Select Page

Nearly 1400 Counties to Have One or Zero Insurers in 2018

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have published data which projects that 1,332 counties (over 40%)  will have only one health insurer on Obamacare in 2018 and 49 will have none.  According to CNSNews, “the data comes from the Health Insurance Exchanges Issuer County Map, which shows projected issuer participation on the Health Insurance Exchanges in 2018 based on the issuer public announcements made prior to late July of 2017.”

Successful healthcare systems do not continuously lose insurers, accumulate massive debt, and leave citizens with little to no choice. Obamacare has continued to wreak havoc on our citizens. It has to go. We can do better.

Social Security Expenses to Exceed Income in Five More Years

Last week, the Social Security Board of Trustees released their annual report on the long-term financial status of the Social Security Trust Funds.  The news does not continue to bode will for the long-term survival of Social Security — but on the other hand, this is nothing that we haven’t heard before. Unfortunately, no one really wants to tackle the problem of reform.

Straight from their press release: 

“The Social Security Board of Trustees today released its annual report on the long-term financial status of the Social Security Trust Funds. The combined asset reserves of the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Funds are projected to become depleted in 2034, the same as projected last year, with 77 percent of benefits payable at that time. The DI Trust Fund will become depleted in 2028, extended from last year’s estimate of 2023, with 93 percent of benefits still payable.

In the 2017 Annual Report to Congress, the Trustees announced:

  • The asset reserves of the combined OASDI Trust Funds increased by $35 billion in 2016 to a total of $2.85 trillion.
  • The combined trust fund reserves are still growing and will continue to do so through 2021. Beginning in 2022, the total annual cost of the program is projected to exceed income. (emphasis added)
  • The year when the combined trust fund reserves are projected to become depleted, if Congress does not act before then, is 2034 – the same as projected last year. At that time, there will be sufficient income coming in to pay 77 percent of scheduled benefits.

“It is time for the public to engage in the important national conversation about how to keep Social Security strong,” said Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security. “People understand the value of their earned Social Security benefits and the importance of keeping the program secure for the future.”

Other highlights of the Trustees Report include:

  • Total income, including interest, to the combined OASDI Trust Funds amounted to $957 billion in 2016. ($836 billion in net contributions, $33 billion from taxation of benefits, and $88 billion in interest)
  • Total expenditures from the combined OASDI Trust Funds amounted to $922 billion in 2016.
  • Social Security paid benefits of $911 billion in calendar year 2016. There were about 61 million beneficiaries at the end of the calendar year.
  • Non-interest income fell below program costs in 2010 for the first time since 1983. Program costs are projected to exceed non-interest income throughout the remainder of the 75-year period.
  • The projected actuarial deficit over the 75-year long-range period is 2.83 percent of taxable payroll – 0.17 percentage point larger than in last year’s report.
  • During 2016, an estimated 171 million people had earnings covered by Social Security and paid payroll taxes.
  • The cost of $6.2 billion to administer the Social Security program in 2016 was a very low 0.7 percent of total expenditures.
  • The combined Trust Fund asset reserves earned interest at an effective annual rate of 3.2 percent in 2016.

The Board of Trustees usually comprises six members. Four serve by virtue of their positions with the federal government: Steven T. Mnuchin, Secretary of the Treasury and Managing Trustee; Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security; Thomas E. Price, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services; and R. Alexander Acosta, Secretary of Labor. The two public trustee positions are currently vacant.”

View the 2017 Trustees Report at www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TR/2017/.

AEI and the NIIT

I have to admit that I was a bit surprised to read an article by AEI (“This health care tax could spark a GOP civil war,” July 13, 2017) which treated the Net Investment Income Tax (NIIT) as a pesky tax that was wreaking havoc on health care reform, because <gasp>, some Republicans wanted to eliminate it.

But nobody has been talking about the series of tax changes that occurred when Obama and his Democrat cronies passed the Obamacare increases in the first place. These raised the Bush tax rates on only the wealthiest from 36%  – 39.6 % and then again raised the tax rates on the wealthiest by adding the 3.8% Net Investment Income Tax (NIIT), which covered all investment income. Then there was the 0.9% Obamacare Medicare surtax on upper-income earners. Obamacare increases also raised capital gains on the wealthiest ones from 15% – 20%. When the 3.8% tax would get tacked on, capital gains rates effectively went from 15%- 23.8% — an increase of about 55%. Taxes like these punish investment!

