<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Business &#38; MoneyCategory: Tax Policy &#124; Business &#38; Money &#124; TIME.com</title>
	<atom:link href="http://business.time.com/category/personal-finance-2/economics-policy/tax-policy-economics-policy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://business.time.com</link>
	<description>The latest news and commentary on the economy, the markets, and business</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 18:57:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
<cloud domain='business.time.com' port='80' path='/?rsscloud=notify' registerProcedure='' protocol='http-post' />

	<atom:link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="http://business.time.com/osd.xml" title="Business &#38; Money" />
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://business.time.com/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
		<title>The IRS Was Wrong &#8212; But Many Political Groups Should Not Be Tax-Exempt</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/05/14/the-irs-was-wrong-but-many-political-groups-should-not-be-tax-exempt/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/05/14/the-irs-was-wrong-but-many-political-groups-should-not-be-tax-exempt/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 09:45:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Howard Gleckman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Tax Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[501(c)(4)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax exemptions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tea party]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=79861</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Let’s start with the obvious. Those IRS employees who singled out conservative groups for scrutiny over their tax-exempt status were wrong, wrong, wrong.  Any whiff of politics at the agency is unacceptable, and this is far more than a whiff. In time, we shall see how far up the agency food chain the scandal goes. But this unsavory episode should also shine a light on the law that gives tax-exempt status to political groups of all ideological stripes, often described by the code section that grants their exemption—501(c)(4)s.  That is especially true since one outcome of this scandal will be to give these partisan groups even more freedom to operate outside of at least the spirit of the law. The only way to stop the proliferation what are often-secret campaign money laundries is for Congress to change the law that grants these groups this form of tax-exempt status. (JOE KLEIN: The IRS Mess—and the GOP&#8217;s Campaign to Paralyze Washington) As I wrote in a blog post back in 2010, the tax law is relatively clear about what a (c)(4) can and cannot do. The IRS defines these groups as “civic leagues, social welfare organizations, and local associations of employees.” Their net earnings are supposed to be used for charitable, educational, or recreational purposes. They may lobby and participate in political activities but their primary purpose must not be campaigning. Thanks to smart lawyers who have exploited an outdated law, the tax-exempt status of many groups may be perfectly legal. But others simply do not pass the smell test.  Does anybody really claim the primary activity of these organizations is anything other than getting their favorite candidates elected to political office, or defeating those they disagree with? If you have doubts, here is what one group, teaparty.org, says about itself on its website: We are going to build on the foundation of success we used to elect more governors, grab more seats in the House of Representatives and force the Washington establishment to respect the demands of “We The People.” In contrast to public charities organized as<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=79861&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/05/14/the-irs-was-wrong-but-many-political-groups-should-not-be-tax-exempt/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Taxes</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/economy-policy/taxes-economy-policy/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/44310a1af940f994952d1e4db73096cd?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">TIME.com</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Video: Sorry eBay &#8212; Turns Out Some Small Businesses Support the Marketplace Fairness Act</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/05/09/video-sorry-ebay-turns-out-some-small-businesses-support-the-marketplace-fairness-act/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/05/09/video-sorry-ebay-turns-out-some-small-businesses-support-the-marketplace-fairness-act/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 20:30:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brad Tuttle</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Amazon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Companies & Industries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[E-commerce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Future of Retail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Retail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saving]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saving & Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Smart Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology & Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War for the Web]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[eBay]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet sales tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[loophole]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Main Street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketplace Fairness Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online sales tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online shopping]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sales tax]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=79702</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Online giant eBay is leading the charge against legislation that would require sales tax to be collected on Internet sales. The mandate would be an unfair burden on small businesses, eBay says. And yet who are among the bill&#8217;s strongest supporters? Yep, small businesses. For years, online sellers have benefitted from what brick-and-mortar retailers call the &#8220;internet sales tax loophole.&#8221; For the most part, e-retailers are only required to charge customers sales tax if the vendor has a physical presence in the state where the purchase is being made. Consumers are supposed to pay the appropriate sales tax when they file their annual federal and state income taxes, but almost no one does. The situation gives e-commerce businesses an obvious pricing advantage over brick-and-mortar stores and online retailers with a physical presence in the state, which must always tack on sales tax. The Marketplace Fairness Act, which passed in the U.S. Senate and is now being considered in the House, would close this loophole. The legislation would allow states to require out-of-state vendors to collect sales taxes just like the physical stores at the customer&#8217;s location. (MORE: 5 Ways to Save Money Shopping Online, Regardless of New Internet Sales Tax Legislation) Amazon, the world&#8217;s largest e-retailer, has voiced support for online sales tax collection initiatives in recent years. The only big company that&#8217;s actively fighting the legislation today is eBay. Company CEO John Donahoe was quoted on NPR this week arguing that the law would hurt small businesses: If it&#8217;s allowed to play out things will still sell in eBay marketplace, but it will be larger and larger sellers that are doing the selling and the small guy will, over time, slowly be squeezed out. Currently, the Marketplace Fairness Act would exempt retailers with less than $1 million in annual revenues. Instead, eBay wants the exemption pushed to the $10 million revenue mark, which Donahoe pointed to as one of the criteria used in Obamacare to define a small business. &#8220;All we&#8217;re saying is an exemption at $10 million &#8211;<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=79702&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/05/09/video-sorry-ebay-turns-out-some-small-businesses-support-the-marketplace-fairness-act/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>E-commerce</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/companies-industries/e-commerce-companies-industries/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/f8de938518e7b986d552694ed99aa54d?