O-Trap;627978 wrote:If a person gets a little lazy with their budget and runs out of money in July ... that causes a problem.

The 26-week payment plan means that you get the same paycheck every other week, all year long. No need to "store up for winter" (or "summer" in this case).

One could argue that someone not capable of doing the simple math involved should not be entrusted with teaching children.

Con_Alma;627965 wrote:How you file and what you claim on your withholding have no correlation. You are not required to file the same status as you withheld.

Well in 2008 my employer only withheld 6600 dollars in taxes because I had it set up as married filing jointly and I made about 68000 dollars...if I would've filed as married jointly I would have owed nothing. Then I had to file seperatly and owed like 2400 and that was w a tuition credit...this year they withheld 9440 and I still owe 350

I just feel more comfortable with them taking more out now and giving it back to me later instead of me getting a little extra now and having to pay later.

Gblock said he was going to have to pay 3000 this year and had to pay 2400 one year. I don't have that much sitting in the bank to pay take care of something like that.

If I did take the lower tax rate for married status or claim 1, how much more would my check be every 2 weeks? Are we talking the difference of 20-30 dollars or 100+?

Owing $350 sounds like an almost ideal scenario but I don't know.

My comment that you quoted was simply stating that you can "set up" your withholding status however you like. You are not required to have a "set up" that is the same as your filing status.

bigkahuna;627990 wrote:I just feel more comfortable with them taking more out now and giving it back to me later instead of me getting a little extra now and having to pay later. ...

There is value in comfort. That's the best reason I've seen thus far.

Con_Alma;627991 wrote:Owing $350 sounds like an almost ideal scenario but I don't know.

My comment that you quoted was simply stating that you can "set up" your withholding status however you like. You are not required to have a "set up" that is the same as your filing status.

But it helps!.....

Maybe I'm getting confused with something.

On my W-4, there was an option that stated Married, but tax me at the higher single rate. Both my wife and I checked this box, so they took a little more money out during the year. However, we were still able to file jointly when we filed our taxes.

bigkahuna;627990 wrote:I just feel more comfortable with them taking more out now and giving it back to me later instead of me getting a little extra now and having to pay later.

Gblock said he was going to have to pay 3000 this year and had to pay 2400 one year. I don't have that much sitting in the bank to pay take care of something like that.

If I did take the lower tax rate for married status or claim 1, how much more would my check be every 2 weeks? Are we talking the difference of 20-30 dollars or 100+?

only matters if you break up.....but its actually a 250 dollars diff per check....and I should've changed my withholding four years ago really

Gblock;627999 wrote:But it helps!.....

That depends. The point is people have to determine what amount they want withheld in total and select that filing status, exemptions and additional withholding that comes closes to that amount.

The "set up" can be entirely different than your filing status on your return and still serve you quite well...sometimes even better than if you would have simply created your "set up" to match your filing status.

bigkahuna;628005 wrote:Maybe I'm getting confused with something.

On my W-4, there was an option that stated Married, but tax me at the higher single rate. Both my wife and I checked this box, so they took a little more money out during the year. However, we were still able to file jointly when we filed our taxes.

That's because your w-4 elections and your filing status are not required to be correlated. at all. Call them whatever you want on your w-4 just attempt to have the amount of total money withheld that's ideal for the two of you. It doesn't matter how you get to that number.

Con_Alma;627993 wrote:There is value in comfort. That's the best reason I've seen thus far.

I know Manhattan said that some of their coworkers wouldn't trust themselves with the extra money because they would just spend it.

I'm not afraid of spending the extra money if I was taxed at a lower rate. I'd just rather not owe anything at the end of the year.

queencitybuckeye;627986 wrote:One could argue that someone not capable of doing the simple math involved should not be entrusted with teaching children.

I would rebutt by saying it's not about the math. It's about being rigidly responsible to a budget. One can know the math and not follow the math.

I would contend that those who may not be responsible with their own personal finances may still be adequate teachers of "reading, writing, and 'rithmetic."

