<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	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/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Updated: Federal Withholding Tax Revenue</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/03/updated-federal-withholding-tax-revenue/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/03/updated-federal-withholding-tax-revenue/</link>
	<description>Macro Perspective on the Capital Markets, Economy, Geopolitics, Technology, and Digital Media</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:30:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.5</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Big Bang</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/03/updated-federal-withholding-tax-revenue/comment-page-1/#comment-261800</link>
		<dc:creator>Big Bang</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 23:19:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=53684#comment-261800</guid>
		<description>[...] week, Barry Ritholtz published some charts from my DailyJobsUpdate.com website. Here is a traffic graph (click to [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] week, Barry Ritholtz published some charts from my DailyJobsUpdate.com website. Here is a traffic graph (click to [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt Trivisonno</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/03/updated-federal-withholding-tax-revenue/comment-page-1/#comment-260443</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt Trivisonno</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:13:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=53684#comment-260443</guid>
		<description>sherm,

The Census Bureau won&#039;t start hiring in large quantities until they know how many door-knockers they need. And they won&#039;t know that until they see how many people fill out the forms and send them in. If everybody sends in the form, then they don&#039;t need to hire hardly anybody. But that won&#039;t happen. There will be a lot of hiring. The forms are supposed to arrive in our mailboxes sometime this month. The door-knockers probably won&#039;t hit the streets in size for a couple more months.

Matt</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>sherm,</p>
<p>The Census Bureau won&#8217;t start hiring in large quantities until they know how many door-knockers they need. And they won&#8217;t know that until they see how many people fill out the forms and send them in. If everybody sends in the form, then they don&#8217;t need to hire hardly anybody. But that won&#8217;t happen. There will be a lot of hiring. The forms are supposed to arrive in our mailboxes sometime this month. The door-knockers probably won&#8217;t hit the streets in size for a couple more months.</p>
<p>Matt</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PD Quig</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/03/updated-federal-withholding-tax-revenue/comment-page-1/#comment-260310</link>
		<dc:creator>PD Quig</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:57:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=53684#comment-260310</guid>
		<description>Yessir, the second derivative looks pretty sweet to me! Before long we&#039;ll ALL be working at building inventory and building stuff purchased with cap ex spending. Jobs, jobs, jobs! Once the tax receipt snowball starts rolling downhill, picking up speed and mass, the recovery will be in full bloom to match that crafty, prescient stock market.

Oh wait. You mean getting back to 6% unemployment requires spending at 2006 levels? Well, no worries. We&#039;ll just mandate that every business must hire people so that we&#039;ll all have money to spend to grow the economy. While we&#039;re at it, let&#039;s raise the minimum wage so we can save AND spend. That way we can restock the country&#039;s depleted capital stores, too.

Everything&#039;s gonna be alright. But whatever you do, don&#039;t look down.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yessir, the second derivative looks pretty sweet to me! Before long we&#8217;ll ALL be working at building inventory and building stuff purchased with cap ex spending. Jobs, jobs, jobs! Once the tax receipt snowball starts rolling downhill, picking up speed and mass, the recovery will be in full bloom to match that crafty, prescient stock market.</p>
<p>Oh wait. You mean getting back to 6% unemployment requires spending at 2006 levels? Well, no worries. We&#8217;ll just mandate that every business must hire people so that we&#8217;ll all have money to spend to grow the economy. While we&#8217;re at it, let&#8217;s raise the minimum wage so we can save AND spend. That way we can restock the country&#8217;s depleted capital stores, too.</p>
<p>Everything&#8217;s gonna be alright. But whatever you do, don&#8217;t look down.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sherm</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/03/updated-federal-withholding-tax-revenue/comment-page-1/#comment-260283</link>
		<dc:creator>sherm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 06:38:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=53684#comment-260283</guid>
		<description>census jobs spike?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>census jobs spike?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt Trivisonno</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/03/updated-federal-withholding-tax-revenue/comment-page-1/#comment-260234</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt Trivisonno</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 02:02:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=53684#comment-260234</guid>
		<description>Josh,

I&#039;m guessing that, legally, it wouldn&#039;t be a good idea for an employer to withhold more federal tax than is specified in the IRS&#039;s tax tables. However, Congress did tinker with the tax tables this year such that more poor people are having tax withheld. The Treasury Department has not mentioned how much this might increase withholdings. The Congressional Budget Office hasn&#039;t mentioned it either, so I&#039;m assuming that it isn&#039;t a large amount.

