Andanh.com

As states around the nation try to close budget deficits caused by the weak economy, real estate slump and other factors, Maryland has come up with a new twist: a special tax bracket for millionaires.

The new bracket was signed into law this spring, giving Maryland the only bracket geared specifically to people with incomes of $1 million and up. Roughly 6,300 households are expected to hit the top bracket. Maryland also has seven other income-tax brackets.

After Maryland, New Jersey has the highest tax bracket, starting at $500,001 in income, according to tax researcher CCH. North Dakota, Rhode Island and Vermont come next at $349,701, while Arizona ranks fifth at $300,001.

Proponents claim the new tax will raise  more than $300 million in revenue over the next three years, but critics say it will encourage small business owners to leave the state. Some detractors describe the legislation creating the new bracket as "the get out of Maryland tax act."

You can't do much about $4-a-gallon gasoline prices, but you might be able to cut commuting costs in other ways. Here are some not-so-obvious ways to stretch your transportation dollars:

' Ask about an insurance break if you drive less.

If you're telecommuting, carpooling, taking the bus or driving fewer miles for other reasons, you might get a discount on your auto-insurance premiums.

A discount could reflect fewer miles driven generally or a change in your insured category to pleasure driving, says the Consumer Federation of America, which estimates savings in the range of 5 to 15 percent. Based on the average yearly auto premium for Arizonans cited by the Washington, D.C., group of around $1,063, that translates to $53 to $159 in savings. Nationally, the potential savings range from about $47 to $142 on an average $949 auto-insurance premium.

In Arizona, 43 insurers offer discounts for bus riders, telecommuters or others who reduce their mileage counts to pleasure-driving status, according Erin Klug, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Insurance. That's out of roughly 140 firms doing business here. Of those 43 offering reduced-driving discounts, the average savings is $93 on a six-month premium.

The department illustrates various premium-cost scenarios in its 2008 Auto Insurance Premium Comparison report at www.id.state.az.us.

' Focus on more than just miles-per-gallon efficiency when shopping for a car.

With high gasoline prices making daily headlines, you might be surprised to learn that fuel isn't the top cost of operating vehicles. Fuel accounts for 21 percent of typical ownership costs, according to a recent Consumer Reports study. That was well below depreciation or the gradual loss of a vehicle's value to wear and tear, which weighs in at 48 percent of ownership costs. Depreciation is a function both of purchase price and resale value.

The remaining cost categories are interest on vehicle loans (12 percent), insurance (11 percent), sales taxes (4 percent) and maintenance/repairs (4 percent). Consumer Reports based its survey on five-year ownership costs reported by the magazine's readers last year, assuming 12,000 miles driven each year on average.

Gas prices have jumped by roughly $1 a gallon since the December 2007 study period, making fuel more critical than the figures suggest but not enough to dethrone depreciation as the top cost to beware.

' Find out if your employer offers tax-deductible benefits for commuters.

Although you can't deduct commuting expenses in general, Uncle Sam offers a tax break on certain costs tied to parking and/or mass-transit commuting, provided your employer sponsors a program that lets you pay for these services through payroll deduction.

You can set aside up to $115 a month before taxes to pay for mass-transit expenses and up to $220 a month for commuter-related parking. Internal Revenue Service Publication 15-B explains tax breaks for these and other fringe benefits.

Find out if your employer offers these pre-tax savings plans for commuting costs. While you're at it, check to see if the firm offers subsized bus passes or other transit help.

' Consider using a bicycle for your commute.

Thanks to the high price of gasoline, that could become more feasible in coming years. Following in the path of successful bike-sharing programs in Europe, Washington, D.C., is poised to unveil its own system in coming weeks. Commuters in the nation's capital will pay a $40 yearly membership fee and get access to bikes stationed at racks in the downtown area, said Jeff Peel, a specialist on bike-share programs for the League of American Bicyclists.

He said other cities showing an interest include San Francisco, Philadelphia, Chicago, Portland, Ore., and Albuquerque, N.M., not to mention several universities and even some corporate campuses.

Could bike-sharing work in all cities? Probably not. Aside from funding, Peel said key ingredients for success include a fairly compact urban core, a good network of bike lanes already in place and public-transit systems that let commuters to complement their bike rides by getting on a bus or rail line.

This article appeared in the June 22 issue of the Arizona Republic.

Reach Wiles at russ.wiles@arizonarepublic.com or 602-444-8616.

Tom Horne is being attacked unfairly by the libertarian right over vouchers for foster kids and the disabled.

These programs were recently struck down by the Arizona Court of Appeals. Horne supported the programs in court, which was a reversal of position for him. Previously, he had expressed the opinion that vouchers violated the section of the state constitution that prohibits aid to private schools. That should have earned him some credit and slack from voucher supporters.

However, after the decision, Horne said that he would accept applications for the programs but not fund them. Several libertarian leaders -- IJ's Tim Keller and Goldwater's Clint Bolick and Tom Patterson -- have taken Horne to task, saying that the programs hadn't yet been enjoined and should be funded.

Horne, however, didn't act alone. He was simply following what the state AG's office told him was legally required. The libertarian titans say Horne should have simply ignored what the AG's office was telling him.

That's nuts. The last thing believers in the rule of law and limited government should want is for government officials to ignore what the state's lawyers say is unlawful spending. And it's the last thing state officials are going to do, since there might be personal liability attached to so doing.

Horne overreacted. The Goldwater Institute had previously gotten under his skin over the reliability of the state's testing system. So, Horne sent out a "and the horse they road in on" response to the criticism on this issue.

But Horne did the right thing, petitioning the court for permission to continue funding the programs while the Court of Appeals decision is being appealed.

The libertarian right is correct that the children benefiting from the programs shouldn't be treated as yo-yos while the law is sorted out. But Horne's not properly to blame for that.

In fact, this case illustrates that there are some cases in which it would be better for the state Supreme Court to hear them directly and early, rather than have them wend their way through the system. This case involved a straight-forward question of law that was clearly going to land at the Supremes.

It would have been better to have a decision on the programs' constitutionality before children were put into it, leaving them and their parents vulnerable to disruptions and potentially dashed hopes.

Kicker Neil Rackers is going to get in some practice Tuesday at University of Phoenix Stadium. Soccer practice, that is.