by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
On a recent post over at Cafe Hayek, my friend Don Boudreaux discusses the merits of minimum wage policy. A gentleman, Mr. Hutcheson, wrote in to chide the writers, saying that Boudreaux and others “who argue that the minimum wage destroys some jobs miss the point.” Mr. Hutchinson insisted that the real point is “the amount of harm to low income workers compared to the benefits of going to other low-income workers.”
Boudreaux correctly responded that minimum wage legislation is unethical because the government strips “some people of economic opportunity in order to artificially enhance the opportunities available to other people.”
Although Don’s response is certainly correct, I do not believe arguments of fairness, morals, or constitutionality carry much weight with the standard liberal position espoused by Mr. Hutcheson. I believe that he needs to understand that raising the minimum wage hurts everyone, as other individuals and the economy as a whole are outright harmed by such policy by much more than than those who are helped. This can be seen by realizing that the money that is now going to a higher minimum wage WILL NECESSARILY cause one or a combination of the following:
1) In an attempt to offset the higher minimum wage, the business will fire or refuse to hire other employees. Especially from the poorest among us, many individuals. will either lose their job or not be able to get jobs at all moving forward. The cost of raising the minimum wage is just like the cost of raising a commodity. For instance, consider the scenario where the price of apples — a basic pantry item for most everybody — goes from $1.50/pound to $2.00/pound. Fewer people will buy the apples, or people will buy fewer apples overall. So it is also with a higher minimum wage; if a unit of labor costs more,fewer units of labor will be purchased overall. As a result, the economy will likely contract because of the loss of jobs resulting from a wage hike.
2) The business can simply earn less profit. If more of the earnings must go to the cost of labor, the business earns less profit overall. For some minimum wage advocates, perhaps that is the actual goal — to keep businesses from earning too much at the top. But in reality, the loss of business capital (from both large corporations to small mom and pops) means there is less money to grow the existing business, or for future business endeavors. Whether it is reinvested directly back into the business with equipment upgrades or growing the business through new employees or expansion, earning less money for the company creates a ripple effect. The less a company can earn, the less it can help grow the economy. Impeding its ability to do so, through the imposition of mandated wage increases, is harmful.
3) In order to offset the increased wage cost, a business, if possible, can choose to raise its prices. This will attempt to ensure that the company earns the same amount as before. But the effect of the price increase is negative. As prices increase, supply and demand dictates that some customers will simply not buy (reducing GDP) and the rest will have their standard of living go down (because they are paying more just to have the same product as before).
Every one of these responses — cutting jobs, loss of business capital, and raising prices — are bad for the employees and the economy as a whole. Though the minimum wage hikes sound good in theory, in reality, economies don’t exist in a vacuum. These types of policies hurt more than help. The three aforementioned points overwhelm anything positive going to minimum wage recipients; in reality, it is a bigger net cost to the system.
Would ⅔ of the population still support the minimum wage it if they understood how devastating it would be both to the most economically disadvantaged people and to the economy as a whole? People have continuously been pitched the false idea that the economy improves because minimum wage recipients will spend their extra money. Minimum wage policy is an impediment. Economics 101 reminds us that in fact, it is more stimulative for the economy that the employer keep the money and reinvest it than for the worker to merely spend it. That is how you grow the economy.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
The Government Accounting Office (GAO) concluded that the EPA violated federal law and participated in “covert propaganda” through social media in order to encourage passage of Obama’s new and controversial “Clean Water Rule.”
From the report:
“The use of appropriated funds associated with implementing EPA’s Thunderclap campaign and establishing hyperlinks to the NRDC and to the Surfrider Foundation webpages violated prohibitions against publicity or propaganda and grassroots lobbying contained in appropriations acts for FYs 2014 and 2015. Because EPA obligated and expended appropriated funds in violation of specific prohibitions, we also conclude that EPA violated the Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1)(A), as the agency’s appropriations were not available for these prohibited purposes.”
This is not the first time this year that the EPA has not followed law. Don’t forget, in July, the EPA “was accused of colluding with left wing environmental groups to push its new carbon regulations.” A month later, “the EPA was responsible for a toxic spill at an abandoned mine that polluted rivers in three states.” And in October, “a federal appeals court said the EPA broke the law when it illegally approved a pesticide.”
