by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, RETIREMENT, TAXES
The Wall Street Journal unveiled the existence of a new investment plan that was created without Congressional approval. To be fair, we first heard about it during last years State of the Union address in January, 2014; Obama announced that he would instruct the Treasury to craft a new retirement plan, which the WSJ noted “was puzzling because such plans are normally created by law, not Presidential order”
Sure enough, Obama kept his word. It’s called “myRA”, and it is a retirement plan that invests solely in government debt. Here’s more:
“A form of Roth Individual Retirement Account that allows people to save after-tax dollars and watch them grow tax-free until retirement, the new myRA offers a single investment option. It’s a private version of the G Fund that is available to federal workers and has lately been delivering annual returns of about 2% on its portfolio of Treasury securities.
Intended for those who haven’t started saving for retirement, don’t have a retirement plan at work, and make less than $129,000 per year ($191,000 for married couples filing jointly), the myRA requires no minimum investment to open an account and promises no fees for investors.”
There are no other investments except in Treasury bonds. No stocks, no corporate bonds. Just Treasury bonds. And the Treasury department is funding the program.
The WSJ confirmed that the Treasury Department didn’t actually receive any authority to start his program. Instead, it is using the budget from the “Bureau of the Fiscal Service” to do so. “The assertion here is that existing law allows this part of the Treasury to hire financial agents as part of its mission to efficiently finance the federal government.” In order to manage the new program, the Treasury hired a group called Comerica and its partner, “Fidelity National Information Services”.
The WSJ raises some good questions pertaining to the existence of the program, its purpose, and its funding:
“[F]ar from delivering efficiencies for the taxpayer, this program is designed to subsidize the investors. Not that a low-yielding Treasury securities fund is the right move for these first-time investors. But this is a deal they cannot find in the marketplace because it would be unprofitable for any company to offer it, given that the investor pays no fees and can contribute as little as he wishes in regular payroll deductions. Taxpayers are covering the costs, though their elected representatives in Congress never voted to create the program. So far Treasury also hasn’t told us the fees it is paying Comerica.
The subsidies in myRAs are likely to be small at first, but the history of government programs is that they expand over time. And if such a subsidy scheme can be enacted administratively, does anyone think this will be the last time such power is exercised?
New investors should be encouraged to consider ways to build wealth beyond simply lending money to the feds. And if politicians want taxpayers to support another retirement program, they should do so through law, not White House whim.”
You can read more about myRA by going to the Treasury page. myRA is touted as “a simple, safe and affordable retirement account created by the United States Department of the Treasury for the millions of Americans who face barriers to saving for retirement.”
All this program seems to do is create another fund that is guaranteed by taxpayers, whose accounts invest in a government program — the Treasury Bond — essentially acting like a prop. How much it will cost the taxpayers remains to be seen.
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
The Daily Caller did a great job uncovering more of the information surrounding the writing and passage of Obamacare. Going back to 2009, the chief architect of Obamacare, Jonathan Gruber, made two very specific points about the bill: 1) it is unaffordable because there are no cost controls; 2) in order to control costs, treatment would have to be denied.
Below are highlights from the 2009 policy brief:
* “The problem is it starts to go hand in hand with the mandate; you can’t mandate insurance that’s not affordable. This is going to be a major issue.”
* “So what’s different this time? Why are we closer than we’ve ever been before? Because there are no cost controls in these proposals. Because this bill’s about coverage. Which is good! Why should we hold 48 million uninsured people hostage to the fact that we don’t yet know how to control costs in a politically acceptable way? Let’s get the people covered and then let’s do cost control.”
* “The real substance of cost control is all about a single thing: telling patients they can’t have something they want. It’s about telling patients, ‘That surgery doesn’t do any good, so if you want it you have to pay the full cost.’”
* “There’s no reason the American health care system can’t be, ‘You can have whatever you want, you just have to pay for it.’ That’s what we do in other walks of life. We don’t say everyone has to have a large screen TV. If you want a large screen TV, you have to pay for it. Basically the notion would be to move to a level where everyone has a solid basic insurance level of coverage. Above that people pay on their own, without tax-subsidized dollars, to buy a higher level of coverage.”
However, what the American public was told by Obama is that Obamacare would lower the cost of insurance by $2500. Now we know, even more than ever, that we were told whatever was necessary in order to make the bill palatable enough to eke out passage in Congress despite protestations from much of around the country.
You can read the entire policy brief here.
For more on Jonathan Gruber and Obamacare, go here
How “Obamacare Was Sold on a Pack of Lies”, go here
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, 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, BLOG, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, TAXES
If you are an Obamacare enrollee, you will not be able to file your taxes next year until you receive a new Obamacare form, the 1095A. That means if the government is not on time getting the forms out, taxpayers who need the form could face a delay receiving anticipated refunds.
The proposed deadline to send out the forms is January 31, 2015, which also coincides with the date that employers must issue W-2 to their employees.
Form 1095A is necessary: filers need the forms to calculate whether they received the correct subsidy from the government, or if they owe money to cover a difference”. The IRS has a working draft on the form, but doesn’t yet include the instructions on how to calculate the proper subsidy amount — and that’s the key.
Because of the extensive problems during the Obamacare rollout and initial signup period, some folks may find that the did not receive the proper subsidy. Additionally, changes to income during the year might also affect the outcome. The Form 1095A is designed to match up the income for 2014 with the subsidy amount received. Some might find they will didn’t get enough of a subsidy and will receive money back, while others could have the opposite problem: their subsidy was too high, and they now owe money back.
