a good one.

Joe, your quoting a facist think-tank to support your arguement. In my latest copy of MAD Magazine, it says republicans are stupid.

patrick:
"I want to pass on my accumulated wealth to my children, but it should be heavily taxed, not given a tax-free loophole."
WHY?
Why should the government have a right to take your stuff simply because you died? They can't confiscate your property while you are alive (without due process), why should that change just because you kicked the bucket?
And you trust them to redistribute the wealth they confiscate in a fair way! Lots of luck with that, pal.

"I want to pass on my accumulated wealth to my children, but it should be heavily taxed, not given a tax-free loophole"

Only a person with no money would be stupid enough to write that.

patrick, you're premise seems to be that the economy is a zero-sum game, that the gain of one is the loss of another. But many economic situations are not zero-sum. Taxes are not referred to as "burdens" for nothing. Taxes burden the economy. Taking money from someone prevents them from investing or spending it, which reduces employment opportunities. Allowing the government to mediate the transfer of money among citizens is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house.
Progressive tax regulations are nowhere near as key a component to a democracy as education is. If half this nation thinks being dependent on the government makes for a healthy, sustainable economy, we obviously have a serious education problem.

WOW! I want to pass on my accumulated wealth to my children, but it should be heavily taxed, not given a tax free loophole. Patrick=STUPID. My children will get every penny i have. How about that liberal moron.