Let’s hope that the Clean Water Rule does not come to fruition.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
As part of the “Working Paper Series” published by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the CBO just released their latest work entitled, “How CBO Estimates the Effects of the Affordable Care Act on the Labor Market.” Essentially, the CBO projects that the labor force will be about 2 million full-time-equivalent workers smaller ten years from now, in 2025, than it would have been without the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
“The Affordable Care Act (ACA) will make the labor supply, measured as the total compensation paid to workers, 0.86 percent smaller in 2025 than it would have been in the absence of that law, the Congressional Budget Office estimates. Three-quarters of that decline will occur because of health insurance expansions, which raise effective tax rates on earnings from labor — for instance, by phasing out health insurance subsidies as people’s income rises—and thus reduce the amount of labor that workers choose to supply. The labor force is projected to be about 2 million full-time-equivalent workers smaller in 2025 under the ACA than it would have been otherwise. Those estimates were based mainly on CBO’s calculations of the effects of the law’s major components on marginal and average tax rates and on the agency’s analysis of research about the change in the labor supply resulting from a change in tax rates. For components of the law that were difficult to express in terms of changes in tax rates, CBO based its estimates on a review of the available literature about similar policy changes.”
“All told, CBO estimates that in 2025, the ACA’s reduction in the labor supply, measured as total compensation, would range from 0.4 percent to 1.3 percent. The agency’s central estimate is 0.86 percent. In other words, the effect could be about 50 percent smaller or 50 percent larger than the agency’s central estimate because of potential variations in labor supply responses to the ACA’s provisions. Accounting for potential variations in other aspects of the estimates would widen that range.”
You can read the entire paper, about 20 pages long, here.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, CONSTITUTION, ECONOMY, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAX TIPS, TAXES
The Wall Street Journal put together an excellent editorial yesterday on the intersection of Obamacare and immigration.
First, starting in 2016, employers with 50 or more full time employees are required to offer health insurance for each of their workers, or else pay a penalty of $3,000 per each person who fails to receive proper Obamacare coverage.
So what happens with the undocumented immigrants allowed to stay under President Obama’s Executive Action? The numbers are estimated to be upwards of 5 million people.
“The government’s petition says that the executive action intended to provide ‘work authorizations’ so that undocumented immigrants could find jobs in the U.S. without working illegally for less than market wages, which might harm American workers. But wait: Employers aren’t required to offer ObamaCare coverage or subsidies to these immigrants. The statutory language in the Affordable Care Act says that only ‘lawful residents’ are eligible, and the government’s petition specifically notes that the immigration action does not ‘confer any form of legal status in this country.'”
Therefore, the immigrants (with deferred deportation), are exempt from Obamacare. While that may be good for the taxpayer, it is not necessarily good news for the worker. From a purely financial perspective, companies could easily save the $3000 penalty cost per worker if they hire and employ an Obamacare-exempt immigrant instead of a citizen/resident subject to the Obamacare rules.
The Wall Street Journal sums up the scenario nicely:
“Suppose businesses subject to ObamaCare employ only 40%, or two million, of the up to five million immigrants covered by the president’s executive action. At $3,000 an employee, businesses would save about $6 billion a year. Companies already dealing with the added expense of operating in the Obama economy — burdened by regulations, high taxes and other barnacles — would find those savings hard to pass up.”
Exempting employers who hire these immigrants from the law’s penalties gives the immigrants a distinct market advantage over U.S. citizens. That flies in the face of the president’s statement that his executive action would not “stick it to the middle class” by allowing these individuals to “take our jobs.” It is also contrary to the government’s statement that the executive action would make it less likely that these undocumented immigrants hurt American workers by “illegally” working “for below market rates.” They could still work at below-market rates, only it would be legal.
All of this was inevitable. The root problem with ObamaCare is that one party rammed it through Congress without a single Republican vote, while the law’s supporters didn’t even read it, let alone vet it through congressional committees. As a result, ObamaCare as written was unworkable, and the administration has had to repeatedly amend it by constitutionally dubious executive fiat.
Now this flawed law is clashing with yet another constitutionally dubious executive action that the administration couldn’t be bothered to pass through the legislature.”
The Obama Administration may yet decide to grant Obamacare to these immigrants currently exempted. But for the time being, since their status presents a situation may wreak havoc in the business world, leaving the current court injunction against the immigration order in place is the only suitable solution until the Obamacare-immigration situation is sorted out. Otherwise, expect the economy to continue to weaken from this latest threat.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
As has been earlier reported here, the debt ceiling jumped dramatically the day after the debt ceiling was lifted on November 2nd ($339 billion) and continued to soar all month.
By the end of the month, the debt had doubled, adding another $335 billion. All in all, $674 billion in US debt had accumulated, making the total US debt a staggering $18.827 trillion.
