Buck Bradcanon
Footballguy
Your total tax obligation for the year is the same in either scenario. Would you rather set it up to receive $1,000 or owe $1,000 in the spring?
Last edited by a moderator:
SameI would tell other people that it's smarter to have the $1K obligation while personally getting more satisfaction out of the $1K refund.
Interest rates are so low who cares if it's an interest free loan? On top of it $1,000 refund is like $20 per week. 90% plus of people with an extra $20 per week will just piss it away on crap and not actually save it. While I agree it's dumb to get a huge refund in this example the lost interest is immaterial.Anyone with an understanding of how this works would choose to receive the money now rather than later. If you disagree, you're turning down a 0% interest loan just to have someone else hold onto your money for a year.
With that said, I recognize that for some people there's emotional value in giving someone $, forgetting about it, and then being 'gifted' it back to you the following year. I don't agree with it, but I get it.
FixedYour total tax obligation for the year is the same in either scenario. Would you ratherset it up to receive $1,000be ruled by your feelings orowe $1,000 in the springyour brain?
Actually, in this poll, we're talking closer to $40 ($38.46) per week because it's not a choice between $1000 refund and $0 refund/owed. We're comparing $1000 refund vs $1000 owed which is $2000/year. So, you technically can invest $2000/year. Yeah, interest in savings accounts are low and nothing to get excited about here even after doubling the money. But, you could put $1000 of that $2000 in a Roth and let the other $1000 sit in savings (earning almost nothing) to then pay IRS. Of course, this plan assumes you know exactly what you're tax bill will be and if you know that then you might as well work it out to be a $0 balance and still put that $1000 in your Roth.On top of it $1,000 refund is like $20 per week. 90% plus of people with an extra $20 per week will just piss it away on crap and not actually save it. While I agree it's dumb to get a huge refund in this example the lost interest is immaterial.
Sure I guess I missed that but you don't have that extra $2,000 at the beginning of the year so it's really June/July before you hit the first $1,000 then to turn around and pull those funds in April you're not missing out on much interest...assuming you socked that extra $40 away. I still contend for the average person it's better to get a small refund rather that owe. $1,000 is starting to get at the high end of a small refund but my point stands.Actually, in this poll, we're talking closer to $40 ($38.46) per week because it's not a choice between $1000 refund and $0 refund/owed. We're comparing $1000 refund vs $1000 owed which is $2000/year. So, you technically can invest $2000/year. Yeah, interest in savings accounts are low and nothing to get excited about here even after doubling the money. But, you could put $1000 of that $2000 in a Roth and let the other $1000 sit in savings (earning almost nothing) to then pay IRS. Of course, this plan assumes you know exactly what you're tax bill will be and if you know that then you might as well work it out to be a $0 balance and still put that $1000 in your Roth.
I would rather owe hence the .03 cents I can make on interest.Your total tax obligation for the year is the same in either scenario. Would you rather set it up to receive $1,000 or owe $1,000 in the spring?
This isn't the only "emotional" argument. There's also something to be said for the certainty of knowing you don't need to budget for a possibly hefty one-time expenditure down the road. That certainty has a lot of value to most people. If it didn't there wouldn't be an insurance industry.Anyone with an understanding of how this works would choose to receive the money now rather than later. If you disagree, you're turning down a 0% interest loan just to have someone else hold onto your money for a year.
With that said, I recognize that for some people there's emotional value in giving someone $, forgetting about it, and then being 'gifted' it back to you the following year. I don't agree with it, but I get it.
I think you need a new accountant. I made amazon pay zero. 919 555 1212. Ask for Geno.$1K either way I don't care.
I owed $35K one year and that sucked donkey balls.
People obviously won’t do this and for good reason. And that good reason has absolutely nothing to do with giving you an interest free loan.I will take any and all refunders in here that want to give me weekly payments, any amount, and I will return all your payments in full at the end of 52 weeks. It would be really awesome if a lot of people would do it and we repeat the process year after year. PM me. TIA.
Not everyone is the same. I got $3k back this year and I'm very happy about it.How is this even a question?
Posts like these make me happy that my wife doesn't know and doesn't really care what's in our accounts. She knows we can cover anything she wants, I know she doesn't want anything expensive.It's taken a while, but my wife's discretionary spending is driven by the checking account balance. Can I make this purchase now? I need to check available funding first. So by going the pay $1K in Spring route we'll unintentionally spend more in the 12 or so months prior. By taking the $1K refund instead prior spending is down then that money can be more easily allocated to a bigger project.
So while I understand the interest free loan to the gov't angle, humans aren't robots. In our case I think we net ahead by taking the refund. And I'm sure we're not alone.
Is this a thing these days?I love all the barons of finance touting the interest they're earning on that extra $85 per month that's not going to the government until tax time.
You guys are buying boats every year with all that extra interest you're earning, right?
Not every year, but, using your numbers over a 40 year working period investing at a return of 10% it comes out to about $50,000. So yeah, one really nice boat when you retire.Ignoramus said:I love all the barons of finance touting the interest they're earning on that extra $85 per month that's not going to the government until tax time.
