Save Dough When Dining Out: Top 10 Ways to Cut Your Restaurant Bill

Eating out is a great way to get a good meal with out much effort, but it does come at a price, especially if you dine out often. One of my favorite finance blogs (WalletPop.com) recently put together a great list of tips to save money when you dine out. I have included a few of their tips below, but you can find the full list here.

1. Forget about the "Joneses"

Unless I am at a business dinner, I could care less what other people think of me when I order -- or for that matter, not ordering. If I'm so worried about what my friends think, maybe they're not really my friends. As long as I am content and have followed the proper tipping etiquette guidelines, I'm not going to worry. To me, this is the number one way to keep your bill in line, hands down.

2. Eat those freebies

It could be bread and butter, chips, or just about anything. Take full advantage of these freebies! Am I saying to stuff yourself silly with bread and butter so much that you don't even order an entrée? Of course not. But if restaurants give you some food that comes out before your main meal, isn't that kind of like an appetizer? Do yourself a favor: Fill up on the chips and salsa or bread and butter within reason and skip the paid appetizer. And don't be shy about asking for a refill.

Continue reading at WalletPop.com…

From: “Federal budget: $59 billion here, $300 billion there ...”

Congress is currently mulling over a large collection of bills that has a lot of people concerned over how much these measures are actually going to cost. A major topic of concern is extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, which could cost anywhere from several hundred billion dollars to more than $2 trillion.

According to an article on CNNMoney.com, “Some of the measures have already been factored into 10-year deficit projections,” and that yes, many measures are expected to be paid for with revenue-generating provisions, but the total cost of everything under consideration would not be fully offset. Without offsets, we would increase the deficit. “That's in large part because several measures are exempt from the new "pay-as-you-go" law.”

Both parties have favored making the cuts permanent, but that would dramatically worsen the nation’s fiscal problems. Some believe extending them only for a year or two may be the smartest move.

Here is a breakdown of some of the bills that might make the cut and what they cost:

Extension of tax breaks: Dozens of tax breaks for businesses and individuals have lapsed. The cost of extending them for this year is $31 billion. Such "tax extenders" include the research and development credit for businesses and the choice for individuals to deduct either their state and local income tax or their state and local sales tax.

Estate tax: Defying all expectations, Congress let the estate tax lapse at the end of 2009. But it's coming back in 2011. The question is: at what level. Unless Congress acts, starting next year no more than $1 million of a person's estate would be exempt from the estate tax -- which is well below the $3.5 million exemption in place last year. And the top estate tax rate would revert to 55%, up from 45% in effect last year. President Obama has proposed permanently extending the estate tax at 2009 levels, which the Tax Policy Center estimates would cost $234 billion over 10 years. In the Senate, however, a proposal to exempt $5 million and set the top rate at 35% has garnered some bipartisan support. Depending on how various parameters are set, the proposal could cost north of $300 billion.

Safety-net provisions for the unemployed: Some lawmakers are pushing to retain a program that extends the number of weeks an unemployed person may collect federal unemployment benefits. When combined with state benefits, under the program, that means a person can qualify for up to 99 weeks of benefits. But the program expires in June. The measure under consideration would extend it to the end of the year.

Read the full article here.

Preventing State Budget Crises: Redefining 'Tax Cuts' and 'Tax Hikes'

Earlier in the week, David Gamage of UC-Berkeley published a new paper on how state governments can address their recession related budget problems. You can find a section of the abstract below, courtesy of Tax Prof, or download the full PDF at Preventing State Budget Crises: Redefining 'Tax Cuts' and 'Tax Hikes'.

Forty-nine of the U.S. states have balanced budget requirements, and every state acts as though bound by such constraints. These constraints create fiscal volatility - the states must either cut spending or raise taxes during economic downturns, while doing the opposite during upturns. This paper discusses how states should cope with fiscal volatility on both the levels of ordinary politics and of institutional-design policy. On the level of ordinary politics, the paper applies principles of risk allocation theory to conclude that states should primarily adjust the rates of broad-based taxes as their economies cycle, rather than fluctuating public spending. States should raise their tax rates during economic downturns and lower them during periods of growth. On the level of institutional-design policy, the key question is how we define terms like “tax cuts” and “tax hikes.” By adopting a new baseline for defining these terms, states can increase the likelihood of using tax rate adjustments to cope with fiscal volatility rather than (more harmful) spending fluctuations.