by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, CONSTITUTION, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
The practice of asset forfeiture by the IRS has been highlighted in recent months due to a high-profile case involving a woman who had roughly $33,000 of her money seized by the IRS. The IRS claimed her “pattern” of depositing the money she earned from her restaurant — typically cash and often in sums under $10,000 — was suspicious enough to warrant the plundering of her account.
Several weeks after the public outcry about this woman’s plight, the IRS dropped the case and agreed to return her funds. But here’s the problem. It’s not enough to just give the money back. The IRS needs, at the very least, to pay civil damages. They took assets from a woman who committed no crime, who wasn’t even charged with any crime.
More importantly, the IRS needs to investigate how this case even came about. There was no preponderance of evidence that any crime occurred. There was virtually nothing. The case occurred because an IRS representative watched her accounts over a period of time, and decided – with no basis, investigation, or even inquiry with the taxpayer – that her method of deposits (for which she had a perfectly valid reason in connection with her perfectly legal, decades-owned business) violated a law typically meant to catch money launderers and drug dealers. That is reprehensible.
A few days after the article came out about the case, the IRS issued a policy change over the practice. The IRS stated, “the agency will no longer pursue asset forfeiture in cases in which the source of the funds is legal except in exceptional circumstances and only with the approval of the director of field operations.” This means nothing and changes nothing — because someone higher up on the IRS food chain can still sign off on cases, or when someone within the IRS deems it “an exceptional circumstance”. It’s not good enough.
If the IRS is sincere about regaining the public trust, it needs to clean house, starting with the agents involved in this and other similar forfeiture cases.
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, POLITICS, RETIREMENT, SOCIAL SECURITY, TAX TIPS, TAXES
They say March comes in like a lion and goes out like a lamb. That expression is also applicable to persons in their 80s — they go in like a lion and out like a lamb. As they start going along in those years, their ability to discern and filter out the problematic elements of society become worn down.
We see the elderly become more vulnerable to Nigeria scams, people selling them bad investments, being taken advantage of on the streets. It is incumbent for children, therefore, to protect their parents. They must think about their parents’ style of living as well as their physical and mental capabilities — preferably in advance.
As an accountant, I typically see three styles of living for older folks:
1) Independent — As parents get older, they try to work out a simple living situation. They will find a small, basic home to live in, usually comprised of one floor and no stairs, and relatively inexpensive. The parent wants to live on his or her own which opens the person up to some vulnerability, but hopefully the parents have a decent support network
2) Shared space — Here is the situation where a parent moves in with one of their children. Depending on the capacity of the parent, he or she can either contribute as a grandparent, or else carry along medical issues that will impact the household.
3) The independent living facility — This is a growing movement, which, in many ways, is also starting to become the best choice for many. With this type of facility, costs are not exceedingly expensive, and the ability to have medical help nearby as needed is usually seen as a huge benefit.
Whatever the case may be for choosing a particular living situation over another, it is imperative for everyone involved to plan in advance. Often it becomes too late and untenable to move a parent out into a home or an independent living facility because the parent, in their advanced age, does not or cannot make such a life altering change without difficulty, resentment, and confusion.
As people are living longer and more productive lives, the need to plan for the advanced years is best done early on, with everyone involved in conversations and calculations. There is no one-sized-fits-all approach, but whatever decision is made, should be a well-thought out plan that takes into account both dignity and finances.
by | ARTICLES, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
The rapid rise of public sector jobs is a cause for alarm. While the private sector still struggles with an anemic economy, the government has expanded its employment steadily throughout the economic downturn. A majority of private sector workers rightly believe that the public sector has better wage and benefit compensation than its private counterparts.
With the continuous expansion of public sector jobs comes the cost to the taxpayer to fund the numerous positions. In order to rein in the Leviathan, I propose the following: there should be a requirement that restricts any federal government employee from receiving a raise if it puts his compensation in excess of the wages and benefits paid for the same work in the private sector.
Such a restriction should include the cost of all benefits. Private companies have a several factors in place that help control runaway costs, chief among them being competition. The profit motive in the private sector keeps compensation at levels where economic factors limit them to their true market value, reflecting economically rational, “fair” compensation levels. On the other hand, there are no such competitive inhibitions in the public sector where politics and cronyism rather than economics create an “Alice in Wonderland” “negotiation” for wages and benefits.