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">bradtuttle</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>April 15: Why Some Folks Love Filing Day</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/04/15/april-15-why-some-folks-love-filing-day/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/04/15/april-15-why-some-folks-love-filing-day/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:00:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dan Kadlec</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Financial Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saving & Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Policy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=77699</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[People love a tax refund. And why not? About 75% of taxpayers get one. The typical amount is around $3,000. That’s a nice little E-transfer or check in your mailbox every spring. A third of taxpayers say they actually like or love doing their taxes, and they most often cite the refund as the reason, according to a new survey from Pew Research. Those who enjoy doing their taxes also say it gives them a sense of control and of fulfilling their duty to pay their fair share. Still, more than half of taxpayers say they hate or dislike doing their taxes, and they most often cite the complicated and time-consuming nature of the exercise. It’s the hassle they mind, not the tax itself. Fewer than one in 10 say they hate or dislike filing taxes because they owe money or feel over burdened. (MORE: The 6 Most Common Tax Time What-Ifs, Answered) The problem with refunds—and with liking them so much—is that the check isn’t really a bonus. It’s your money and always has been. You get the check because over the course of the year too much was withheld from your paycheck. The government has been holding this excess withholding, interest free, for up to a year—and now you get to have it back. So the annual boost is the result of a mistake, not a reward for dutifully going to work every day and filing your taxes on time. Sadly, it’s those that can least afford to lend the government money interest-free that do it the most. Pew found that households with the lowest incomes are most likely to look forward to doing their taxes, suggesting that they are most likely to get a refund—which further suggests that they are doing the poorest job of managing their withholding. Being over withheld may not seem like a big deal. Especially now, with interest rates so low, it’s not like having $3,000 in the bank will kick off much income. If you were collecting 1% in a savings account it<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=77699&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/04/15/april-15-why-some-folks-love-filing-day/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Financial Planning</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/planning/financial-planning/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d69b05e696e822e7e41ae630be72226a?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">dankadlec</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama&#8217;s Budget Would Cap Tax-Advantaged Savings</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/04/10/obamas-budget-would-cap-tax-advantaged-savings/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/04/10/obamas-budget-would-cap-tax-advantaged-savings/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Apr 2013 13:00:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dan Kadlec</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[401(k) Savings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Estate Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Financial Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Financial Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Retirement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Policy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=77347</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Some of us have worried for decades that when America’s tax-advantaged savings pot got large enough, our perpetually revenue-challenged federal government would raid the nest egg. All that untaxed growth would simply prove irresistible. That day may be at hand. President Obama’s budget, just sent to Congress, proposes to cap tax-advantaged savings across all accounts at $3 million in order to raise $9 billion over 10 years. The proposal is being spun as a way to prevent wealthy private-equity executives from amassing huge IRAs—like Mitt Romney’s, once estimated to be worth as much as $100 million. But it would also curb the savings ability of self-employed professionals like doctors and lawyers. As these business owners reach the cap, and there’s nothing left in it for them, they might shut down or reduce plans that benefit their employees. (MORE: Young Workers with a 401(k) Finally Get Diversified) The cap proposal is a clear play to unlock some of the $10 trillion sitting in IRA and 401(k) accounts, which have become the primary retirement savings vehicles in America. Congress pried this door open a few months ago by toying with a law forcing heirs to liquidate an IRA within five years—almost certainly triggering otherwise avoidable income-tax payments. We may see that yet. Now the president is wedging the door open further with a proposal that targets the wealthy. This is how it starts. What’s next? Taxing the growth in Roth IRAs? Social Security benefits were once sacred and unencumbered. That began to change about 30 years ago; today roughly 85% of Social Security recipients pay some kind of income tax. The attack has not let up. The president’s new budget seeks to cut future Social Security benefit increases by tweaking the inflation formula. Now lawmakers are moving on to the next bucket of cash. It’s not clear how the IRA cap would be enforced. Would savings beyond $3 million be disallowed? Or taxed right away? If you already have more than $3 million in IRA and 401(k) accounts, might you be forced<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=77347&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/04/10/obamas-budget-would-cap-tax-advantaged-savings/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Retirement</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/retirement-2/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/biz-obama-taxes-1116.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/biz-obama-taxes-1116.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/biz-obama-taxes-1116.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">image: President Barack Obama speaks during a press conference in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Nov. 14, 2012.</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d69b05e696e822e7e41ae630be72226a?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">dankadlec</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why We&#8217;re So Irrational When It Comes to Tax Refunds</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/03/18/why-were-so-irrational-when-it-comes-to-tax-refunds/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/03/18/why-were-so-irrational-when-it-comes-to-tax-refunds/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:00:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kit Yarrow</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economics & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Financial Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Odd Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saving]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saving & Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Smart Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[irrational]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IRS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax refund]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[withholding]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=74722</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Think about it: A tax refund is just that &#8212; a refund of your own hard-earned money. It&#8217;s not a gift or a stroke of good fortune. The problem is that most people don&#8217;t look at tax refunds this way. Most Americans—a full 75%—receive refunds after filing their taxes. In other words, most Americans have too much money withheld from their paychecks. More than half of Americans—58%, to be exact—say they intentionally plan to receive a refund each year. Understandably, people do so to avoid an unexpected tax payment come April 15, with the idea that it&#8217;s better to withhold a bit more to be on the safe side. But the average tax refund will be over $2,800 this year &#8212; well beyond “a bit more.” Clearly people have other motives for over withholding, or they just don&#8217;t put much thought into it. Here are the four ways we&#8217;re irrational when it comes to tax refunds, and arguments for why it&#8217;s better to approach the topic far more logically: 1. Mistaking Uncle Sam for Your Rich Uncle Wouldn’t it be great to have a wealthy relative who sends you a fat check every spring? That’s how many view their tax refunds: as gifts from the government. On Facebook, Trish, 36, posted a photo of her new juicer along with a caption that read, “Thanks Uncle Sam!” (MORE: Do We Really Need Another Credit Score? Maybe.) In the course of my research, I spoke with many consumers like Trish, who seem to think that tax refunds pretty much appear out of the blue. Max, 55, told me that he knows he’ll get back at least $1,000 every year. He generously earmarks $1,000 for his church, but anything above that is what Max calls “free money.” When people view their tax refund as a gift or some kind of reward or bonus, they spend it differently. They’re more likely to splurge, and it’s easier to rationalize purchases. For example, Nancy, 48, normally prides herself on her frugality, but when it comes to<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=74722&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/03/18/why-were-so-irrational-when-it-comes-to-tax-refunds/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Taxes</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/economy-policy/taxes-economy-policy/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/44310a1af940f994952d1e4db73096cd?