Also noted by Zerohedge, the debt was $10.6 trillion on January 21, 2009, on the day President Obama took office. The total debt is now up just over 77% under Obama’s tenure, to $18.8 trillion.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
Last week, UnitedHealth, one of the biggest insurers in the United States, announced that it would cease a good amount of healthcare marketing in 2016 as it ponders whether or not to stay in the exchanges for 2017 and beyond. Now, the CEO has come out and stated that UnitedHealth should have waited longer before joining Obamacare.
From Bloomberg:
UnitedHealth Group Inc. should have stayed out of Obamacare’s new individual markets longer, the chief executive officer of the biggest U.S. health insurer said Tuesday, after announcing last month that it will take hundreds of millions of dollars in losses related to the business.
While the company’s other lines of business are growing, instead of expanding into Obamacare next year, the company should have kept waiting, UnitedHealth CEO Stephen Hemsley said at an investor meeting in New York.
“It was for us a bad decision,” Hemsley said. “I take accountability for sitting out the exchange market in year one so we could in theory observe, learn and see how the market experience would develop. This was a prudent going-in position. In retrospect, we should have stayed out longer.”
UnitedHealth said on Nov. 19 that it may quit selling coverage in the Affordable Care Act’s individual markets in 2017. The markets are a key element of the law’s goal to cover about 10 million Americans next year, and UnitedHealth had expanded its offerings for 2016, after initially holding off when the markets started covering people in 2014.
Losses from the plans this year and next will total more than half a billion dollars, the company has said, and UnitedHealth will scale back efforts to market coverage to millions of people shopping for 2016 insurance on the Affordable Care Act’s new marketplaces.
UnitedHealth is not alone in its Obamacare struggles. Other insurers, including competitors Anthem Inc. and Aetna Inc., have also either suffered losses in the markets or said they haven’t seen the margins they expected. Next year will be the law’s third of providing coverage.
“It will take more than a season or two for this market to develop,” Hemsley said. “We did not believe it would form this slowly, be this porous, or become this severe.”
Hemsley said today that the rest of UnitedHealth’s businesses are faring better than its comparatively small exchange operation, which it has said covers about 540,000 people. The company said it expects operating earnings of $13.1 billion to $13.5 billion next year, on revenue of $180 billion to $181 billion.
UnitedHealth advanced 1.7 percent to $114.59 at 10:01 a.m. in New York. The stock has gained 11 percent this year, as of Monday’s close.
Enrollment at the company’s insurance businesses will climb to 47.4 million to 48.2 million people next year, from 46.2 million at the end of 2015. The company is projecting more enrollees in line of business including Medicare Advantage and Medicaid. Separately, UnitedHealth said its drug-coverage business for the elderly, Medicare Part D, may lose as many as 650,000 customers.
Across all of its insurance businesses, UnitedHealth said it expects to spend about 81.5 cents of every dollar it takes in from premiums on medical expenses.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
On Friday, Republicans Overseas Action, Inc. filed a 78-page Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amended Complaint against the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), the intergovernmental agreements (IGAs), and the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, on behalf of Senator Rand Paul and nine other co-plaintiffs.
The then plaintiffs include “U.S. citizens, former U.S. citizens, Republicans, and/or non-Republicans” who are willing “to defend 8.7 million overseas Americans and 12.6 million stateside “green card” holders in their fight against FATCA tyranny.”
“The U.S. Treasury, IRS, and U.S. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FCEN) are still named as Defendants in this amended verified complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief with eight-count of constitutional violations:
Count 1 – The IGAs are Unconstitutional Sole Executive Agreements Because They Exceed the Scope of the President’s Independent Constitutional Powers
Count 2 – The IGAs are Unconstitutional Sole Executive Agreements Because They Override FATCA
Count 3 – The Heightened Reporting Requirements for Foreign Financial Accounts Deny U.S. Citizens Living Abroad the Equal Protection of the Laws
Count 4 – The FATCA FFI Penalty is Unconstitutional under the Excessive Fines Clause
Count 5 – The FATCA Pass-through Penalty is Unconstitutional under the Excessive Fines Clause
Count 6 – The FBAR Willfulness Penalty is Unconstitutional under the Excessive Fines Clause
Count 7 – FATCA’s Information Reporting Requirements are Unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment
Count 8 – The IGAs’ Information Reporting Requirements are Unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment”
Now, the relevance.