How is that not ridiculous? Or rather, how is it considered ridiculous that some Republicans want to eliminate the NIIT? Democrats continuously refer to it as an “upper-class tax cut.” Don’t fall for the rhetoric!

Another Asset Forfeiture Fiasco: Dressmaker Edition

I have continuously written about the deplorable practice of asset forfeiture via the IRS. Many of the cases involve circumstances where the business is accused of “structuring” cash deposits to stay under $10,000 — which the IRS considers to be “suspicious,” not unlike drug money laundering.  In such instances, the IRS can swoop in and seize the business bank accounts of the “offenders” while simultaneously NOT charge them with any crime.

This latest case regarding a business called Mii’s Bridal and Tuxedo involves an alleged IRS tax debt that had been in dispute between the business and the IRS. Just like in previous cases, the owners had not been charged with anything. In this instance, however, instead of raiding a bank account, the IRS seized the store’s inventory and liquidated its entire contents within four hours — while violating numerous IRS practices and federal laws along the way. In the end, another American business and the livelihood of its owners was destroyed.

According to the Dallas News,Mii’s, a small Garland business owned by an elderly immigrant couple from Thailand, was never accused in court of violating any federal laws.” Within hours of IRS agents arriving in March 2015, “Mii’s Bridal & Tuxedo was out of business after serving customers for decades. Its entire inventory of wedding gowns and dresses as well as sewing machines and other equipment were sold at auction. The hastily-called sale held inside the store netted the IRS about $17,000 — not enough to cover the roughly $31,400 in tax debt alleged, court records show. The balance is now likely unrecoverable.”

Violations by the IRS agents include:

-“The lead agent brought four children to join the armed agents and tag along during the entire process. The children sat on a pallet with several boxes of pepperoni pizza while watching events unfold.

-The Dallas police assisted in the raid, and an off-duty Dallas Police officer in plain clothes bid on and purchased an auction item.

-Agents seized items they shouldn’t have, such as a Vietnam veteran’s hat left at Mii’s to have badges of honor sewed into it. The IRS refused to return the hat.

-The agents also seized video game consoles, a surround-sound music system and a 65-inch TV, which was not authorized by the judge’s order.”

What’s more, “When the agents arrived for the seizure, they told the Thangsongcharoens to give them a $10,000 check within two hours to avoid the sale of their roughly 1,600 “designer” gowns, worth more than $615,000.  Regarding the speed of the sale, the government said in legal filings that the IRS used a special law that allows for a streamlined procedure if the agency determines the goods seized could “perish or waste” or become greatly reduced in value.

As a result, the IRS didn’t have to post advance public notice of the Mii’s sale or wait at least ten days before selling the goods, as is normally required. The provision also says a speedy auction can be used if storing the property would cost the IRS ‘great expense.'”

In response, the shop owners are suing in federal court, arguing “that the agents deliberately marked down the inventory to about $6,000 so they could claim it would cost more to store than it was worth. That comes to less than $4 per dress.” This allowed them to justify and proceed with the liquidation that destroyed their business, and forms a basis of their $1.8 million lawsuit.

That case has yet to be resolved. It doesn’t make up for the fact that everything hard-working couple had built over the last 30 years had been destroyed in one afternoon, when no crime had ever been committed. This is just one of a long list of citizen abuses that have happened under the egregious asset forfeiture laws that pervade the IRS and rob Americans of their civil liberties and their livelihoods, often with little to no recourse.

 

Let’s Talk About Social Security

Entitlement reform is necessary for the fiscal health of this country, but it is something that no one wants to talk about, much less tackle. How can we begin? How can we open up the conversation and the possibility to reform and improve our social security system?

One step in the right direction would be to treat Social Security as a true retirement plan, and not as a wealth transfer system that it currently is. This could begin with reclassifying the payroll tax. The majority (6.2% out of 7.65%) of the payroll tax covers Social Security retirement benefits. If we actually used it (or at least most of it) for that individual’s social security retirement, everyone’s perception would change. Instead of being viewed as a hated tax (just ask any young person who has received their first paycheck), it would be viewed as a desirable saving for their future!  

