ON AIR NOW

LISTEN NOW

Weather

cloudy-day
97°
Mostly Cloudy
H 98° L 81°
  • cloudy-day
    97°
    Current Conditions
    Mostly Cloudy. H 98° L 81°
  • cloudy-day
    82°
    Morning
    Mostly Cloudy. H 98° L 81°
  • cloudy-day
    94°
    Afternoon
    Mostly Cloudy. H 98° L 76°
LISTEN
PAUSE
ERROR

Krmg news on demand

00:00 | 00:00

LISTEN
PAUSE
ERROR

Krmg traffic on demand

00:00 | 00:00

LISTEN
PAUSE
ERROR

Krmg weather on demand

00:00 | 00:00

Why do I have a smaller paycheck this year?

Even with Congress and President Obama reaching an 11th-hour deal to prevent the country from going over the much-hyped “Fiscal Cliff,” the New Year has brought an increase in taxes for all American families — and for many that means an almost immediate reduction in take-home pay.

We checked in with experts to find out what tax issues and unresolved Fiscal Cliff problems are impacting our wallets now, and what’s on the horizon for the future.

1)  I’ve noticed a decrease in my paycheck — Why?

“The very first thing you’ll notice is the nearly 50-percent increase in thesocial security payroll tax. The tax reverted to its rate of 6.2 percent up from 4.2 percent last year,” says FOX Business Network anchor Gerri Willis, host of The Willis Report and author of "Home Rich," a guide to investing in real estate.

READ: Tax tip: Changes on this year's 1040

“This tax increase hits anybody who gets a paycheck. A middle class family making $50,000 would see a $1,000 increase in their tax obligation.”

With that said, Wills reminds that this wasn’t even part of the Fiscal Cliff negotiations. The payroll tax cut came two years ago as a way to spur consumer spending, she says.

2)  Is my paycheck going to be decreased all year?

“For many, yes. One big change that hasn’t been talked about much — but will impact everyone earning $250,000 and more for single filers and $300,000 and more for couples — is a phase-out of personal exemptions and itemized deductions.”

READ: Is using a coupon on the first date a dealbreaker or good financial savvy?

In other words, the value of any mortgage deduction, charitable deduction or personal exemption you take on your taxes will drop with your income, Willis says.

“That means the tax bill you owe will be higher next year, even if your income doesn’t change.”

3)  Will expiring tax cuts ever come back into effect?

The tax cuts put into effect during George W. Bush’s presidency were always set to expire, says Willis. Originally, they ended Dec. 31, 2010, but Congress extended the expiration of the cuts to the end of last month.

Congress decided to continue the cuts for everyone making less than $400,000 if you are single or $450,000 if you are married, she says. In addition to the income tax rates that are expiring now, cuts in the estate tax also expire this year. For estates worth more than $5 million, taxes were raised from 35 to 40 percent.

4)  How exactly are families being affected?

Everyone’s post-holiday debt may have gotten harder to manage following the tax increases, says Lee Boggs, professor of political marketing at West Virginia University.

“Consider this: For two years, taxpayers have gotten used to a certain amount of take-home pay and planned for their children’s Christmases accordingly,” says Boggs. “How many people spent and charged during the holidays based on their 2012 take home pay, not considering that their take home pay would be $40-$80 a month less in January 2013?”

READ: Crisis Button: I just won the lottery, now what do I do?

Receiving more take home pay might have led some people to go out and sign up for a multi-year contract for a cellphone, a gym membership, a car loan or higher mortgage payments, Boggs says.

“Now they’re bringing home less but they are still responsible for those contracts. Couple that with holiday debt and some middle class people could be facing serious financial challenges right now.”

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued a statement on how families might be impacted in their study, “Economic Effects of Reducing the Fiscal Restraint That Is Scheduled to Occur in 2013.”

“On the one hand, households generally respond to declines in income by reducing both spending and saving, thereby generating changes in spending that are smaller than the changes in income,” wrote the CBO. “And the effects on income of some of the tax increases — for example, the reductions in the refundable child tax credit — might not be recognized by households until they file their tax returns in 2014.”