“In 2010, Congress passed FATCA, which was enacted as a means to find foreign accounts of US taxpayers (such as a Swiss bank account). Overseas banks must also report to the IRS any bank accounts held by Americans; this has led to the unintended consequence of many banks choosing not to service expats because of the additional headache for the particular financial institution.
The FBAR applies to any U.S. person who owns, has beneficial interest or signature authority over foreign financial accounts that exceed $10,000 in the aggregate in value at any time during the year. If you have any foreign bank accounts, this also has to be disclosed on Part III of Schedule B, whether the FBAR is required to be filed or not. FinCEN 114 must be e-filed and cannot be mailed, with the absolute filing deadline on June 30, with no extension possible.”
As a practitioner both representing taxpayers on FATCA issues and speaking with other practitioners, we listen to the IRS gloating about the $10 billion they have raised for the federal coffers from FBAR & FATCA violators. But they never say how much is evaded tax versus how much is just outrageous penalty. Most people I speak to would be surprised (as I would be) if more than 5% ($500 million) of the $10 billion was actual tax. The ratio of penalty to evaded tax is ludicrous if not unconstitutional.
Further, I have seen no evidence of a cost-benefit analysis that includes taxpayer compliance costs (including FFI costs) in determining if the whole FBAR/FATCA regime is worthwhile. And these compliance costs MUST include the burden of Americans being “fired” by their foreign banks and investment advisors, and money (taxes and GDP) lost by the US from individuals being induced to give up their citizenship.
FATCA and FBAR are burdensome to our citizens living abroad. The actions of the ROA are certainly a step in the right direction.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAX TIPS, TAXES
A few days ago, UnitedHealthcare announced that the possibility of withdrawing from the Obamacare health insurance exchanges. This is a significant announcement, as UnitedHealthcare is one of the biggest insurers in the country. The impact of withdrawl would affect hundreds of thousands of people with regard to their healthplans; the timing — right before 2016 elections — would be critical.
HHS is predicting 10 million enrollees in 2016, which is half of what was originally projected when Obamacare was passed. It’s unlikely that enrollment will suddenly surge this year, which means that the financial instability of the entire model will continue.
If UnitedHealthcare decides to discontinue next year, those with their coverage will have to — yet again — choose another plan, but this time from a smaller list of coverage providers. Since Open Enrollment begins in the fall, right around Election time, such a move could wreak havoc on the final stretch.
One economist suggests that prices will increase even more.
“The year 2017 is significant for insurers, because that’s the year when several programs designed to mitigate risk for insurers through federal backstops go away. The hope was that those programs would act as training wheels for Obamacare in its first few years of implementation, but after that, the insurers were supposed to be able to thrive on their own. UnitedHealth’s statement suggests otherwise.
If UnitedHealth and other insurers decide to exit, remaining insurers will be forced to take on even more high-risk enrollees, prompting them to either raise rates further or exit themselves. That in turn would deprive individuals of choices and remove competition, a key purpose of the exchanges.”
So don’t expect United to suddenly see a reason to get back into the 2017 market, not without hefty risk-corridor subsidies — which under any other circumstances would be called “corporate welfare.” Given that Congress isn’t likely to reverse course and underwrite ObamaCare losses, the path to the exit remains the likely course for United, and perhaps some of its competitors, too.
United says it will remain committed to its Medicaid and Medicare businesses, and of course it will stick with its employer-based group coverage, where the issues of ObamaCare regulation have less impact.”
“But UnitedHealth and other insurers need more Americans to come into the public exchanges because the patients that are signing up for coverage are sicker, making a “higher overall risk pool,” insurance executives say. It’s a key reason many Americans are seeing rate increases of 10 percent or more across the country on public exchanges.
United has discovered that the trade-offs in mandates and forced coverage don’t pay off. It’s a bait-and-switch for insurers by the Obama administration, but it’s even worse of a bait-and-switch for consumers.
Subsidies do not mitigate the fact that consumers have to pay both the premium and then thousands of dollars for care out of their own pocket before insurance takes effect, except in rare and catastrophic circumstances.
Consumers used to have an option for that kind of health insurance – catastrophic coverage, used to indemnify against unforeseen major health events. Those policies featured low premiums and left routine care for consumers to negotiate directly with providers on a cash basis. Combined with health-savings accounts (HSAs), those plans offered a rational approach to balancing health and economic requirements, especially for younger consumers who rarely need more than one or two clinic visits a year, which would cost far less than either comprehensive-coverage premiums or deductibles even in the pre-ACA era.