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">TIME.com</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>If There’s No Inflation, Why Are Prices Up So Much?</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/03/12/if-theres-no-inflation-why-are-prices-up-so-much/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/03/12/if-theres-no-inflation-why-are-prices-up-so-much/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2013 09:45:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Sivy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Austerity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commodities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Currency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economic Indicators]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Reserve]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jobs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Labor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate & Homes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street & Markets]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=74397</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last week, I ran out of ink for my printer and ordered some more online. My computer automatically pulled up the previous order, and I was shocked to see that the price of the ink cartridges I was buying had gone up 25%. To my mind, ink always seems overpriced. Manufacturers sell printers cheaply because they know that they can make lots of money on the ink. For the same reason, John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil is said to have sold millions of cheap kerosene lamps in order to make big profits selling kerosene. But since ink cartridges were already priced way above cost and official statistics show little general inflation, why had ink gone up 25% in less than a year? Price hikes for a particular item here or there don&#8217;t qualify as inflation. If one thing gets more expensive but something else gets cheaper, that’s what economists call a relative price change. Inflation is a simultaneous increase in prices across the board. Some measures of inflation, such as the GDP Deflator, track price changes that affect businesses as well as those that affect consumers. But the Consumer Price Index is supposed to focus on inflation at the consumer level. And the CPI has recorded minimal increases over the past four years. Since the recession ended, the 12-month change in consumer prices has averaged 2% and has never been as high as 4%. (MORE: Online &#8216;Predictions&#8217; Market Intrade Shuts Down Months After Federal Lawsuit) There are lots of other ways to gauge inflation, however, that give very different signals. Gold was $930 an ounce when the recession ended, and today it’s $1,583. So if you believe in the gold standard, prices have increased 70% in four years – or an annualized rate of 14.2%. Of course, many economists dismiss the gold price as an archaic indicator. So it may be more meaningful to look at price increases over a broad range of commodities. The Reuters CRB Commodity Index, which tracks the prices of coffee, cocoa, copper, and cotton, as well as<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=74397&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/03/12/if-theres-no-inflation-why-are-prices-up-so-much/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Economy &amp; Policy</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/economy-policy/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/inflation.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/inflation.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/inflation.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">inflation</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b8875a12f713f52ecc28fe72efed7fd4?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F2.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">michaelsivy</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>6 Weird New Taxes You Might Have to Pay (If You&#8217;re Not Already)</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/02/22/6-weird-new-taxes-you-might-have-to-pay-if-youre-not-already/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/02/22/6-weird-new-taxes-you-might-have-to-pay-if-youre-not-already/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2013 10:45:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brad Tuttle</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Autos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Companies & Industries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Green]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bicycles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bikes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bowling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cars]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[electric cars]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EVs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high school sports]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lumber]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marijuana]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[medicinal marijuana]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ohio]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pot]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[soda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[soda tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sports]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sugar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vehicle miles tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[VMT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[washington]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wood]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=72752</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why is it that government officials seem inspired to reach the heights of creativity coming up with new taxes? Who knows. But their efforts could mean you&#8217;ll be paying new taxes on everything from bicycles to bowling, 2-by-4s to marijuana. Here&#8217;s a selection of six curious new taxes—some already in effect, others merely at the proposal stage: Bowling, High School Sports Ohio Governor John Kasich is proposing to add a 5% sales tax to a slew of previously untaxed purchases, including circuses, theme parks, museums, fairs, bowling, and tickets to sporting events and concerts. &#8220;Tickets for high school sports wouldn&#8217;t be exempt from the governor&#8217;s proposal,&#8221; the Associated Press notes of the plan, which is supposed to be combined with cuts to income and small business taxes. Sugary Drinks For years, politicians and nutrition groups have floated the idea of a soda tax, with the hope that it would result in healthier citizens and increased revenues—some of which could be used to promote even better health. The idea has again surfaced in Vermont, where the House Health Care Committee just voted to advance a bill that would add a 1¢-per-ounce tax on all sugar-sweetened beverages sold in the state. One reason the tax may fail to become reality is the likelihood that it would hurt local businesses, which could lose shoppers to nearby New Hampshire—where there is no sales tax, let alone a soda tax. (MORE: Turns Out You Won&#8217;t Get Rich Hunting Pythons in Florida) Green Cars &#38; Bikes States collect money for every gallon of gas sold, via gas taxes. So when cars run on little or no gasoline—or when residents get rid of cars entirely—state revenues are hurt. Policies at the state and federal level often support energy-efficient vehicle ownership, and yet states don&#8217;t like it when they see declining tax income. That&#8217;s why Washington state has added a $100 annual tax on electric cars, and why a similar tax on alternative-fuel vehicles is being proposed in Virginia. Washington is also considering a separate $25 tax on<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=72752&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/02/22/6-weird-new-taxes-you-might-have-to-pay-if-youre-not-already/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Tax Policy</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/personal-finance-2/economics-policy/tax-policy-economics-policy/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/f8de938518e7b986d552694ed99aa54d?