The Obama Administration is also cracking down on contractors who don&#039;t have taxes withheld. This also does not seem to big enough to provide a noticeable jolt to the data. The New York Times has an article about it here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/18/business/18workers.html?em=&amp;pagewanted=all

Matt</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Josh,</p>
<p>I&#8217;m guessing that, legally, it wouldn&#8217;t be a good idea for an employer to withhold more federal tax than is specified in the IRS&#8217;s tax tables. However, Congress did tinker with the tax tables this year such that more poor people are having tax withheld. The Treasury Department has not mentioned how much this might increase withholdings. The Congressional Budget Office hasn&#8217;t mentioned it either, so I&#8217;m assuming that it isn&#8217;t a large amount.</p>
<p>The Obama Administration is also cracking down on contractors who don&#8217;t have taxes withheld. This also does not seem to big enough to provide a noticeable jolt to the data. The New York Times has an article about it here:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/18/business/18workers.html?em=&#038;pagewanted=all" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/18/business/18workers.html?em=&#038;pagewanted=all</a></p>
<p>Matt</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TakBak04</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/03/updated-federal-withholding-tax-revenue/comment-page-1/#comment-260203</link>
		<dc:creator>TakBak04</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 01:11:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=53684#comment-260203</guid>
		<description>Oh Man...that Chart by either &quot;Invictus&quot; or &quot;BR&quot; needs to go VIRAL on the NET.  

What an eyeview!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh Man&#8230;that Chart by either &#8220;Invictus&#8221; or &#8220;BR&#8221; needs to go VIRAL on the NET.  </p>
<p>What an eyeview!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Josh</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/03/updated-federal-withholding-tax-revenue/comment-page-1/#comment-260195</link>
		<dc:creator>Josh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 01:00:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=53684#comment-260195</guid>
		<description>Matt, we&#039;ve heard stories of California, and perhaps other states, accelerating withholding for state taxes at some point in the recent past.  Is it possible that employers in California or some other such place are beginning to accelerate withholding for federal taxes too?

My guess it that you&#039;ve either considered this or that it wouldn&#039;t have much impact, but just thought I&#039;d throw it out there.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Matt, we&#8217;ve heard stories of California, and perhaps other states, accelerating withholding for state taxes at some point in the recent past.  Is it possible that employers in California or some other such place are beginning to accelerate withholding for federal taxes too?</p>
<p>My guess it that you&#8217;ve either considered this or that it wouldn&#8217;t have much impact, but just thought I&#8217;d throw it out there.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt Trivisonno</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/03/updated-federal-withholding-tax-revenue/comment-page-1/#comment-260176</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt Trivisonno</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:18:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=53684#comment-260176</guid>
		<description>BDW,

These are withholding taxes, and are not effected by things like capital-gains tax cuts, etc. I think it&#039;s pretty obvious that the two plunges on the chart in 2001 and 2008 were the result of millions of jobs being lost.

Matt</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>BDW,</p>
<p>These are withholding taxes, and are not effected by things like capital-gains tax cuts, etc. I think it&#8217;s pretty obvious that the two plunges on the chart in 2001 and 2008 were the result of millions of jobs being lost.</p>
<p>Matt</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BDW</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/03/updated-federal-withholding-tax-revenue/comment-page-1/#comment-260161</link>
		<dc:creator>BDW</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:40:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=53684#comment-260161</guid>
		<description>Is the massive tax cuts taken into account.....you know, the ones that have the mystical powers of raising revenues while lowering revenues?  I say this since the massive drop-off in revenues can be attributed to Bush&#039;s cuts (passed by reconciliation) and that the near recovery to pre-2001 can be attributed to the housing/derivative bubbles.   

Another question:  If a bubble created the increase in withholding revenues, did the last decade actually have any positive outcomes??  It appears we&#039;re moving into a period of growth, but is it real or memorex?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is the massive tax cuts taken into account&#8230;..you know, the ones that have the mystical powers of raising revenues while lowering revenues?  I say this since the massive drop-off in revenues can be attributed to Bush&#8217;s cuts (passed by reconciliation) and that the near recovery to pre-2001 can be attributed to the housing/derivative bubbles.   </p>
<p>Another question:  If a bubble created the increase in withholding revenues, did the last decade actually have any positive outcomes??  It appears we&#8217;re moving into a period of growth, but is it real or memorex?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt Trivisonno</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/03/updated-federal-withholding-tax-revenue/comment-page-1/#comment-260109</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt Trivisonno</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 21:44:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=53684#comment-260109</guid>
		<description>mgnagy,

The most recent data is, in fact, strengthening. If you compare Friday, Monday, and Tuesday, to the corresponding three days from last year, you will see that withholdings are up $1.144 billion. That&#039;s the raw data. The actually data is likely stronger since there is a withholding tax credit in effect now.

I don&#039;t see any miracles happening, but the cycle shows distinctive signs of turning upward.

Matt</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>mgnagy,</p>
<p>The most recent data is, in fact, strengthening. If you compare Friday, Monday, and Tuesday, to the corresponding three days from last year, you will see that withholdings are up $1.144 billion. That&#8217;s the raw data. The actually data is likely stronger since there is a withholding tax credit in effect now.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t see any miracles happening, but the cycle shows distinctive signs of turning upward.</p>
<p>Matt</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