 

Kathryn Elizabeth Tuggle is a seasoned New York-based personal finance editor and writer who adores saving, investing and thrift store shopping. After getting her start writing about small businesses for the Inc. 500 at Inc. Magazine, Kathryn learned her way around the NYSE and NASDAQ while working at the The Financial Times. In 2007, Kathryn joined the Fox Business Network before its inception and was instrumental in launching the company's small business and personal finance sites. Obsessed with all things spending, saving and social media, you can find Kathryn tweeting her latest adventures with Dimespring at @KathrynLizbeth. 
Read More
VIEW COMMENTS

There are no comments yet. Be the first to post your thoughts. or Register.

  • A judge handed down the sentence for the former Pawhuska substitute teacher on Monday. Lacey Sponsler is accused of exposing herself to students when she did a cartwheel while wearing a long skirt but no underwear in February. Sponsler pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of indecent exposure.  She was given a two year suspended sentence and can't teach for two years.  The former educator will not have to register as a sex offender.
  • For a second straight day, the full Senate voted down a leading GOP plan to make major changes in the Obama health law, as Republicans continued to struggle with how best to forge a plan that can win approval in the Senate later this week, with growing talk that the GOP may try to pass a bill that does very little, in hopes of starting House-Senate negotiations on a final deal. “We’re working our way to end – which is uncertain,” said Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA). The latest plan to be rejected by the Senate was similar to a bill which had won Congressional approval in 2015, but had been vetoed by President Barack Obama, what Republicans labeled a “clean repeal” – even though it was nothing close to an actual repeal of the Obama health law. “It is just trying to peel back Obamacare,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) argued in vain on the Senate floor, as he acknowledged the ‘clean repeal’ is “only a partial repeal.” But while this plan was approved two years ago, it failed this time, mustering only 45 votes, as seven GOP Senators broke ranks to doom the measure. Only 43 Republicans had backed the first big GOP amendment on Tuesday. 7 GOP Senators voting 'No' – Capito WV, Heller NV, Collins ME, McCain AZ, Portman OH, Alexander TN, Murkowski AK — Jamie Dupree (@jamiedupree) July 26, 2017 Of those seven Republican “No” votes, only Collins had voted against the plan in December of 2015; the other six were all for it, back when an Obama veto was a certainty. Here's @SenAlexander's explanation for his surprise NO vote on the ACA repeal bill just now: pic.twitter.com/4teP2JyKIg — Frank Thorp V (@frankthorp) July 26, 2017 Meanwhile, more and more Republican energy was being focused on an extremely limited health care bill – labeled ‘Skinny repeal’ – as a way to pass a bill through the Senate later this week, which would then lead to negotiations between the House and Senate in the month of August. “Skinny repeal” would involve zeroing out the tax penalties for not having health insurance under the individual and employer mandates, and repealing the medical device tax. No other provisions would be touched. “I could live with that,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), as a number of GOP Senators embraced the idea, seeing it as a way to avoid defeat in the Senate, and giving time for more negotiations on a final health care plan. Rounds says intent is just to pass skinny bill to get to conference to give time for CBO scores on changes — Peter Sullivan (@PeterSullivan4) July 26, 2017 Sen. Ron Johnson tells me he would support skinny repeal to move the process forward to conference. Not happy with it on its own. — Tara Golshan (@t_golshan) July 26, 2017 “What you’re really voting on is trying to keep the discussions alive between the House and Senate,” said Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), who expressed frustration that the Senate might have to use the ‘skinny solution’ as a fall back. “It’s disappointing that we find ourselves where we are,” Corker told a group of reporters. Democrats denounced the idea. “Skinny repeal should be called ‘gut it and run,'” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), as critics said the plan would not reduce premiums for those in the individual insurance market. Remember the vote that really matters in Vote-a-Rama is the McConnell substitute at the end of the process. Think Friday 5 a.m. — Steven Dennis (@StevenTDennis) July 26, 2017 Over in the House, some Republicans weren’t exactly thrilled with the idea of a ‘skinny’ bill, but said the Senate must keep the process moving. “My feeling is, I’m glad I’m not a Senator,” said Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY) with a laugh.
