• filter:

Question: Witholdings and other tax tips

  • Page :
  • 1
  • Text Only
  • Search this Topic »
Voting History
rated:
This article is about a lady that works a minimum wage job and got back $5,600 as a tax refund.
Good for her for paying her rent and keeping a roof over her family's head, but...
Woman pays entire year's rent with tax refund 

I am tax-stupid and wanted to better understand how not to give the government such a large, interest free loan myself.  I usually don't get a large refund back but want to get it closer to zero or even owing some.
Is it as simple as properly tweaking withholdings via the W-4?  If so, how...and any other (legal) tips/tricks people use?

Member Summary
Most Recent Posts
Op asked how to avoid getting such a large "Refund" (Intended definition of refund appears to be "Money mailed to the Fi... (more)

videogamesaremylife (Feb. 25, 2017 @ 1:35p) |

fwuser12 (Feb. 25, 2017 @ 4:09p) |

If you got a refund last year, (and you got a raise this year), up your withholding by 2 this year, both FED and STATE. ... (more)

lotusgardener (Feb. 27, 2017 @ 12:51p) |

Staff Summary
Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

rated:
It's as simple as tweaking your W4. That provides some crude calculations, but if you have reason to think that will not reflect your taxes owed, you should just enter whatever you know will work. There are penalties for underpayment based on coming within $1k of your actual taxes due or paying at least what you owed last year. Check those rules and adjust your W4 again if things change during the tax year.

rated:
I use this three or four times during the year to tweak my withholding based on changes in income, realized or anticipated capital gains, bonuses, finalizing of prior year's tax return, etc.  I highly recommend it.

IRS Withholding Calculator 

Edit to add that the article you linked is really sad, and the so-called reporters really did a disservice by not taking advantage of a teachable moment.  Most of that "refund" was probably welfare though in the form of the EITC and other handouts/credits.

rated:
CrAsian said:   This article is about a lady that works a minimum wage job and got back $5,600 as a tax refund.
Good for her for paying her rent and keeping a roof over her family's head, but...
Woman pays entire year's rent with tax refund 

I am tax-stupid and wanted to better understand how not to give the government such a large, interest free loan myself.  I usually don't get a large refund back but want to get it closer to zero or even owing some.
Is it as simple as properly tweaking withholdings via the W-4?  If so, how...and any other (legal) tips/tricks people use?

  

Since she has minimum wage and is a mother (indicating 1 or more children) these are things that you may not be able to fully indicate on your W4. Since the W4 is about how much to withhold on your paycheck, it can't exactly account for instances where you are given MORE back in taxes than you pay in. Judging by having minimum wage and being a single mother, I highly suspect that to be the case here.

It is a known fact that approximately 40% of this country actually takes more back every year than they put in to taxes. This means they don't actually pay any income tax since it's a net loss from the government.

rated:
justignoredem said:   
 
It is a known fact that approximately 40% of this country actually takes more back every year than they put in to taxes. This means they don't actually pay any income tax since it's a net loss from the government.

  that doesn't take into account the sales tax and gas tax they pay. As many here are quick to remind

rated:
rufflesinc said:   
justignoredem said:   
 
It is a known fact that approximately 40% of this country actually takes more back every year than they put in to taxes. This means they don't actually pay any income tax since it's a net loss from the government.

  that doesn't take into account the sales tax and gas tax they pay. As many here are quick to remind

  
And as few remind you apparently since you're obviously uninformed, sales and use taxes as well as many other excise and indirect taxes are not federal taxes. They do not go to the federal government, which is what we are talking about. Please quit connecting the two because they are not the same and they do not address the problem. 

