SecondCor521
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
From IMDB:
Professor Kirke: Logic? What are they teaching at schools these days?
In this article I read:
"Save $219 Per Month on TaxesHere’s How: The average refund for the 2008 filing season so far is about $2,500. If you received an average refund and you are in the 25% federal tax bracket, you could be entitled to three extra exemptions worth $3,500 each. That would boost your take-home pay by $219 a month. A couple of reasons you might be eligible for more exemptions: becoming a new parent or buying a house."
I don't see how this qualifies as saving at all, especially not in a way that one could argue that these "savings" could be diverted into an investment program to produce $1M over 35 years.
Increasing one's exemptions to reduce the size of one's refund is a smart idea to be sure. But switching from receiving ~$2,500 in April to $219 every month of the year just evens out the cash flow; it doesn't directly result in any saved money.
Let's suppose this hypothetical family spends their $2,500 tax refund on a trip to Disneyland every year. They change their exemptions as described, but now they don't have the tax refund to pay for their trip; so instead they take that $219 per month and stick it into a savings account and earn a few bucks of interest, and then they withdraw from that savings account to pay for their Disneyland adventure.
The family is ahead a few bucks in interest, not $219 per month.
Given that this $219 a month is nearly half of the total monthly savings amount in the article, this seems a significant flaw in their argument.
Never mind that three exemptions only equals $219 per month at a specific income level, and that exemptions aren't "worth" $3,500 a piece (yes, I know what the author meant, but that is not what s/he wrote).
Sigh...
2Cor521
Professor Kirke: Logic? What are they teaching at schools these days?
In this article I read:
"Save $219 Per Month on TaxesHere’s How: The average refund for the 2008 filing season so far is about $2,500. If you received an average refund and you are in the 25% federal tax bracket, you could be entitled to three extra exemptions worth $3,500 each. That would boost your take-home pay by $219 a month. A couple of reasons you might be eligible for more exemptions: becoming a new parent or buying a house."
I don't see how this qualifies as saving at all, especially not in a way that one could argue that these "savings" could be diverted into an investment program to produce $1M over 35 years.
Increasing one's exemptions to reduce the size of one's refund is a smart idea to be sure. But switching from receiving ~$2,500 in April to $219 every month of the year just evens out the cash flow; it doesn't directly result in any saved money.
Let's suppose this hypothetical family spends their $2,500 tax refund on a trip to Disneyland every year. They change their exemptions as described, but now they don't have the tax refund to pay for their trip; so instead they take that $219 per month and stick it into a savings account and earn a few bucks of interest, and then they withdraw from that savings account to pay for their Disneyland adventure.
The family is ahead a few bucks in interest, not $219 per month.
Given that this $219 a month is nearly half of the total monthly savings amount in the article, this seems a significant flaw in their argument.
Never mind that three exemptions only equals $219 per month at a specific income level, and that exemptions aren't "worth" $3,500 a piece (yes, I know what the author meant, but that is not what s/he wrote).
Sigh...
2Cor521