Actually, when I hear about some (not all) teachers claiming that their salaries aren't high enough, my first thought is that they are probably not responsible enough with their personal finances. I've seen how possible it is to live (even be happy and healthy) on a smaller income (for the first half of 2010, my wife and I had made a COMBINED $11,000 to support two people). We never missed a bill payment, and we never went hungry. Expenses were in two categories: those we needed in order to live, and those we'd committed to over a contractual period.

Moreover, I'm willing to bet that if I went into their homes, I could find at least 3 expenses in the budget that would be unnecessary (things like cable, Internet, eating out, travel, unnecessary furniture, etc.). If someone's belt is so tight that they "need" a raise, then they should have already exhausted other options ... like not renewing cable or Internet (or, heaven forbit, cancelling them, and paying the ETF, which is usually smaller than the amount which would be paid over the remainder of the contract).

One can live with that kind of model on a small income. I don't blame anyone for wanting to provide a better life for their families, but unless a teacher's salary is impoverishingly low, I don't take kindly to someone demanding that they need more of my tax dollars, as the truth is, they don't.

If one wants to make more money, one only needs to be resourceful. My wife and I now make good money, as we each have two streams of income. We each have a 9-5 "job" and we each have a sole-proprieter business of our own, which we run whenever we can. Those income streams are less stable, and they don't pay as much, but they certainly help, as neither she nor I get paid THAT well at our 9-5s. Overall, though, it adds up (to the tune of about $80K a year, projected).

GoChiefs is another example. He and his wife do their own low-overhead business together. It's a great model. He and his wife used their noodles and came up with something they could do that wouldn't cost them a ton of overhead (thus slimming their margins), and they have been able to supplement their incomes with it as a result.

If a person can't live on their current salary, then how have they made it thus far? If the problem has been a catastrophe (medical emergency, etc.), then that doesn't mean they necessarily plan on having such a catastrophe every year (and thus, need paid more every year). Things like inflation and additions to the family are legitimate points, but then again, most people in the PRIVATE sector don't get raises just because of inflation or additions to the family, and yet they are able to deal with it.

Sorry about the rant. I am married to a teacher (that's her "9-5" which is more like 7:30-7), and she makes under $21K a year (gross pay), so I'm not speaking as though I don't see all the work that goes into it, etc. She was smart about it, though. Instead of demanding a raise, she got smart and got into a business for herself ... something she knows about, and figured out how to monetize.

When I see how someone could supplement their income without upping the taxes everyone else has to pay, it irks me to see people who would just rather demand that their pay be upped.

O-Trap;628090 wrote:... It's about being rigidly responsible to a budget. ...

One who is "rigidly responsible to a budget" wouldn't require the safety from "getting lazy" and running out of money in July.

Con_Alma;628098 wrote:One who is "rigidly responsible to a budget" wouldn't require the safety from "getting lazy" and running out of money in July.

Unless someone else in the house is NOT as rigid about the budget. My wife and I are a perfect example.

I'm a stickler for a budget ... I'd rather eat Ramen noodles for a slim month than dip into the amount put in saving.

My wife is not that way.

Thus, if I was to teach, I'd probably do the 26-week plan.

Yeah, that's a different issue in my mind....but it sounds as if you would have to take the "safety" afforded by the school deferring a part of your pay.

Con_Alma;628112 wrote:Yeah, that's a different issue in my mind....but it sounds as if you would have to take the "safety" afforded by the school deferring a part of your pay.

Another way to look at it is if you are just going to save the money and not spend it or invest it then it doesn't matter if you have the money or not.....last time I looked at a six month cd it was just less than a quarter percent...so I can see why you wouldn't mind letting them " save" it for u.

It doesn't matter indeed Gblock so my original question stands. If it doesn't matter why choose to let someone else have your money? Why defer your compensation?

Some have given some legitimate reasons thus far.

Con_Alma;628148 wrote:It doesn't matter indeed Gblock so my original question stands. If it doesn't matter why choose to let someone else have your money? Why defer your compensation?

Some have given some legitimate reasons thus far.

For me the answer is I would spend it!

That'll do it.