There is a federal gasoline tax, however - I guess I can give you that with the whopping total of 18.4 cents/gal... But actually, I won't give you that. Because the point of the federal gasoline tax was to pay for infrastructure and maintenance as part of citizens USING the infrastructure. As you can see with our awesome amazing infrastructure, it's clearly not enough to even account for that.

rated:
SlimTim said:   It's as simple as tweaking your W4. That provides some crude calculations, but if you have reason to think that will not reflect your taxes owed, you should just enter whatever you know will work. There are penalties for underpayment based on coming within $1k of your actual taxes due or paying at least what you owed last year. Check those rules and adjust your W4 again if things change during the tax year.
The underpayment penalty is a good thing to look out for.  Exactly why I posted...to get that kind of info/reminder.
dcwilbur, thanks for the link to that.  I need to run through that for myself and the wife.

rated:
justignoredem said:   
rufflesinc said:   
justignoredem said:   
 
It is a known fact that approximately 40% of this country actually takes more back every year than they put in to taxes. This means they don't actually pay any income tax since it's a net loss from the government.

  that doesn't take into account the sales tax and gas tax they pay. As many here are quick to remind

  
And as few remind you apparently since you're obviously uninformed, sales and use taxes as well as many other excise and indirect taxes are not federal taxes. They do not go to the federal government, which is what we are talking about. Please quit connecting the two because they are not the same and they do not address the problem. 

 

  ah but thats not what you said. see the bold. The feds aren't the only govt.  I'm not the one making these statements about other taxes than income tax.

In any event that 40% are poor. I have no problem with people barely making above min wage paying no taxes. They are not the problem.

rated:
rufflesinc said:   
justignoredem said:   
rufflesinc said:   
justignoredem said:   
 
It is a known fact that approximately 40% of this country actually takes more back every year than they put in to taxes. This means they don't actually pay any income tax since it's a net loss from the government.

  that doesn't take into account the sales tax and gas tax they pay. As many here are quick to remind

  
And as few remind you apparently since you're obviously uninformed, sales and use taxes as well as many other excise and indirect taxes are not federal taxes. They do not go to the federal government, which is what we are talking about. Please quit connecting the two because they are not the same and they do not address the problem. 

 

  ah but thats not what you said. see the bold. The feds aren't the only govt. 

In any event that 40% are poor. I have no problem with people barely making above min wage paying no taxes. They are not the problem.

 
The topic of conversation is the federal income tax W4. I do not need to re-state the topic of the thread, that is kind of what the OP is for. Sorry that you have issues connecting the OP to every single reply.

rated:
justignoredem said:   
rufflesinc said:   
justignoredem said:   
rufflesinc said:   
justignoredem said:   
 
It is a known fact that approximately 40% of this country actually takes more back every year than they put in to taxes. This means they don't actually pay any income tax since it's a net loss from the government.

  that doesn't take into account the sales tax and gas tax they pay. As many here are quick to remind

  
And as few remind you apparently since you're obviously uninformed, sales and use taxes as well as many other excise and indirect taxes are not federal taxes. They do not go to the federal government, which is what we are talking about. Please quit connecting the two because they are not the same and they do not address the problem. 

 

  ah but thats not what you said. see the bold. The feds aren't the only govt. 

In any event that 40% are poor. I have no problem with people barely making above min wage paying no taxes. They are not the problem.

 
The topic of conversation is the federal income tax W4. I do not need to re-state the topic of the thread, that is kind of what the OP is for. Sorry that you have issues connecting the OP to every single reply.

  Don't get mad when you make general statements then expect people to think it's specific to X . maybe YOU should stay on topic and discuss W-4 instead of raking on the poor. there's a thought.

rated:
Ruffles - give it a break.  There's no way that woman had $5,600 "withheld" from her minimum wage salary, and there's little to no chance that she paid anywhere near that much in taxes to any other government entity through various sales and use taxes.  I'm sympathetic to the poor, but calling that a "tax refund" is just plain wrong; it is nothing of the sort.  I have no problem with earners at a certain level paying no federal income tax, but calling it anything other than public assistance or welfare or in plain terms, a government handout, is simply inaccurate.  Yet, we have institutionalized the nomenclature so as not to offend or stigmatize.

rated:
dcwilbur said:     I have no problem with earners at a certain level paying no federal income tax, but calling it anything other than public assistance or welfare or in plain terms, a government handout, is simply inaccurate. 
  So are we going to start calling the mortgage interest deduction public assistance or welfare or in plain terms, a government handout?
there's little to no chance that she paid anywhere near that much in taxes to any other government entity through various sales and use taxes
Given the math some posters here use to convince us of high tax burden, i wouldn't be surprised if she did. And lets not forget she indirectly pays the property taxes on her rental

rated:
rufflesinc said:   
dcwilbur said:     I have no problem with earners at a certain level paying no federal income tax, but calling it anything other than public assistance or welfare or in plain terms, a government handout, is simply inaccurate. 
  So are we going to start calling the mortgage interest deduction public assistance or welfare or in plain terms, a government handout?
there's little to no chance that she paid anywhere near that much in taxes to any other government entity through various sales and use taxes
Given the math some posters here use to convince us of high tax burden, i wouldn't be surprised if she did. And lets not forget she indirectly pays the property taxes on her rental

