Skip to main content

US government to start issuing IOUs in lieu of tax refunds?

Everybody assumed that when California started sending out State IOUs instead of checks for income tax refunds, it was a sign of the State's dire financial status.

Now buried in the middle of a story about President Obama trying to provide more incentives for retirement savings, we find this nugget of fool's gold at The Hill:

President Barack Obama announced a series of policy changes Saturday aimed at making it easier for Americans to save money for retirement.

Among the changes are expanded access to 401k plans, small tax policy changes and a pledge to let workers convert vacation days into retirement savings.

The president framed the new policies as a response to the recession....

Second, a checkbox will be added to tax forms letting Americans receive their tax refund as a savings bond.


The neat part about this--from the State's perspective--is that not only will millions of unwary Americans bite on this tactic voluntarily, it will have established the principle that the government does not have to give you your tax refund in cash.

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

Comments

Mark H said…
Steve, I've actually changed my withholding to the break even threshold just in case :)
Miko said…
However, such bonds are tradable on the open market. Any move by the government to mandate this would lead to the mass sale of the bonds, leading to a severe drop in value. While this would hurt all individuals affected, it'd hurt the state's ability to issue new bonds even more severely.

Since acquiring such bonds currently requires an individual to act through a broker, this could be seen as giving individuals greater financial freedom. As long as it stays in essentially the current form (always doubtful...), I don't see this as problematic.
Delaware Watch said…
Steve, this is an option for people, not a requirement, one which allows people to earn some interest on their refunds if they choose. I don't get your alarm about this.
Perry said…
Because of what Miko just explained, it is a misnomer to imply that this practice is equivalent to a CA IOU.

I remember the "War Bonds" during WWII, which matured in 10 years, when $18.75 magically turned into $25. Even those were not IOU's, as they could be liquidated for $18.75 at any time.

Incidentally, I note that CA has begun to return cash for their IOU's.
tom said…
"Steve, this is an option for people, not a requirement,"

for the moment. but what if they declare it such a huge success that they make it the default, and then gradually over a few years phase out your ability to opt out and take cash instead.

"one which allows people to earn some interest on their refunds if they choose."

this is nonsense. you will still have to hold the bond to maturity to earn any interest, just is if you took your cash return and bought savings bonds on the day you received it.

people already have the option to earn interest on their return. they just choose not to out of laziness or ignorance.

to do so you must estimate your taxes in advance, and set your withholding to the minimum amount that will not trigger a penalty. divide your estimated taxes by the number of pay periods in the tax year and direct deposit this into the highest interest savings or money-market account you can find. then on 4/15, write a check from this account to cover your taxes. if you want a "refund", divert more of your paycheck into this account.

but instead people loan their money to the government interest free, in order to get a refund, and the IRS encourages this foolishness.

"I don't get your alarm about this."

that is because you trust the government--as long as the right lizard is in charge.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...