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">bradtuttle</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>How a Century of Income Taxes Can Clarify Today&#8217;s Debates</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/02/01/how-a-century-of-income-taxes-can-clarify-todays-debates/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/02/01/how-a-century-of-income-taxes-can-clarify-todays-debates/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2013 13:00:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Sivy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Economy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=69429</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It’s hard for any American nowadays to imagine living in a country with no income tax. But up until 100 years ago – exactly 100 years ago this weekend, in fact – it wasn’t constitutional for the Federal Government to tax individual incomes. Indirect taxes, such as tariffs on imports and sales taxes on specific kinds of goods, were allowed by the Constitution as long as they were uniform throughout the country. But direct taxes had to be apportioned among the various states in proportion to population, which is impractical with income taxes. Once Delaware ratified the 16th Amendment on Feb. 3, 1913, however, those restrictions were eliminated and the income tax we know today came into existence. This tax has gone through all sorts of twists and turns over the past century. And a look back at these changes can actually throw light on the policy debates taking place today. Here are some notable facts about the first hundred years of the income tax, which now seems as American as apple pie: The income tax has always been hated – but so were the taxes it replaced. In Colonial America and the early U.S., taxes were typically on goods like sugar, tea, or whiskey (which triggered the Whiskey Rebellion in 1791). Other taxes were on land or were poll taxes (which was a flat amount per person and had nothing to do with voting). Later on, there were high custom duties on imports, which were one of the chief causes of the Civil War because they pushed up the prices of manufactured goods, helping the North but hurting the agrarian South. Real estate taxes were always extremely unpopular and still are. (MORE: How Spending More on Academics Can Actually Hurt College Enrollment) Raising taxes on the rich has been the strategy from the beginning. Income taxes were imposed twice before the 16th Amendment. The first time was to help pay for the Civil War. That tax began at 3% for incomes over $600 ($13,636 in today’s dollars) and 5% for incomes<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=69429&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/02/01/how-a-century-of-income-taxes-can-clarify-todays-debates/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Taxes</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/economy-policy/taxes-economy-policy/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/600_biz_tax_10151.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/600_biz_tax_10151.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/600_biz_tax_10151.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Who Should Pay More in Tax</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b8875a12f713f52ecc28fe72efed7fd4?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F2.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">michaelsivy</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>How the Payroll-Tax Hike Can Destroy Your Savings Plan</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/01/25/how-the-payroll-tax-hike-can-destroy-your-savings-plan/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/01/25/how-the-payroll-tax-hike-can-destroy-your-savings-plan/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2013 14:43:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dan Kadlec</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Financial Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Financial Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Retirement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Policy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=67683</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you have a job, by now you almost certainly have felt a tax hike that didn’t get a lot of attention during the fiscal-cliff debate: the two-percentage-point increase in the payroll tax. This tax applies to everyone, not just the wealthy, and it promises to make saving for retirement — or any big ticket — especially challenging. The payroll tax, which funds Social Security and Medicare, is now 6.2% on wages up to $113,700. The tax rate had been at that level until two years ago, when it was cut to 4.2% in an effort to revive the economy. About 160 million workers pay this tax, and this year&#8217;s increase will cost the average worker about $700, according to the Tax Policy Center in Washington. A family with household income of $50,000 will pay about $1,000 in additional tax. This is real money for millions of families. (MORE: Are Today&#8217;s Business Leaders Too Afraid of Risk?) Doubtless, many workers will cut their savings in order to maintain their lifestyle. Here’s what that looks like, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal: A 30-year-old making $50,000 will see his take-home pay shrink $1,000 this year. If instead of cutting spending this worker puts $1,000 less into his 401(k) this year, he could have nearly $12,000 less by retirement at age 66. If he doesn&#8217;t increase his savings rate over the next 36 years, the loss to his retirement account could approach $236,000. (And this isn&#8217;t even considering any employer matching contributions.) Looking at it another way, consider two 25-year-olds who start saving 10 years apart — one immediately and the other at age 35. Mutual-fund firm Vanguard calculates that if the early saver stashes away $2,000 a year until age 35 and then saves nothing more, she will accumulate $314,870 by age 65 (based on 8% average annual returns). If the late saver stashes away $2,000 a year for the rest of her working life, she will have just $242,692 at age 65 despite having invested three times<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=67683&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/01/25/how-the-payroll-tax-hike-can-destroy-your-savings-plan/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Financial Planning</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/planning/financial-planning/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d69b05e696e822e7e41ae630be72226a?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">dankadlec</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>At Under $19K for a Nissan Leaf, Does the Math on Electric Cars Finally Add Up?</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/01/17/at-under-19k-for-a-nissan-leaf-does-the-math-on-electric-cars-finally-add-up/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/01/17/at-under-19k-for-a-nissan-leaf-does-the-math-on-electric-cars-finally-add-up/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2013 13:12:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brad Tuttle</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Autos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Companies & Industries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saving & Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Smart Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CBO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chevy Volt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congressional Budget Office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[electric cars]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[electric vehicles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal tax credits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fuel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gasoline]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Leaf]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mpg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nissan Leaf]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Volt]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=66898</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Nissan&#8217;s Leaf has a long way to go to expand beyond its status as a niche commuter car. Sales have been underwhelming, even with cheap lease offers, leading some to declare the Leaf an overpriced, impractical flop. Will this change now that the Leaf isn&#8217;t quite so overpriced? For a while now, we&#8217;ve heard that the new Nissan Leaf will have a cheaper sticker price than older models. Now we know just how much cheaper it&#8217;ll be. Impressively, the retail price of the 2013 Nissan Leaf will drop by over six grand. This week at the Detroit Auto Show, Nissan announced that the new Leaf S series will start with an MSRP of $28,800, which undercuts the previous least expensive Leaf by $6,400, representing a drop of 18%. Add up the incentives for buyers—$7,500 in federal tax credits, plus a $2,500 rebate in certain states, including California—and drivers can essentially pay &#8220;full price&#8221; for a Leaf for as little as $18,800. (MORE: Electric Cars: More Models, Cheaper Prices Coming in 2013) A drop of more than $6,000 in a vehicle&#8217;s sticker price is undeniably a big deal. Normally, an automobile model&#8217;s MSRP only goes in one direction: up. Any official dip in price can make news, and when the decline is substantial, like whenVolkswagen dropped the starting price of the Jetta by $2,400, it can provide a major boost to sales. Is that what we can expect from the new Leaf? Surely, the lower price will push some buyers into getting off the fence in the consideration of an electric vehicle. But Leaf sales have underwhelmed before, falling well short of sales goals in each of its first two years on the market, and they may do so again. Nissan anticipated a 50% rise in Leaf sales in 2012, only to see sales increase by 22%, even as the automaker rolled out discounted lease deals toward the end of the year. Before that, Leaf sales were often down compared to corresponding months in 2011. For 2013, Nissan is projecting a<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=66898&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/01/17/at-under-19k-for-a-nissan-leaf-does-the-math-on-electric-cars-finally-add-up/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Autos</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/companies-industries/autos-companies-industries/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/600_1457536081.