 
That would be an incentive to purchase a home. Another home built is another home to charge property taxes to. Another built home is more jobs, etc... The same can't be said for what the story is referring to.

Furthermore, I have a home and pay interest - even combined with my taxes I am still no where near over the hump of the standard deduction. In fact I'm not even halfway there. So no, please don't compare a random tax deduction to tax credits and such that have to first beat the standard deduction.

 

rated:
justignoredem said:   rufflesinc said:   
dcwilbur said:     I have no problem with earners at a certain level paying no federal income tax, but calling it anything other than public assistance or welfare or in plain terms, a government handout, is simply inaccurate. 
  So are we going to start calling the mortgage interest deduction public assistance or welfare or in plain terms, a government handout?
there's little to no chance that she paid anywhere near that much in taxes to any other government entity through various sales and use taxes
Given the math some posters here use to convince us of high tax burden, i wouldn't be surprised if she did. And lets not forget she indirectly pays the property taxes on her rental

 
That would be an incentive to purchase a home. Another home built is another home to charge property taxes to. Another built home is more jobs, etc... The same can't be said for what the story is referring to.


 

Sure it is, if the person has more disposal income that can also be put into the economy.

And many economists disagree with your view of the mortgage interest deduction.

And then there's the lower taxation of cap gains compared to regular income.

rated:
Hate to break it to you, but money is fungible. One person's deduction = another's credit = another's welfare = another's entitlement.

rated:
rufflesinc said:   
justignoredem said:   
rufflesinc said:   
dcwilbur said:     I have no problem with earners at a certain level paying no federal income tax, but calling it anything other than public assistance or welfare or in plain terms, a government handout, is simply inaccurate. 
  So are we going to start calling the mortgage interest deduction public assistance or welfare or in plain terms, a government handout?
there's little to no chance that she paid anywhere near that much in taxes to any other government entity through various sales and use taxes
Given the math some posters here use to convince us of high tax burden, i wouldn't be surprised if she did. And lets not forget she indirectly pays the property taxes on her rental

 
That would be an incentive to purchase a home. Another home built is another home to charge property taxes to. Another built home is more jobs, etc... The same can't be said for what the story is referring to.


 

Sure it is, if the person has more disposal income that can also be put into the economy.

And many economists disagree with your view of the mortgage interest deduction.

And then there's the lower taxation of cap gains compared to regular income.

  
That is quite possibly the dumbest argument I've ever heard. In that regard, anytime you take money from one person and give it to another you would therefore "be giving someone more disposal income"

Whereas, a tax incentive for buying a home does all of the following:
-Creates more demand, hence more homes being built. As of right now, they can't build homes fast enough, currently they can't keep up with the demand it's so high
-More homes built means more jobs for construction workers
-More property taxes paid. 
-Jobs/Demand for Realtors for Buying/Selling homes
-Jobs/Demand for Title Companies for Buying/Selling Homes
-Jobs/Demand for Banks to provide loans.
-Future money into the economy for maintaining the home (HVAC, Plumbing, Cleaning, Lawn Maintenance, the list goes on and on)

That's just off the top of my head for economically beneficial items that come from a new home buyer. I'm sure there are plenty more.

What I will give you is that I do not think these types of deductions are appropriate for high cost of living areas. The problem is that there is an obvious advantage to high cost of living areas when the standard deduction is the same regardless of the area you live in. Obviously it's easier to get over that standard deduction threshold when the minimum home price is $700k vs $100k.