By “competing”, per se, with the private sector for a raise, the government can help keep budget and deficits from soaring — and taxpayer from continuously being fleeced.
by | ARTICLES, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Rubio is right and Rand Paul is wrong on the recent Obama deal with Cuba. As someone who spent more than 14 weeks over the last decade in Cuba, I can personally refute the following falsities that are being circulated by supporters of Obama’s rapproachment with Castro.
1) The Cuban people like Castro: This is a joke. Everyone knows if Castro speaks, they must listen on the radio. So they turn up the radio loudly in their own homes – it is common knowledge that there are informers on every block working for the Cuban government — and then they go into another room to avoid actually having to listen to his speeches.
2) Expanding American business will allow the Cubans to see what it is like in America: The Cubans already know what it is like in America — because they know how poor they really are. They just can’t do anything about it because there is such a tightly controlled police state. I recall speaking with a woman and her 12 year old daughter. The woman explained that they had virtually nothing to do. They just spent each day existing with no real life. But it brought tears to my eyes when the woman asked, “are we even more poor than the people in Afghanistan?” She had caught snatches of what was going on over there and from what she could tell, the Cubans were even poorer. Coupled with the fact that their government is brutal, they are resigned to the fact that they can do nothing to improve their own station in life.
3) The Cuban people are generally safe: This is also patently untrue. The police harass citizens for no reason and the people are afraid to travel about their country. There was one episode where I took some people traveling from one city to a nearby beach. Neither of our companions, ladies in their late 20s, had ever been more than 20 miles from their home. When we got to the beach, as long as they stayed with us, they were fine. But they took a smoke break for a few minutes away from us, and when they did not return after about 5 minutes, we went looking for them. We found the ladies being grilled by the police as to why they were not in their hometown. They finally released the girls back to our custody because we were foreigners with hard currency. From there we went on to Havana. The ladies were so afraid at the episode that had just taken place, they would not even dare emerge from the car when we arrived in Havana — even though these girls had never been to the city before. Their brief exchange with Castro’s police was that horrific.
The main reason to oppose this deal is that it will accomplish nothing other than put more money in the Government’s hands, allowing them to be even more brutal to their people. What the Cubans see is that we made a deal with their government, who has made their lives miserable for the last half-century. Rubio is right when he points out that this arrangement will likely do nothing to improve the lives of the Cubans — which should be the basis for any policy initiatives with regard to Cuba. Though I agree with many things Rand Paul has to say, on this issue, he is uninformed.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, TAXES
If you are an Obamacare recipient, you may find you owe money at tax time for Obamacare subsidies that you received if you had income or life changes in the year that you didn’t report to the Marketplace.
Most people who purchased Obamacare plans found they were eligible for subsidies to help offset the cost of their insurance premium payments. These subsidies are officially called “premium tax credits”. Enrollees had the option of applying none, some, or all of their premium tax credit to their insurance costs. Those that applied some or all saw their monthly premiums lowered as a result. Those who chose not to apply the premium tax credit to their plan at the time would instead see the tax credit applied to their tax returns — either lessening a balance owed, or adding to a refund amount.
Subsidies were calculated based on a person’s income and family size. In a situation where an enrolled person has had a straightforward year from start to finish with no major life or income changes to report, it is likely that there will be no problems or unwarranted surprises at tax time.
If, however, an enrolled person received their premium tax credits to help offset the cost of their premiums, but then had a life change or income change, their income tax returns will probably be affected. Examples of such changes include, “A move, an increase or decrease in income, a marriage or divorce, the birth or adoption of a child, whether you started a job that offers health insurance and whether you gained or lost eligibility for other health care coverage.”
Once you file your tax return next spring, the IRS will look at your actual income earned in 2014, and will compare it to the amount of income that was estimated and entered on the enrollment forms for Obamacare. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have recently noted that “at least 279,000 households reported incomes that still don’t match what the government has on record”. For those households, documentation has been requested and needs to be received by September 30th.