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/600_1457536081.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/600_1457536081.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Nissan&#039;s Leaf, an all electric car.</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/f8de938518e7b986d552694ed99aa54d?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">bradtuttle</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Virginia Is Worried Cars Are Becoming Too Fuel-Efficient</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/01/16/virginia-is-worried-cars-are-becoming-too-fuel-efficient/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/01/16/virginia-is-worried-cars-are-becoming-too-fuel-efficient/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2013 18:00:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brad Tuttle</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Autos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Companies & Industries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Green]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alternative fuel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alternative fuel car]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bob McDonnell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[electric cars]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gas tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gasoline]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prius]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sales tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=66882</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The average fuel economy of new vehicles rose 6% in 2012, and cars are expected to use less and less gas going forward. Isn&#8217;t that a good thing? Well, not if you&#8217;re a state hoping to bump up revenues collected on gasoline sales. Less gas sold means less gas taxes collected by states—and therefore, less money the states have to build highways, patch roads, and do all of the other things normally funded by gas taxes. To increase gas tax revenues, or at least maintain their current levels, one simple solution is to hike gas tax rates. As a New York Times magazine story recently detailed, many economists think higher gas taxes—at least $1.25 per gallon, more than double the current national average—are necessary for a wide range of reasons, including the reduction of traffic and offsetting the environmental impact of driving. Curiously, in Virginia, Governor Bob McDonnell is suggesting just the opposite as a solution. McDonnell is proposing that Virginia eliminate its gas tax, which is now 17.5¢ per gallon. Since gas tax revenues are bound to decline as drivers buy less fuel, McDonnell suggests that the state drop this tax entirely, while jacking up another tax—one that&#8217;s paid by everyone, not just drivers, and that&#8217;s never expected to decline. If the proposal passes (it&#8217;s quite a long shot), road projects in Virginia would no longer be funded by gas taxes, but by a 0.8% increase in state sales tax, which would rise from 5% to 5.8% (still lower than neighboring Maryland&#8216;s 6% rate). (MORE: Not Your Grandpa&#8217;s Mercedes: Luxury Car Makers Aim for Younger, Less Rich Customers) The Richmond Times-Dispatch quoted McDonnell&#8217;s attempts at explaining the proposed &#8220;solution&#8221;: “We have a problem in Virginia and it’s a math problem,” McDonnell said in announcing his proposal. “When you look at what is happening with the primary sources of transportation funding, the fuels tax, that it is on a downward slope.” Perhaps even more curiously, McDonnell is also suggesting that the owners of alternative-fuel vehicles—who are accustomed to receiving bonuses<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=66882&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/01/16/virginia-is-worried-cars-are-becoming-too-fuel-efficient/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Tax Policy</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/personal-finance-2/economics-policy/tax-policy-economics-policy/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/f8de938518e7b986d552694ed99aa54d?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">bradtuttle</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>What the Current Economic Outlook Means for American Families</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/01/16/what-the-current-economic-outlook-means-for-american-families/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/01/16/what-the-current-economic-outlook-means-for-american-families/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:00:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Sivy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Austerity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Credit Cards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Europe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jobs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mutual Funds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Portfolio Strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate & Homes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Retirement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stocks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street & Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wealth]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=66788</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Now that the fiscal cliff fight is over and the debt ceiling debate hasn&#8217;t reached a fever pitch &#8212; not yet, anyway &#8212; it seems like a good time to take a step back, assess the economic outlook, and see what it means for American families. The good news is that the U.S. has enjoyed more than three years of uninterrupted economic growth and falling unemployment since the recession ended. The bad news is that this has been the weakest rebound since World War II. Economic growth has averaged less than 2.25% since the recovery began and is estimated to have slowed to less than 1% in the most recent quarter. Unemployment is still way above where it should be at this point. Budget problems remain the chief impediment to faster growth. The fiscal cliff deal did little to reduce the annual deficit, almost $1.1 trillion last year. Not all of that amount needs to be eliminated, though. Part of the current deficit is simply the normal result of a weak economy. Moreover, if the economy were growing at its historical average rate of 3.25% a year, the U.S. could afford to run a deficit of half a trillion dollars or so. Even so, the deficit still needs to be reduced by something like $300 billion a year. That means further spending cuts and tax hikes that will be a drag on the economy. Consensus estimates are for slightly slower growth this year – an estimated 1.8%, down from 2.2% in 2012. The most optimistic economists foresee a small improvement in growth this year, followed by 3% or more in 2014. While that would get the economy back to its long-term average growth rate, it would remain far short of the powerful rebound that normally follows a recession. (MORE: The Changing Business of Drugstores) To see what this outlook is likely to mean for typical American families, it helps to take a closer look at these factors: Unemployment. For the past three years, unemployment has been coming down slowly but steadily. The most recent report calculated that 155,000 jobs<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=66788&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/01/16/what-the-current-economic-outlook-means-for-american-families/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Economy &amp; Policy</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/economy-policy/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b8875a12f713f52ecc28fe72efed7fd4?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F2.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">michaelsivy</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fiscal Cliff Aftermath: New Option for 401(k) Savers</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/01/09/fiscal-cliff-aftermath-new-option-for-401k-savers/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/01/09/fiscal-cliff-aftermath-new-option-for-401k-savers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2013 15:00:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dan Kadlec</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economics & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Financial Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Financial Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saving]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[401k]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[401k Savings]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=66035</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In an effort to unlock tax revenue, not just raise rates on the wealthy, architects of the fiscal cliff deal handed certain retirement savers a small bonus: You can now convert traditional 401(k) plan assets into a Roth 401(k) regardless of age and employment status. Under the old rules, to convert you typically had to leave your job, retire, become disabled, or reach age 59½ and be eligible for normal distributions. So this is welcome flexibility, though it won’t be available to everybody. Only 40% of employers offer