 

rated:
justignoredem said:   rufflesinc said:   
justignoredem said:   
rufflesinc said:   
dcwilbur said:     I have no problem with earners at a certain level paying no federal income tax, but calling it anything other than public assistance or welfare or in plain terms, a government handout, is simply inaccurate. 
  So are we going to start calling the mortgage interest deduction public assistance or welfare or in plain terms, a government handout?
there's little to no chance that she paid anywhere near that much in taxes to any other government entity through various sales and use taxes
Given the math some posters here use to convince us of high tax burden, i wouldn't be surprised if she did. And lets not forget she indirectly pays the property taxes on her rental

 
That would be an incentive to purchase a home. Another home built is another home to charge property taxes to. Another built home is more jobs, etc... The same can't be said for what the story is referring to.


 

Sure it is, if the person has more disposal income that can also be put into the economy.

And many economists disagree with your view of the mortgage interest deduction.

And then there's the lower taxation of cap gains compared to regular income.

  
That is quite possibly the dumbest argument I've ever heard. In that regard, anytime you take money from one person and give it to another you would therefore "be giving someone more disposal income"

Whereas, a tax incentive for buying a home does all of the following:
-Creates more demand, hence more homes being built.
-More homes built means more jobs for construction workers
-More property taxes paid. 
-Jobs/Demand for Realtors for Buying/Selling homes
-Jobs/Demand for Title Companies for Buying/Selling Homes
-Jobs/Demand for Banks to provide loans.
-Future money into the economy for maintaining the home (HVAC, Plumbing, Cleaning, Lawn Maintenance, the list goes on and on)

That's just off the top of my head for economically beneficial items that come from a new home buyer. I'm sure there are plenty more.

What I will give you is that I do not think these types of deductions are appropriate for high cost of living areas. The problem is that there is an obvious advantage to high cost of living areas when the standard deduction is the same regardless of the area you live in. Obviously it's easier to get over that standard deduction threshold when the minimum home price is $700k vs $100k.

 

Economists disagree with you.

rated:
What is lost in the tax discussion is the fact that the lady handed a large interest free loan to her landlord. Just so her rent is covered for the year and she will have an "extra 450 a month to do things with my kids". Duh!

Almost everyone on her FB post (which went viral) have been praising the good financial move. Unfortunately, for many people, getting a hefty tax refund is an important vehicle for forced savings.

Incidentally, the article does state she has two children and recently "celebrated three years clean".

rated:
fwuser12 said:    recently "celebrated three years clean".
  maybe she had acne problem and is  just clean and clear and under control

rated:
To OP - how you reduce your withholding is to adjust the allowances on the W-4. You can try to set it up so you remain in the safe harbor. Technically, the underpayment penalty that the safe harbor relieves you of is distinct from the penalty for claiming too many withholding allowances. I say technically because you could still run into a problem even if you meet the safe harbor. I've never heard of this happening, but just something to consider that it is possible. I suppose one may be worried about that if they're using a PY safe harbor and their income this year is substantially higher than last year, and they over-report allowances. It may also be problematic if you do something like claim exemption from federal withholding on the W-4 and just submit quarterly estimated payment to meet PY safe harbor.

rated:
justignoredem said:   It is a known fact that approximately 40% of this country actually takes more back every year than they put in to taxes. This means they don't actually pay any income tax since it's a net loss from the government.
  
What are you saying here?  

40%  (probably 35-50%) of the country doesn't pay income taxes.

To take more back than you put in you'd be paying negative income taxes.   

But only a small % of them pay negative taxes.    Most of them just have $0 tax liability.      THere are  a lot of people who pay no taxes because of social security being mostly exempt or simply having a lot of deductions and zeroing out their tax bill.   To get more than you pay you have to have refundable credits.   THose are primarily the child tax credit or EITC.   

So its not accurate to say 40% gets more back than they put in.    

You could say 40% (or 45% or whatever it is) get more back than they pay or pay nothing.
 

rated:
A single mother working minimum wage full time in South Carolina would make $7.25/hr or $14,500 based on 2080 work year. (assuming she works full time and she may not). Filing as head of household with 2 kids she'd get a $7,384 tax refund with zero taxes paid.

If she made $11,000 income for the year with 2 kids then she'd get back ~$5600 with zero taxes paid.

The EITC and child tax credits are pretty generous for low income single working parents.