For those who have had a life or income change during the past year, it is imperative to report it now if it already hasn’t been reported to the exchange — either a state exchange or healthcare.gov. In this way, if tax credits need to be adjusted up or down based on the change, it’ll be done ahead of tax time.
For those whose life change may have potentially decreased the amount of tax credit available, filers may find they owe at tax time. Here’s how:
“Premium tax credits are available to individuals and families with incomes between 100% of the federal poverty line ($23,550 for a family of four this year) and 400% of the federal poverty line ($94,200 for a family of four) who purchase coverage in the health insurance marketplace in their state.
The tax credits are paid directly to the insurer, if taken in advance. People are not required to take the entire credit in advance. Realistically, if you cannot afford insurance, you’d need some credit in advance.
To be sure, there are some caps on the amount filers must pay back and the cap is based on household income. The cap ranges from $300 to $1,250 for some single taxpayers and $600 to $2,500 for married taxpayers, again based on income.
But if the income is 400% or more above the poverty line, there is no cap and the taxpayer must pay back the full amount.”
Health care officials realize that many people aren’t aware they are expected to keep their life and income information current, but because the proper subsidies depend on accurate information for accurate calculations, they are trying to get word out.
If you think you might have changes that could potentially impact your tax credit, you can use this calculator from the Kaiser Family Foundation website to assess your situation.
by | ARTICLES, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, TAXES
I joined the Tea Party in my locality a few years ago when it began because I sincerely believed in its simple, but extremely powerful and direct message:
Low Taxes
Limited, Constitutional Government
Individual liberty
and nothing else. The Tea Party was not to be a political “Party” with positions on every subject under the sun. It would only be involved in its particular concerns, so as not to dilute its message.
Then what is this nonsense, especially in the last year, regarding certain Tea Party groups espousing opinions on other hot-button items? The Tea Party vowed not to stray from its points. With the number of varying “Tea Party” groups all taking on extraneous — and not always agreeing — positions, it only serves to give ammunition to other groups to discredit the Tea Party on non “core” Tea Party issues and point out their inconsistency. This does not help the cause of low taxes, limited government, and individual liberty.
It is not necessary to have an opinion and position on every little thing. The Tea Party would do well to focus on its core tenets only and continue to push that unified message.
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
Peter Shumlin, a Democrat governor from one of the most liberal states, made a jaw-dropping admission when he released his much-awaited plan for a single payer health system in Vermont. Shumlin’s proposal called for massive tax increases to pay for the system, which Shumlin himself called “detrimental to Vermonters”. Shumlin stated,
“These are simply not tax rates that I can responsibly support or urge the Legislature to pass. In my judgment, the potential economic disruption and risks would be too great to small businesses, working families and the state’s economy.”
Support for this proposal was tepid at best. His plan, which he eventually submitted after missing two financing deadlines, called for “businesses to take on a double-digit payroll tax, while individuals would face up to a 9.5 percent premium assessment.” Shumlin also stated that federal funding for the transition into such a health system was now expected to be $150 million less than originally planned, a huge amount of money at stake for such a tiny state.
Perhaps feeling the heat from the extremely narrow election in November (which he actually hasn’t officially won yet), Shumlin basically denounced his own proposal as soon as it was released. What’s more, Obamacare is particularly odious in his state right now as well, as Vermont shelled out some $400,000 in taxpayer funds to Jonathan Gruber, for health care “consulting”.
Shumlin is finally learning that, with socialism, you eventually run out of other people’s money.
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, QUICKLY NOTED, TAXES
From Fox Business:
“The health insurance industry says companies will give consumers more time to pay January’s premiums under President Barack Obama’s health care law.
The move is an attempt to head off potential problems as the Obama administration renews millions of current customers, while trying to accommodate new ones as well.
Renewing coverage each year is standard operating procedure for private insurance plans.
But 2015 is the first renewal year for the health law, and the process involves a massive electronic data transfer from the government to insurers, happening right around the holidays. Last year, many files had errors.”
The grace period was just announced after health insurance enrollment ended Monday, December 15th. Insurers are also aware for the potential problem of “double billing” from a consumer who switched plans, and will work to rectify any issues in a swift manner. So, if you purchased an Obamacare plan this year, you’ll have a little extra time to be certain that you were billed correctly, and only once.