You guys are buying boats every year with all that extra interest you're earning, right?
Few things:Not every year, but, using your numbers over a 40 year working period investing at a return of 10% it comes out to about $50,000. So yeah, one really nice boat when you retire.
Where are you earning 10%? If people know they have a tax bill coming due in April they certainly shouldn't be dumping that extra cash into the stock market...especially in today's climate. Realistically 1 of 2 things happen with a vast majority of people that have an extra $40 per week.Not every year, but, using your numbers over a 40 year working period investing at a return of 10% it comes out to about $50,000. So yeah, one really nice boat when you retire.
That probably only works once, if you owe $20,000 two years in a row you would likely be paying a 6% underpayment penalty for 2019 unless your total tax liability is > $200,000tonydead said:How is this even a question? I'm going to owe north of $20,000 and am happy to be able to get out of paying any sort of penalty for borrowing the government's money for over a year, interest free.
Correct.That probably only works once, if you owe $20,000 two years in a row you would likely be paying a 6% underpayment penalty for 2019 unless your total tax liability is > $200,000
1 - use 8 or 9% if you want.Few things:
1) I've never seen long term gains modeled on 10%
2) The other individual is also getting $1k at the end of the year, so you'd need to model the difference based on an extra $85*(1.07/12) versus $1k*1.07.
The difference is really negligible over 40 years, not enough to lose a minute of sleep. Also, most people aren't that diligent about stashing the extra $85 a month and I'd bet the guy who just parks his refund check actually comes out ahead in 40 years.
Regardless, at $1k, the conversation is pointless.
My vote in the pole was based on what people should do. That includes having a certain percentage of savings in a regular account that can be used to pay unexpected bills of $1000, let alone a known bill of $1000. Even if it's only $15 you're telling me that people need to pay that as insurance for their behavior?Where are you earning 10%? If people know they have a tax bill coming due in April they certainly shouldn't be dumping that extra cash into the stock market...especially in today's climate. Realistically 1 of 2 things happen with a vast majority of people that have an extra $40 per week.
1. They piss it away on going out to dinner, or just buying crap they don't need
2. Knowing they will owe a $1,000 in April they sock it into a savings account earning .25% interest so congrats they came out $15 ahead
Your scenario is fantasy land but I admire the effort.
Models aren't built on 8-9%, it isn't realistic. The last decade has created this perception, but those monster YoY gains don't last forever.1 - use 8 or 9% if you want.
2- I did just model the difference in interest.
In this scenario it'd actually be a $100k+ difference over 40 years. Assuming their tax liability is 10k a year and the choice is to pay 11k in tax or 9k. One chooses to pay the extra 2k and the other invests it.Not every year, but, using your numbers over a 40 year working period investing at a return of 10% it comes out to about $50,000. So yeah, one really nice boat when you retire.
That is true but I would rather get a grand refund and buy something nice or put it toward a vacation. A grand spread out over a year is only about 20 dollars a week that I would not notice and just piss away.Why let the govt. get a no interest loan from me. Prefer to owe something vs. a refund.
The people are bad with money therefore they should make the wrong decision when it comes to tax withholding argument is the best.In this scenario it'd actually be a $100k+ difference over 40 years. Assuming their tax liability is 10k a year and the choice is to pay 11k in tax or 9k. One chooses to pay the extra 2k and the other invests it.
Person A invests 166.67 per month and withdrawals 1k at year end to pay the remaining tax bill. Net contribution equals 1k.
Person B withholds an extra 166.67 per month and receives 1k back at year end and then invests that.
At 7% difference of 26k
At 8% difference of 42k
At 9% difference of 68k
At 10% difference of 108k
But we all know this is a dream and the money would be wasted.
Is inflation somewhere in this calculation?Models aren't built on 8-9%, it isn't realistic. The last decade has created this perception, but those monster YoY gains don't last forever.
I ran the models just now (at 7%, which is a fair way (some might even say generous) to show returns.
For compounding monthly (.0058333)
At year 5: $5,965.83
At year 10: $14,423.15
At year 20: $43,408.79
At year 30: $101,660.10
At year 40: $218.725.45
Mind you, for this example to work, your security A; has to be under $83.33 to purchase & B; $0 commission from broker.
I also looked at human error here, where if this person misses just one deposit a month, which I'd think is highly likely, their total at 40 years is $170,358.67.
Model B is simple, 40 years at 7%
At year 5: $5,750.73 (so after the first 5 years, you netted an extra $215.10)
At year 10: $13816.44
At year 20: $40,995.49
At year 30: $94,460.78
At year 40: $199,635.11
The answer to the OP in reality is that it makes no difference.
It's not an argument. It's reality.The people are bad with money therefore they should make the wrong decision when it comes to tax withholding argument is the best.
Show your math.Not every year, but, using your numbers over a 40 year working period investing at a return of 10% it comes out to about $50,000. So yeah, one really nice boat when you retire.