Instead of “affordable care” promised by President Obama and Democrats, consumers have instead discovered they have effectively been forced to pay for catastrophic health insurance at comprehensive-plan prices. They have become victims of a bait-and-switch scheme that the government would vigorously prosecute – if it wasn’t masterminding the scheme itself.”
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
In recent years, President Obama has issued his Fall Unified Agenda right around Thanksgiving, as most of the country is preparing for the holiday season. This year was no different. This past Friday, the 2015 regulatory list was released.
According to Forbes, “the Fall 2015 Agenda reports on 3,297 rules and regulations at the ‘active,’ ‘completed’ and ‘long-term’ stages, many of them holdovers from earlier volumes. This is down from 3,415 last year.
Active (these include pre-rule, proposed and final): 2,244 (there were 2,321 last fall)
Completed: 554 (629 last fall)
Long-term: 500 (465 last fall)
TOTAL: 3,297 (3,415 last fall)
The Agenda appeared pretty much like clockwork every spring and fall, usually April and October, between 1983 and 2011. But recent releases seem timed to draw as little attention as possible, appearing often at holiday weekends:
Fall 2012: The Friday before Christmas (that Monday was Christmas Eve)
Fall 2013: The day before Thanksgiving
Fall 2014: The Friday before Thanksgiving
Fall 2015: The Friday before Thanksgiving
And more:
“The Fall 2015 Agenda reports on 218 ‘economically significant’ rules and regulations at the ‘active,’ ‘completed’ and ‘long-term’ stages. This is up from 200 at this point last year.
Active (pre-rule, proposed, final): 149 (131 last fall)
Completed: 36 (31 last fall)
Long-term: 33 (38 last fall)
TOTAL: 218 (200 last Fall)
The Fall Agenda includes environmental and energy regulations, such as rules for pesticides and coal; these new items come on the heels of other environmental rules earlier this year including smog, fracking, and carbon dioxide emissions. The American Action Forum calculated the financial impact of “regulation in 2015 to a whopping $183 billion — about half from final rules and the other from proposed rules.”
To view the Fall Unified Agenda, go here.
People go into business to do things and make things in this great country of ours — not to comply with government diktats. The unprecedented growth of bureaucratic regulations has been one of the key factors of our lackluster, anemic economic recovery.
by | BLOG, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
The State Department, in tandem with the IRS, will soon have the ability to “block Americans with ‘seriously delinquent’ tax debt from receiving new passports and will be allowed to rescind existing passports of people who fall into that category.” This new law will likely begin in January 2016.
The roots of this new law began back in 2012, a report issued by the GAO suggested the possibility of tying tax collection to passport issuance, in an effort to collect revenue. Soon thereafter, Senator Harry Reid introduced a bill in Congress that did just that, with a threshold of $50,000 in delinquency. The bill been attempted several times in Congress over the last few years.
Most recently, the new rule proposal is tucked into a highway-funding bill (HR22) that currently sits in committee and is likely to be voted on sometime in December.
Though there will be exceptions to the rule (emergency and humanitarian travel, for instance), valid criticisms of the rule were raised earlier this year in Forbes. For instance the proposal “isn’t limited to criminal tax cases or even situations where the government fears you are fleeing a tax debt. In fact, if the bill is passed you could have your passport revoked merely because you owe more than $50,000 and the IRS has filed a notice of lien.
A $50,000 tax debt is easy to amass today. In addition, tax liens are pretty standard. The IRS files tax liens routinely when you owe taxes. It’s the IRS way of putting creditors on notice so the IRS eventually gets paid. In that sense, the you-can’t-travel idea seems extreme. Some commentators noted that a far smaller sum of unpaid child support can trigger similar passport action. Others attack the proposal as potentially unconstitutional.”
The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that the new law would raise about $400 million over the next decade.
A serious problem, however, looms for millions of U.S. citizens living abroad. Passports, obviously, are essential for travel, residency permits, banking, school, and work visas; yet, the IRS has documented trouble with getting mail properly to ex-pats.
The Wall Street Journal mentioned noted that ” a report issued in September by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, or Tigta, a watchdog agency, found that the IRS sent 855,000 notices to U.S. citizens abroad in 2014. According to the report, ‘IRS data systems aren’t designed to accommodate the different styles of international addresses, which can cause notices to be undeliverable.’
The Tigta report said that ‘current IRS processes for addressing international mail issues are ineffective or nonexistent.’ In response, the IRS said that Tigta’s recommendations wouldn’t overcome the agency’s ‘budgetary, statutory, and operational constraints.’ ”
The implementation of this new law will be worthwhile to watch in the coming months, especially as it will likely affect those living abroad.