Of course we may be missing details in her income and taxes. I assume no income other than the job and no other deductions.

rated:
jerosen said:   A single mother working minimum wage full time in South Carolina would make $7.25/hr or $14,500 based on 2080 work year. (assuming she works full time and she may not). Filing as head of household with 2 kids she'd get a $7,384 tax refund with zero federal income taxes paid, and approximately $1,100 in federal payroll taxes paid directly.

If she made $11,000 income for the year with 2 kids then she'd get back ~$5600 with zero taxes paid.

The EITC and child tax credits are pretty generous for low income single working parents.

Of course we may be missing details in her income and taxes. I assume no income other than the job and no other deductions.
 

  Fixed it for you

rated:
marginoferror said:   
jerosen said:   A single mother working minimum wage full time in South Carolina would make $7.25/hr or $14,500 based on 2080 work year. (assuming she works full time and she may not). Filing as head of household with 2 kids she'd get a $7,384 tax refund with zero federal income taxes paid, and approximately $1,100 in federal payroll taxes paid directly.

If she made $11,000 income for the year with 2 kids then she'd get back ~$5600 with zero taxes paid.

The EITC and child tax credits are pretty generous for low income single working parents.

Of course we may be missing details in her income and taxes. I assume no income other than the job and no other deductions.

  Fixed it for you

  
You should have fixed my math while you were at it.

$14,500 should be $15,080    (7.25 * 2080)
 

rated:
marginoferror said:   
jerosen said:   A single mother working minimum wage full time in South Carolina would make $7.25/hr or $14,500 based on 2080 work year. (assuming she works full time and she may not). Filing as head of household with 2 kids she'd get a $7,384 tax refund with zero federal income taxes paid, and approximately $1,100 in federal payroll taxes paid directly.

If she made $11,000 income for the year with 2 kids then she'd get back ~$5600 with zero taxes paid.

The EITC and child tax credits are pretty generous for low income single working parents.

Of course we may be missing details in her income and taxes. I assume no income other than the job and no other deductions.

  Fixed it for you

  
Yes,yes, god knows you have clarify what kind of taxes for the mentally handicapped. I know, I know, it's hard to connect federal income taxes as the default taxes for income. That would require thought process and reasoning.

rated:
justignoredem said:   
marginoferror said:   
jerosen said:   A single mother working minimum wage full time in South Carolina would make $7.25/hr or $14,500 based on 2080 work year. (assuming she works full time and she may not). Filing as head of household with 2 kids she'd get a $7,384 tax refund with zero federal income taxes paid, and approximately $1,100 in federal payroll taxes paid directly.

If she made $11,000 income for the year with 2 kids then she'd get back ~$5600 with zero taxes paid.

The EITC and child tax credits are pretty generous for low income single working parents.

Of course we may be missing details in her income and taxes. I assume no income other than the job and no other deductions.

  Fixed it for you

  
Yes,yes, god knows you have clarify what kind of taxes for the mentally handicapped. I know, I know, it's hard to connect federal income taxes as the default taxes for income. That would require thought process and reasoning.

  because certain posters here insist on adding all taxes to inflate tax burden

rated:
justignoredem said:   
marginoferror said:   
jerosen said:   A single mother working minimum wage full time in South Carolina would make $7.25/hr or $14,500 based on 2080 work year. (assuming she works full time and she may not). Filing as head of household with 2 kids she'd get a $7,384 tax refund with zero federal income taxes paid, and approximately $1,100 in federal payroll taxes paid directly.

If she made $11,000 income for the year with 2 kids then she'd get back ~$5600 with zero taxes paid.

The EITC and child tax credits are pretty generous for low income single working parents.

Of course we may be missing details in her income and taxes. I assume no income other than the job and no other deductions.

  Fixed it for you

  
Yes,yes, god knows you have clarify what kind of taxes for the mentally handicapped. I know, I know, it's hard to connect federal income taxes as the default taxes for income. That would require thought process and reasoning.