So Obamacare users — be on the lookout for the 1095A early next year. Even if you have all your documentation to file your taxes, you still may not file until you receive that form. Hopefully the government will not be as late on issuing it as it was with other Obamacare related items.
by | BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS
Friday before Election Day, the Obama Administration via the Department of Education released a “gainful employment” rule applicable to higher education, which singles out a particular type of learning institution: the for-profit school. The new regulation will prohibit students from being able to receive federal student aid “unless the program can show that their graduates’ annual loan payments do not exceed 20% of discretionary income, or 8% of total earnings.” The Department of Education essentially surmises that for-profit schools do not produce quality programs.
Basically this new rule will throw many for-profit colleges out of business. It’s not the first time a regulation of this kind has been issued, either. A federal court struck down the first attempt put forth by the Administration back in 2012. And yet, this newer version is more stringent — with 7 times as many programs likely to not pass standards/criteria for “gainful employment” now. The estimate is that around 1,400 programs educating 840,000 persons will fail the new magical threshold.
The Administration has stated that the goal of the new rule is to “protect students”, and that the rule is necessary “to ensure that colleges accepting federal funds protect students, cut costs and improve outcomes.” However, the rule is not applicable to public and nonprofit institutions. When pressed for the double standard during a congressional hearing on the topic last spring, Education Secretary Arne Dune said that “development of the college rating systems would address the rest of higher education”. That is a cop-out.
So here we have an Administration interfering with the ability of adults to pursue the educational path that best fits their needs by limiting their choices through the deliberate withholding of financial aid assistance from certain schools or programs that the government deems unfit. The government has chosen to redefine the term “gainful employment” in such a way that many career pathways will now be closed at a myriad of institutions that have previously educated many — especially a large number of poor and/or minority persons. These students quite often lack parental financial assistance anyway, and now removing the option for financial aid adds another barrier to upward mobility.
This ridiculous regulation was opposed in a signed letter by 18 members each of both the Republican and Democrat parties last spring, many of whom are minorities, citing their concerns for its adverse affect on low income students and those from non traditional backgrounds. However, their non-partisan approach fell on deaf ears.
Our country has many options for education — some students thrive a four year public institution; others, a community college or small private school and still others, a for-profit institution. Though Obama has consistently championed college education, this rules changes will make it harder, not easier, for a segment of the population to become a college graduate.
Another troubling aspect is how the rule measures debt. The WSJ points out that, “if the department were merely trying to protect students, then Mr. Obama’s “Pay As You Earn” plan that caps loan payments at 10% of discretionary income would make the rule moot. This is why the rule doesn’t measure graduates’ actual loan payments, but rather the median amount of debt they incur amortized over 15 years for bachelor’s degrees. Many students take up to 25 years to repay their loans.”
And more: “This economic reality is why the Administration is steering students toward loan forgiveness plans like Pay As You Earn. Grads who find non-gainful employment in government or at a nonprofit can get their loans forgiven after 10 years of modest payments. So the White House is encouraging graduates to pursue low-paying jobs in “public service” even as it punishes for-profit colleges whose graduates do precisely that.”
The Administration is once again picking winners and losers, this time in the realm of education. The new rule essentially encourages students to pursue their education — but only at places whose programs and operations are subsidized by taxpayer dollars.
by | FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAX TIPS, TAXES
If you are one of the millions of Americans who declined health insurance and decided to pay the fee tax fine penalty, be aware that it will be a part of your 2014 tax calculations. The penalty for 2014 is relatively cheap, a means to transition Obamacare into your life, but next year and subsequent years, the penalty goes up swiftly — pressuring you to get a health insurance plan or else pay a somewhat hefty price.
Here’s how it works:
“Beginning in 2014, absent a qualified exemption, you will be required to obtain health insurance. If you fail to comply, you will be subject to a penalty of 1.0% of your annual income or $95.00, whichever is greater. In 2015, the penalty increases to the greater of 2.0% of annual income or $325 per person. The following year it becomes the greater of 2.5% of income or $695 per person. After 2016, it will be indexed to the cost of living. It should also be noted that the maximum penalty is capped at three times the per person penalty. For example, if you earn $28,500 in 2014, 1.0% of your income would equal $285. Therefore, if you earn more than this, your maximum penalty would remain the same. All penalties will be due and payable with your annual federal income tax return. Hence, the penalty for 2014 would be due by April 15, 2015 and the IRS will be the collection agency used.”
The method of assessing and collection the fee is through the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The fee will be collected by deducting its cost from a person’s tax refund. But for those who don’t get a refund, the IRS isn’t allowed to demand payment either, so it is unclear how those fees will be attained. This ambiguity also leads to further questions about how Obamacare is being actually being paid for (as the penalty is one of the revenues to help offset the costs).
“For Americans unsure how the mandate applies to them, there’s plenty of information available from the government itself and from many third-party web sites. The law was designed to make it cheaper for most people to buy insurance than pay the penalty fee, which rises from $95 per person or 1% of your income (whichever is greater) in 2014, to $325 per person or 2% of your income in 2015. (In 2015, the maximum penalty is the national average premium for a bronze plan.)”
Don’t forget too: if you are an Obamacare user, you will have to file an extra form with your taxes, the 1095A. The IRS has a working draft on the form, but doesn’t yet include the instructions on how to calculate the proper subsidy amount. This could potentially cause issues for those who wish to file their taxes right away, because they will have to wait until they receive their form in the mail from the government. To learn more, read here.