a Roth 401(k) in the first place, and not all of those plans allow conversions. But at those that do, there is now nothing to stop you from making the switch. (MORE: How to Make the Most of Your 401(k) in 2013) Whether you should is another matter. Roth 401(k) contributions are made after tax; they grow tax-free. Traditional 401(k) contributions are made pre-tax; they are taxed upon withdrawal. In general, you need to believe you’ll be in a higher tax bracket in retirement for the conversion to make sense. You also need enough other funds to pay the potentially sizable one-time tax bill that comes due when you convert. This switch works a lot like a conversion outside your 401(k)—from a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA. And the thinking for doing so is much the same. Likely candidates are young workers in a low tax bracket who can benefit from decades of tax-free growth. Another likely candidate is anyone who has suffered a temporary income lull, and can take a large distribution without being shoved into a higher tax bracket. A conversion might also make sense if you convert smaller amounts each year in order to afford the tax and not be pushed into a higher bracket. One important difference with this conversion is that it cannot be reversed. Outside your 401(k) plan, assets converted to a Roth account can be “recharacterized” later in the year and shifted back to a traditional IRA if you change your mind. This is<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=66035&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/01/09/fiscal-cliff-aftermath-new-option-for-401k-savers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Financial Planning</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/planning/financial-planning/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d69b05e696e822e7e41ae630be72226a?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">dankadlec</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>What&#8217;s Getting Cheaper – and What You&#8217;ll Pay More for – in 2013</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/01/04/whats-getting-cheaper-and-what-youll-pay-more-for-in-2013/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/01/04/whats-getting-cheaper-and-what-youll-pay-more-for-in-2013/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2013 17:17:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brad Tuttle</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Autos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Budgeting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Companies & Industries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Food and Beverage Industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Groupon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Publishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Retail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saving]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saving & Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Smart Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology & Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transportation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bacon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dairy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ebooks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[electronics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gas prices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gasoline]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[milk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MSRP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new cars]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public transportation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[steak]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TVs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=65882</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#8217;s the time of year when lists are made forecasting the rise and fall of household expenses, big and small. Accordingly, it may also be time to tweak the family budget. The top ten list from CNN Money of things that&#8217;ll cost more this year is dominated by everyday expenses, including meat (specifically steak, hamburger, and bacon), which is projected to increase in price by 3% to 4%, and dairy (milk, cheese, eggs), which could be 4.5% more expensive in the near future. Things could be a lot worse. During occasional freakouts over the past year, consumers were warned that there would be an &#8220;unavoidable bacon shortage&#8221; in 2013, and that dairy prices could double if Congress failed to pass a new farm bill. By comparison, a price hike that&#8217;s only slightly higher than inflation seems like a deal. Other items in the roundup include satellite TV (reflecting rising programming costs), new cars (base prices are rising—and the average price paid per car has never been higher), and pro baseball tickets (no one should expect them to be cheap to begin with), as well as mail (stamps are going up by 1¢) and public transportation in big cities like Chicago and New York. Mind you, those latter two expenses are still relatively cheap in the grand scheme of things, even after a price hike. (MORE: Top Money Resolutions for 2013) Then there are a couple of price increases that are truly painful—taxes and health care—in that they&#8217;re expenses that generally can&#8217;t be avoided, and that most people think that that they&#8217;re already too burdensome to begin with. Most workers will see their paychecks shrink by 2% in 2013, and health care premiums are projected to rise 6.3% this year. Together, they&#8217;ll make the average worker roughly $1,500 poorer in 2013. In a dealnews post featuring 12 things that&#8217;ll be more expensive in 2013, there is plenty of overlap with the CNN Money list. Health care, cars, and various groceries are on both lists. The dealnews roundup also highlights college tuition<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=65882&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/01/04/whats-getting-cheaper-and-what-youll-pay-more-for-in-2013/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Budgeting</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/saving-spending/budgeting-saving-spending/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/872252-001-e1357319620153.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/872252-001-e1357319620153.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/872252-001-e1357319620153.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">fortune teller looking at crystal ball</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/f8de938518e7b986d552694ed99aa54d?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">bradtuttle</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>At Long Last, a Permanent Patch for a Dreaded Tax</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/01/03/at-long-last-a-permanent-patch-for-a-dreaded-tax/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/01/03/at-long-last-a-permanent-patch-for-a-dreaded-tax/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2013 17:09:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dan Kadlec</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economics & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Financial Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saving]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Policy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=65614</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A tax meant only for the wealthy but that paralyzed much of the middle class for decades has been permanently defanged. Score one, at least, for the 11th-hour fiscal-cliff deal. The dreaded Alternative Minimum Tax hasn’t gone away. But this law, which has been modified 19 times since 1969, will need no more patches. Like Social Security benefits, the AMT is now indexed to inflation. That means the income threshold for being subject to the AMT will rise automatically each year. If you don’t pay it this year, you won’t pay it next year or any year thereafter — at least not without an income boost that outstrips inflation. “The certainty this creates is extremely helpful,” says Walter Primoff, director of the professional adviser group at Altfest Personal Wealth Management. It will save millions of households from the headache of preparing for two separate tax liabilities. (MORE: Despite Deal, Taxes Rise for Most Americans) Among those who will benefit the most are the self-employed, who must pay estimated taxes four times a year and are subject to penalties for underpayment. It’s also great news for households on the AMT bubble: the permanent patch makes it simpler to shift income and deductions in a way that may let them avoid the AMT every other year. The AMT has always been targeted at the wealthy who through deductions ended up paying little or no tax. It is a parallel tax calculation that disallows certain exemptions and then assesses a lower marginal income tax rate. Taxpayers in the gray zone must figure their bill the traditional way and the AMT way and pay the higher amount. To keep the tax trained on the wealthy, taxpayers are allowed an AMT exemption, which decades ago was set at $45,000 — high enough to miss the middle class. But this level was not indexed to inflation, so as median incomes grew in the ensuing years, the threshold hit more and more ordinary households and was threatening to hit more each year. Only through congressional action —<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=65614&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/01/03/at-long-last-a-permanent-patch-for-a-dreaded-tax/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Tax Policy</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/personal-finance-2/economics-policy/tax-policy-economics-policy/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/taxes.