A move in this direction could be helped by a characteristic of the present structure. The employer and employee contribute equally to the Social Security Tax. If the individual’s part went towards his personal retirement, the other part could go towards defraying the past obligations that are coming due. If we had done such a thing 20 years ago, the entire system would have been fixed. . Unfortunately, the present situation would probably require some portion of the individual’s portion to also go towards paying the ever growing obligation for past unfunded promises. It’s that dire! And it gets worse every year.

Let’s stop treating Social Security like welfare or wealth transfers and start treating it like a retirement system. It’s our money anyway, even though the government wants to act like it is being generous when it gives us back our money. This would lessen the loose-and-fast accounting gimmicks that contribute to the fiscal mismanagement of Social Security anyway — and may move it away from its impending insolvency.

 

Happy Independence Day

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. —

Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

  • For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
  • For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:
  • For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:
  • For imposing taxes on us without our consent:
  • For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:
  • For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:
  • For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:
  • For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:
  • For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In Jefferson’s draft there is a part on slavery here

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

JOHN HANCOCK, President

Attested, CHARLES THOMSON, Secretary

New Hampshire
JOSIAH BARTLETT
WILLIAM WHIPPLE
MATTHEW THORNTON
Massachusetts-Bay
SAMUEL ADAMS
JOHN ADAMS
ROBERT TREAT PAINE
ELBRIDGE GERRY
Rhode Island
STEPHEN HOPKINS
WILLIAM ELLERY
Connecticut
ROGER SHERMAN
SAMUEL HUNTINGTON
WILLIAM WILLIAMS
OLIVER WOLCOTT
Georgia
BUTTON GWINNETT
LYMAN HALL
GEO. WALTON
Maryland
SAMUEL CHASE
WILLIAM PACA
THOMAS STONE
CHARLES CARROLL OF CARROLLTON
Virginia
GEORGE WYTHE
RICHARD HENRY LEE
THOMAS JEFFERSON
BENJAMIN HARRISON
THOMAS NELSON, JR.
FRANCIS LIGHTFOOT LEE
CARTER BRAXTON.
New York
WILLIAM FLOYD
PHILIP LIVINGSTON
FRANCIS LEWIS
LEWIS MORRIS
Pennsylvania
ROBERT MORRIS
BENJAMIN RUSH
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN
JOHN MORTON
GEORGE CLYMER
JAMES SMITH
GEORGE TAYLOR
JAMES WILSON
GEORGE ROSS
Delaware
CAESAR RODNEY
GEORGE READ
THOMAS M’KEAN
North Carolina
WILLIAM HOOPER
JOSEPH HEWES
JOHN PENN
South Carolina
EDWARD RUTLEDGE
THOMAS HEYWARD, JR.
THOMAS LYNCH, JR.
ARTHUR MIDDLETON
New Jersey
RICHARD STOCKTON
JOHN WITHERSPOON
FRANCIS HOPKINS
JOHN HART
ABRAHAM CLARK

Carried Interest Does Not Need To Be Fixed

There continues to be a notion that carried interest is something that needs to be fixed because of a seemingly unfair low-tax capital gains income rate.

It is true the rate is low. But so what? It’s not as though the income isn’t from capital gains. If the law was changed so that the operators were taxed at ordinary income only, it wouldn’t get rid of those gains — it would simply mean that the investors get the benefit of the capital gains lost by the operators. This fixes nothing.

Ultimately such a change –which is being proposed by President Trump like it was by President Obama — will merely shift the tax benefit from the operators to the investors. This takes a tax break away from people who are working for a living and gives it to millionaires who are just investing – pure hypocrisy from liberals who wish to inflict additional taxes on the wealthy at every step.  It make compensation deals for hedge fund operators a bit more complicated (i.e. requiring more assistance from accountants), but the amount of compensation stays revenue neutral.

Therefore, it takes a whopping dose of either incompetence or disingenuousness from the many carried interest critics to look at the hedge fund industry and proclaim that “carried interest” is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Illinois Finances In Disarray

It’s kind of funny that the AP is reporting a story that has not been “news” for years to tax professionals. The state of Illinois is running out of taxpayer money, as its obligations exceed its revenue intake.  This is what happens when a state has been mismanaged for decades by incompetent Democrats: From CHICAGO (AP): 

The Illinois official responsible for paying the state’s bills is warning that new court orders mean her office must pay out more each month than Illinois receives in revenue.