  • For as long as there have been panhandlers, there has been an argument about whether we should give them money. A front-page story in the Washington Post on Sunday chronicled the struggles of a young man who has to drive 30 miles to beg for money to support his ailing mother after he had been run out of his town. >> Read more trending news The Cheyenne Police Department in Wyoming is the latest to join this argument. On Sunday, police shared a picture on Facebook of money collected by a homeless man, writing, “We arrested a transient for public intoxication. ... We want to illustrate that there are better ways to help the transient population than to give them money for panhandling.” The post continued, “Rather than feeding someone’s alcohol addiction, you can donate directly to local charities.” >> See the post here The post has been shared more than 31,000 times and received at least 5,600 comments. A number of people were angered by the post, including one user who wrote, “I’m sure you guys are going to take every dollar he had, and not give it back to him. The way I see it, the people gave it to him. That’s his money.” Another man wrote, “I will give my money to whoever I please. ... Because of this post, I’m going, right now, to each exit where they usually hang out and each one is getting $20.” >> On Rare.us: Fake street signs are warning Minnesota residents of 'easily startled' police There were comments supporting the department, such as, “Am I missing something? How are the Police bad guys all the sudden?? All they did was arrest a guy for public intoxication which is against the law!!” The department responded on Facebook, saying: 'It is great to see that this topic is important to our community. It should since it is a community issue and not just a problem for the police to solve. This is why CPD launched Operation Change in March. Our officers always offer social services first; if they make an arrest for intoxication, we have addiction counselors contact the person while in jail to offer help. Several have taken us up on the offer and are currently in programs. We will never give up on our mission to help those in need. Get involved to help!' >> See the post here The department later posted some clarifications, including that the money was not seized from the panhandler but “inventoried along with his property” and “held for safekeeping until he is released.” >> Read the post here
  • Early in July, the American Red Cross issued an emergency call for blood and platelet donations after a sharp drop in donors in May and June. While that helped, with a 30% increase noted during the first couple weeks of July, blood supplies are being grabbed up by hospitals the moment they become available, according to Jan Hale, the communications manager of the Red Cross Southwest Blood Services Region. The issue is that roughly one in five donors are college and high schools students who take part in blood drives at their schools. During the summer when schools aren’t in session, they’re much less likely to donate - but the demand for blood never stops. “Every two seconds, somebody in our country needs blood,” Hale told KRMG Wednesday. She tells KRMG they’ve issued another emergency call for donors, and says they’ve made it easy as possible for people to find local blood drives. To schedule an appointment to donate, use the Blood Donor App, visit redcrossblood.org or call 1-800-RED CROSS (1-800-733-2767). Making an appointment saves time, as does completing the RapidPass health history online before going in to donate.
  • Hours after President Donald Trump announced on Twitter that he would ban transgender individuals from serving in any role in the military, the White House acknowledged that the policy details would still have to be worked out with the Pentagon, as officials were unable to answer the basic question of whether transgender troops would be kicked out of the military immediately under the President’s ban. “When the President made the decision yesterday, the Secretary of Defense was immediately informed,” said White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders, confirming reports that the Pentagon had been blindsided by today’s announcement. Asked repeatedly how the President’s decision would affect those who already serve in the armed forces, Sanders said that’s all to be worked out. “I would imagine the Department of Defense would be the lead on that,” Sanders said, at one point threatening to end the briefing as she was peppered with questions about the subject. Asked what happens to transgender members of the military currently serving in Afghanistan, the White House cannot answer. — Matt Viser (@mviser) July 26, 2017 “Again, the implementation policy is going to something the White House and the Department of Department of Defense have to work together to lawfully determine,” Sanders told reporters. The story erupted without warning on Wednesday morning, when the President suddenly tweeted that transgender individuals would not be allowed to “serve in any capacity” in the military. After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow…… — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017 ….Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming….. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017 ….victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017 The Pentagon made clear that it was not part of the final decision, telling reporters to call the White House for an explanation – but there was no answer by the afternoon to the simple question of would transgender service members be booted immediately out of the military. “That’s something that the Department of Defense and the White House will have to work together as implementation takes place,” Sanders said. On Capitol Hill, there was disbelief expressed by both parties about the decision, and the lack of details. “The President’s tweet this morning regarding transgender Americans in the military is yet another example of why major policy announcements should not be made via Twitter,” said Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who noted the lack of details, and the fact that the Pentagon had announced a 6-month review of the matter on June 30. “We should all be guided by the principle that any American who wants to serve our country and is able to meet the standards should have the opportunity to do so—and should be treated as the patriots they are,” McCain added.