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/taxes.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/taxes.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">WASHINGTON TIMES</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d69b05e696e822e7e41ae630be72226a?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">dankadlec</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why the Fiscal Cliff Deal Should Have Included Social Security</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/01/02/why-the-fiscal-cliff-deal-should-have-included-social-security/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/01/02/why-the-fiscal-cliff-deal-should-have-included-social-security/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2013 14:42:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Sivy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Austerity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Healthcare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jobs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Labor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Retirement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saving]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wealth]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=65424</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yesterday&#8217;s deal to avoid the fiscal cliff offers quick fixes for the country&#8217;s most urgent financial problems but will also add almost $4 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years. Cuts in discretionary spending and entitlements have therefore become even more essential, but the fiscal cliff deal has postponed negotiations over spending for at least another couple of months. Moreover, one major government program is likely to be omitted from those discussions: Social Security. Although much attention has been paid to ending the temporary reduction in Social Security payroll taxes, little has been said about modifying the program&#8217;s benefits. Indeed, these are likely to be kept off the table entirely during future negotiations over spending cuts. This omission is usually justified on the grounds that Social Security does not contribute to the deficit. However, the program does add to the growth of the national debt. How can Social Security have no deficit and yet add to the national debt? Chalk that up to the Social Security Trust Fund. Money that workers pay into the system goes largely to fund benefits for people who have already retired. Any surplus goes into the Trust Fund – now more than $2.7 trillion – which invests in government bonds. In 2010, however, the amount that Social Security took in fell short of the amount needed to pay benefits. That gap is growing and is projected to surpass $100 billion a year before the end of the decade. (MORE: Four Misconceptions About Taxes and the Deficit) This shortfall can be covered by taking money out of the Trust Fund. But every time that&#8217;s done, the government has to redeem some of the bonds in the Fund for cash. It gets that money by selling other bonds to the public. And while bonds in the Fund represent money that the government owes to itself, and therefore don&#8217;t count toward the national debt, bonds sold to the public do add to the debt. Since Social Security will likely continue to pay out more in benefits than it takes in,<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=65424&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/01/02/why-the-fiscal-cliff-deal-should-have-included-social-security/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Economy &amp; Policy</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/economy-policy/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/capital.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/capital.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/capital.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">The U.S. Capitol is pictured on Dec. 31, 2012.</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b8875a12f713f52ecc28fe72efed7fd4?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F2.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">michaelsivy</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>7 Ways Taxpayers are Readying for Fiscal Cliff</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/12/17/7-ways-taxpayers-are-readying-for-fiscal-cliff/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/12/17/7-ways-taxpayers-are-readying-for-fiscal-cliff/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:45:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dan Kadlec</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Borrowing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Estate Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Financial Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Giving]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Retirement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saving]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Policy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=64184</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Time is running short for year-end tax moves, and it now seems clear that any money-saving maneuvers must be based on what’s likely—not what’s certain. That’s the ridiculous position taxpayers confront, thanks to the ongoing stalemate in Congress over how to resolve the fiscal cliff. Some strategies could ultimately backfire depending on the outcome of negotiations. So consider planning only around changes that seem most certain, like higher payroll taxes for everyone, higher capital gains taxes for everyone, and higher income taxes for the wealthy. (MORE: Why the Fiscal Cliff May Cost You $6,000 in 2013) Here are seven moves that financial planners say individuals are making right now as, from a tax perspective, the most confusing New Year in memory fast approaches: Beefing up trusts The estate tax and lifetime gift tax exemption is set to drop to $1 million from $5.12 million at year-end. Meanwhile, the maximum estate tax is set to jump to 55% from 35%. In any fiscal cliff deal, some middle ground likely would prevail. But bank on a lower exemption level and higher estate tax rate. Families with more than $1 million in assets are setting up irrevocable trusts at a blinding speed in order to get some of these assets out of their estate by year-end. “We’re working 12 to 15 hour days,” says Jeffrey Gonya, an estate-planning lawyer in Baltimore. Such trusts can be complicated. Don’t wait until the last minute. Forgiving family loans Forgiving debt is treated as a gift to the borrower. Some well-off souls who loaned money to a struggling family member or friend are taking advantage of the more generous exclusion this year to wipe out that debt. Contributing to charity With all the talk about wiping out or capping the charitable deduction next year, taxpayers who itemize have been speeding up their donations to claim the deduction this year. This could backfire. If you accelerate giving into this year and the deduction remains you risk sheltering less total income should your tax rate rise next year. Converting<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=64184&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/12/17/7-ways-taxpayers-are-readying-for-fiscal-cliff/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Financial Planning</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/planning/financial-planning/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/taxes.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/taxes.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/taxes.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">taxe forms</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d69b05e696e822e7e41ae630be72226a?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">dankadlec</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Limiting the Charity Tax Deduction Won&#8217;t Destroy Charities</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/12/07/why-limiting-the-charity-tax-deduction-wont-destroy-charities/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/12/07/why-limiting-the-charity-tax-deduction-wont-destroy-charities/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Dec 2012 13:00:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dan Kadlec</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Decision Making]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Financial Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Financial Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Giving]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Retirement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Policy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=63348</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[At least one part of negotiations over the fiscal cliff appears misguided: Eliminating or capping the tax deduction for charitable contributions isn’t as big a deal as some fear. Republicans have proposed raising $800 billion over 10 years by capping tax deductions for the wealthy, including highly popular breaks for mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and charitable giving. Democrats won’t hear of capping the tax deduction for charitable giving, which they say accounts for much or even most of the additional revenue. “If you eliminated charitable deductions, that means every hospital and university and not-for-profit agency across the country would suddenly find themselves on the verge of collapse,” President Obama said on Bloomberg TV, as reported in The New York Times.  “So that’s not a realistic option.” (MORE: Why the Coconut Craze Isn&#8217;t Helping Farmers) Americans give about $300 billion a year. How much of that do you imagine is motivated solely by the tax savings? It’s hard to say but there&#8217;s reason to believe it isn’t all that much—not nearly enough, at least, that if it went missing would put a death grip on nonprofits coast to coast. People who give do so for dozens of reasons, and tax savings often doesn’t even make their list. With co-author Ken Dychtwald, I looked at this issue in our book A New Purpose. Here’s a short excerpt: “A lot of people assume saving on taxes is one of the biggest reasons people give money. But it’s a surprisingly small motivator. In virtually every survey on the subject those who give say the tax benefits are among their least important considerations. In an AARP survey, just 13% noted tax deductions as a reason for giving. The only factor cited less often was being asked to give at the office.” If not personal economics, what does motivate giving? We found that people give both money and time because, above all, it’s simply the right thing to do. But they also enjoy making a difference, and by giving they express thanks for their<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=63348&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/12/07/why-limiting-the-charity-tax-deduction-wont-destroy-charities/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Giving</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/personal-finance-2/economics-policy/giving/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d69b05e696e822e7e41ae630be72226a?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">dankadlec</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Birth Rate Plunges During Recession</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/12/04/birth-rate-plunges-during-recession/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/12/04/birth-rate-plunges-during-recession/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2012 13:00:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dan Kadlec</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economics & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Financial Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Financial Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Retirement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Economy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=62934</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The youngest baby boomers will begin turning 50 next year, a noteworthy milestone in the graying of America. But the more important data point may be this: Last year, the birth rate in America fell to the lowest level in recorded history. These may be separate developments but they are part of the same ominous story. As our largest generation moves toward full-on retirement we are minting what promises to be our smallest generation, a group that from the very beginning of its working years will face the impossible task of supporting millions of entitled old fogeys. Something will have to give. The U.S. birth rate slid by 8% in recent years, reaching 63.2 births per 1,000 women of childbearing age in 2011, according to a report from the Pew Research Center. That is half the peak birth rate recorded in 1957, which was smack in the middle of the baby boom. This is the lowest rate since at least 1920, the earliest year for which there are reliable numbers. (MORE: Kids and Allowance: The Debate Divides Us) The biggest declines were among foreign-born women, where the fertility rate plummeted by 14%. Mexican immigrant women showed the steepest drop: 23%. These declines are troublesome on a number of fronts. First, a declining birth rate poses all sorts of problems for what’s left of our social safety net. In 20 years, every last one of 78 million boomers will have reached full retirement age just as today’s historically low number of newborns is entering the workforce. Without big changes Social Security, which is a pay-as-you-go system, will be overwhelmed. Public and private pension systems, which are severely underfunded, may find it difficult to keep their promises as well. This is not new news. But the recent steep drop-off in birth rates compounds the problem. Second, for many years it was widely assumed that falling birth rates among American women would be largely offset by births to the immigrant population. This would add enough workers to the tax rolls in future years to mitigate<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=62934&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/12/04/birth-rate-plunges-during-recession/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>The Economy</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/personal-finance-2/economics-policy/the-economy/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/aa6030-001.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/aa6030-001.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/aa6030-001.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Newborn babies in hospital nursery</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d69b05e696e822e7e41ae630be72226a?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">dankadlec</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fiscal Cliff: Why Congress Might Have to Mess with the 401(k)</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/11/28/fiscal-cliff-why-congress-might-have-to-mess-with-the-401k/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/11/28/fiscal-cliff-why-congress-might-have-to-mess-with-the-401k/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Nov 2012 13:00:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dan Kadlec</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Financial Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Financial Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Retirement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Policy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=62140</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One of the earliest fears about tax-favored savings accounts like IRAs and 401(k) plans was that when this pool of savings grew large enough Congress would not be able to resist tapping it to help solve the nation’s debt problems. We’re about to find out if those fears—persistent for decades—have been justified. Everything including the sacred mortgage deduction is on the table as lawmakers wrestle with the fiscal cliff, a year-end avalanche of scheduled spending cuts and tax increases. With a combined $10 trillion sitting in IRAs and 401(k) plans, retirement accounts make a juicy target. Some of this money has never been taxed, and under current law never will be. To maintain this savings incentive the government “spends” $100 billion a year in the form of tax breaks to those who stash money in these kinds of accounts. Now, a new study suggests this tax incentive does little to change saving behavior. Some lawmakers, no doubt, are wondering: Why keep an expensive tax incentive that does not incent? (MORE: Why the Fiscal Cliff Is the Wrong Thing to Worry About) The study, reported in The New York Times, comes from Raj Chetty and John N. Friedman of Harvard, Soren Leth-Petersen and Tore Olsen of the University of Copenhagen, and Torben Heien Nielsen of the Danish National Center for Social Research. It looked at data from Denmark, where the pension system is similar to that in the U.S., and found that every dollar that government spent on tax breaks increased total savings by about one penny. That’s not much of a payoff. Meanwhile, the Tax Policy Center in Washington has found that about 80% of retirement savings benefits flow to the top 20% of earners. Eliminating the deduction for retirement savings would hit the well-off disproportionately, a condition with a lot of appeal in the current political climate. Trying to head off this line of thinking, the American Society of Pension Professionals &#38; Actuaries recently launched a save-my-401(k) campaign, encouraging workers to email their representatives in congress. The group notes that<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=62140&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/11/28/fiscal-cliff-why-congress-might-have-to-mess-with-the-401k/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Tax Policy</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/personal-finance-2/economics-policy/tax-policy-economics-policy/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/fiscal1.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/fiscal1.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/fiscal1.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Harry Reid Speaks on Fiscal Cliff</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d69b05e696e822e7e41ae630be72226a?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">dankadlec</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