Comptroller Susana Mendoza must prioritize what gets paid as Illinois nears its third year without a state budget.

A mix of state law, court orders and pressure from credit rating agencies requires some items be paid first. Those include debt and pension payments, state worker paychecks and some school funding.

Mendoza says a recent court order regarding money owed for Medicaid bills means mandated payments will eat up 100 percent of Illinois’ monthly revenue.

There would be no money left for so-called “discretionary” spending – a category that in Illinois includes school buses, domestic violence shelters and some ambulance services.

Is Illinois going to be the first state to become truly insolvent? Is Illinois going to file for bankruptcy? The situation is critical enough that we need keep an eye on it in the coming weeks and months.

Record Federal Tax Revenue For Month of May

I always look forward to CNSNews each month when they do a roundup of the prior month’s spending and revenue. Their numbers come directly from the Monthly Treasury Statement released by mid-month for the previous month. Because they’ve been doing it for so long, they are able to often do comparison for previous months and years, which provide nice little tidbits of info.

The big takeaway from this month is, despite record revenue, the Trump administration still ran a deficit due to excessive spending. Their summary is reposted below in its entirety:

“The U.S. Treasury hauled in $240,418,000,000 in total taxes in the month of May, setting a record for inflation-adjusted tax revenues for that month of the year, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released this week.

Despite these record revenues, however, the federal government still ran a deficit of $88,426,000,000 in May—because it spent $328,844,000,000 in the month.

In the first eight months of fiscal 2017 (October through May), the federal government hauled in $2,169,160,000,000 in total taxes and spent $2,602,013,000,000—thus, running a deficit of $432,853,000,000. Fiscal 2017 will end on Sept. 30, 2017.

Prior to this year, fiscal 2006 held the record for most federal taxes collected in the month of May. That year, the Treasury collected $232,837,160,000 (in constant 2017 dollars) during May.

The third largest tax haul the federal government ever achieved in the month of May was last year (fiscal 2016), when the Treasury collected $228,814,030,000 (in constant 2017 dollars.)

While the $240,418,000,000 that the Treasury collected this May set a record for federal tax revenues in the month May, federal tax collections in the first eight months of fiscal 2017 (October through May) did not set a record.

That distinction is still held by fiscal 2016—the last full fiscal year of President Barack Obama’s tenure.

In October through May of fiscal 2016, the Treasury collected $2,179,362,400,000 in total tax revenues (in constant 2017 dollars). That was $10,202,400,000 more than the $2,169,160,000,000 that the Treasury collected in October through May of this fiscal year.

(Tax revenues were adjusted to constant 2017 dollars using the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator.)

The $240,418,000,000 in taxes the federal government collected in the month of May 2017 equaled approximately $1,572 for each of the 152,923,000 people the Bureau of Labor Statistics said had a job in the United States during the month.

The $88,246,000,000 deficit the Treasury ran during May equaled approximately $577 for each of the 152,923,000 people with a job.”

Iowa Obamacare Market Facing Collapse

We’ve written about the collapse of many Obamacare markets as well as the removal of several insurers from the Obamacare system across multiple states and exchanges.  Earlier this year Aetna Inc. and Wellmark Inc. announced that they would not participate in Iowa for 2018 due to unsustainable costs; only the insurer Medica would be available in the state.

In response, Bloomberg reports that “Iowa is asking the Trump administration to let it reallocate millions of dollars and create a stopgap program that would provide health insurance options for 72,000 Iowans covered by the Affordable Care Act.

Under the proposal made public on Monday, the state would use $352 million in federal money to provide backup funding for insurers and overhaul Obamacare’s subsidies for consumers next year. The state would also create a single standardized plan that insurers would offer.”

Iowa’s proposal has three main pieces:

  • It would create a standard plan, pegged to Obamacare’s mid-level silver offering. Insurers and consumers who want the extra help would need to buy that plan.
  • The state would use about $220 million of funding to provide the new subsidies.
  • And the state would create a reinsurance program, funded with an estimated $80 million, to help insurers deal with high-cost claims.

The program needs to be approved by the Trump administration and would be known as a “Stopgap” measure while the future of Obamacare gets played out in Congress. Nonetheless, the current form of Obamacare is financially unstable; expect to see more of these types of proposals in the coming months.