  It's important when you're talking about federal tax burden and whether people are paying more into the system than they're taking out to look at all taxes. The importance is even greater when the EITC was specifically designed to reduce the payroll tax burden for low income workers. To not take payroll taxes into account, yet taking the EITC into account when determining how much people are paying into the system makes the conclusion unhelpful. Also, to your point, I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say, but the majority of people fail to consider payroll taxes when looking at tax burden. It could be insidious considering that the payroll tax is regressive.

rated:
Op asked how to avoid getting such a large "Refund" (Intended definition of refund appears to be "Money mailed to the Filer by the IRS / government." You can argue semantics of various definitions indefinitely.) Of course this morphed into a political argument. Prior to answering the question, let me first flame the fire with some entitled comments:
1. The EIC 'rewards' people for having a lower income. To survive on a lower income you have no choice but to live parts of your life in a more 'efficient manner'. If you're jealous of people making this income. " Feel free to follow suit". In my mind, people are 'paying me to live in a Environmentally friendly manner' I get a tax benefit for living small. You get a tax penalty for living large. Thank you very much! ***
*** Of course the EIC is designed to encourage people to work. This is how I choose to interpret it... Because I can.


ANSWER TO OPS QUESTION:

Yes filling out a W4 aggressively will ensure you "Do not overpay." However the lowest it can go is eliminating your with-holdings.
For someone receiving the EIC, which is highly likely under the article's circumstance:  Update: It looks like getting a huge refund is the only option if you have already lowered your withholding to Zero.  Thank You fwuser12
[code]T̶h̶e̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶p̶e̶r̶s̶o̶n̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶f̶i̶l̶l̶ ̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶a̶ ̶W̶5̶ ̶w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ ̶i̶s̶:̶ ̶E̶a̶r̶n̶e̶d̶ ̶I̶n̶c̶o̶m̶e̶ ̶C̶r̶e̶d̶i̶t̶ ̶A̶d̶v̶a̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶P̶a̶y̶m̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶C̶e̶r̶t̶i̶f̶i̶c̶a̶t̶e̶.̶ ̶T̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶w̶i̶l̶l̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶o̶w̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶e̶m̶p̶l̶o̶y̶e̶r̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶P̶a̶y̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶"̶w̶e̶l̶f̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶p̶a̶y̶m̶e̶n̶t̶*̶*̶*̶*̶ ̶(̶E̶I̶C̶̶"̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶a̶d̶v̶a̶n̶c̶e̶.̶[/code]

**** I believe many people would like me to use this name used when I refer to the EIC.

Some portions of the "Child Tax Credit" is refundable for low income filers. However I am not aware of a way to get this refund in advance.


Fun Fact: While few people could do the following, a married couple with 2 kids can get a large EIC with a pretty decent income before large deductions:
$58,000 Gross Income.
-$35,000 401K deductions. (17.5K Each Spouse)
(Use Roth IRA if you have additional money to invest.)
=$23,000 Earned income / AGI. Thank You America rewarding my ability to reproduce and live within my means with a $5,600 Earned income credit. Oh and don't forget Free Insurance (For now) in most states.

Best regards. Be sure to live life to the fullest. Time spent criticizing others , is better spent making your own life better.

--------------------------

.
.
(FYI I haven't played VideoGames for many years. However for anyone wishing to criticize me, I do spend way too much time in my Garden and Online.)

rated:
videogamesaremylife said:   For someone receiving the EIC, which is highly likely under the article's circumstance: Then the person can fill out a W5 which is: Earned Income Credit Advance Payment Certificate. This will allow your employer to Pay your "welfare payment**** (EIC)" in advance.
The above information is outdated and not valid anymore.
IRS linky
IRS Employer's Tax Guide said: The option of receiving advance payroll payments of EIC expires on December 31, 2010. Individuals who received advance payments of EIC in 2010 must file a 2010 federal income tax return. Individuals eligible for EIC in 2011 can still claim the credit when they file their 2011 federal income tax return. In addition, if any of your employees expect to be eligible for the EIC and will have income tax withheld from wages in 2011, they may reduce their withholding in order to receive the benefit of a portion of the credit throughout the year.

 

rated:
If you got a refund last year, (and you got a raise this year), up your withholding by 2 this year, both FED and STATE. If you get a refund next year, up your withholding by 2 next year. Keep going until you find that sweet spot. I claim 9 and 7 on my paycheck, yet still get a refund every year. Been trying to narrow that down.

  • Quick Reply:  Have something quick to contribute? Just reply below and you're done! hide Quick Reply
     
    Click here for full-featured reply.


Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2017