04.26.13
by

The Wall Street Journal: Are You Ready for the New Investment Tax?

It’s time to grapple with the new 3.8% tax on investment income.

The ordeal of 2012 taxes is barely over. But it isn’t too early to understand and cushion the blow of the investment-income levy, which Congress passed in 2010 to help fund the health-care overhaul.

The tax, which took effect Jan. 1, applies to the “net investment income” of married joint filers who have more than $250,000 of income (or $200,000 for singles). Only investment income—such as dividends, interest and capital gains—above the thresholds is taxed. The rate is a flat 3.8% in addition to other taxes owed.

“Affluent investors who ignore this tax will be in for a total shock next April 15,” says David Lifson, a certified public accountant specializing in tax at Crowe Horwath in New York. Such income is typically not subject to withholding, and people won’t be factoring it into their estimated taxes. Lower-bracket taxpayers who receive a windfall large enough to owe the tax will also be in for a surprise.

The new levy is one of several tax increases taking effect this year, including higher top rates on income and capital gains, limits on deductions, and an extra 0.9% payroll tax. But the 3.8% tax will cost many Americans even more.

The reason: an odd interaction between the regular income tax and the alternative minimum tax, or AMT, a separate levy that rescinds the value of some tax benefits. This year, many affluent taxpayers will have higher income because of new limits on exemptions and deductions. But this higher income will also help lower their alternative minimum tax.

—

Click below for the full article.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324743704578444630080409450.html?KEYWORDS=Are+You+Ready+for+the+New+Investment+Tax

04.26.13
by

US News: What Gen X Doesn’t Know About Social Security

Members of Generation X, those born between 1965 and 1976, are planning to collect Social Security at an average age of 65, according to a recent survey. But that could be a mistake. Gen Xers won’t qualify for the full Social Security payments they have earned until age 67. Those who sign up for Social Security at age 65 will get permanently lower payments for the rest of their lives.

The Social Security full retirement age at which you can claim the entire benefit you have earned is 67 for everyone born in 1960 or later. Gen Xers who sign up for Social Security at age 65, as 29 percent plan to do, will see their monthly payments reduced by about 13.3 percent.

A GfK Custom Research North America survey of 1,000 adults ages 36 to 47 commissioned by the MetLife Mature Market Institute found that 18 percent of Gen Xers plan to claim Social Security benefits as soon as they are eligible at age 62. But workers who sign up at this age will see their payments reduced by 30 percent. For example, a worker who would be eligible for $1,000 per month upon retirement at age 67 would get just $700 per month is he signs up for Social Security at age 62. Another 16 percent of people in their late 30s and early 40s simply don’t know when they will start receiving Social Security benefits.

—

Click below for the full article.

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2013/04/26/what-gen-x-doesnt-know-about-social-security

04.26.13
by

Motley Fool: Do These Obamacare Winners Look Like Losers Now?

Have the Obamacare winners become losers? When the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or PPACA, was first passed, most analysts pegged hospital systems as obvious winners from the new law. That viewpoint also held true last year as the Supreme Court upheld much of Obamacare.

The stock market clearly agreed. Immediately after the Supreme Court decision, hospital stocks surged. Community Health Systems  (NYSE: CYH  )  jumped 8%. Health Management Associates  (NYSE: HMA  )  shares rose 7%. The largest private hospital chain, HCA Holdings  (NYSE: HCA  ) , soared by 10%.

Since the high court ruling, few sectors have performed as well as hospitals have. Community Health Systems shares rose as much as 88% by late March. Likewise, HMA stock nearly doubled. HCA shares rose more than 50% during the same period. No hospital stock performed better than Tenet Healthcare  (NYSE: THC  ) , though. Tenet’s shares skyrocketed 140%.

That was then. The performance of these stocks in the month of April thus far tells a much different tale.

Spring backwards? Community Health Systems shares are down almost 13% since the beginning of April. HMA isn’t far behind, with shares falling 12%. HCA stock has dropped 7.5%. What about the biggest winner: Tenet? It’s now the biggest loser, with shares plunging more than 16% this month. Has the luster of Obamacare worn off?

Many hospitals wanted the ACA to succeed. The industry’s lobbying organization, the American Hospital Association, actively supported the legislation and even submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in support of the individual mandate.

The primary reason behind support for the bill stemmed from the prospects of millions of currently uninsured Americans gaining insurance. Many hospitals must write off large amounts of money when individuals with no insurance cannot pay for the care provided. If more people gain insurance under Obamacare, hospitals hope that these write-offs will decrease significantly.

However, many currently uninsured Americans could choose to pay fines rather than obtain insurance. If this scenario becomes widespread, the benefits to hospitals could be dampened.

Others suspect that the costs of the ACA could minimize the advantages for hospitals. Bob Kirby, a director with Fitch Ratings, said last year that “it is unclear if the incremental revenue generated from increased utilization and lower levels of uncompensated care will offset the potential compression in margins.”

All in the timing Obamacare’s timing could also be problematic. Even if millions of uninsured Americans buy insurance as hoped for, that scenario won’t happen until 2014. In the meantime, hospitals are dealing with some of the challenges of the ACA.

—

Click below for the full article.

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2013/04/26/what-gen-x-doesnt-know-about-social-security

04.26.13
by

Business Insider: CISPA ‘Dead For Now’: ‘Privacy Killer’ Bill Hits A Wall In The Senate

Sen. Jay Rockefeller

 

The controversial Cyber Information Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) is likely  to die in the Senate, according to US  News.

The bill, which has stirred up internet privacy watchdogs and sites like Reddit,  followed closely in the footsteps of the last unsuccessfully proposed privacy  bills, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect I.P. Act (PIPA). SOPA and  PIPA met their end last year after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid canceled debate following pressure and protests from Internet companies such as Wikipedia, Google, and  Reddit.

The heat  on CISPA hasn’t been as hot as the pressure put on SOPA and PIPA last year,  but Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) who is the Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee  on Commerce, Science and Transportation says that CISPA’s privacy protections  are “insufficient” and a committee aid confirmed to CNET that “Rockefeller believes the Senate will not take up  CISPA.”

Coupled with President Barack Obama’s threatened veto, CISPA as it is now  could be all but dead, at least according to Michelle Richardson, legislative  council with the American Civil Liberties Union.

“I think it’s dead for now,” she told US News. “CISPA  is too controversial, it’s too expansive, it’s just not the same sort of program  contemplated by the Senate last year. We’re pleased to hear the Senate will  probably pick up where it left off last year.”

Why the uproar over CISPA?  The bill allows companies to pass along what the government calls “cyber threat”  data which includes personal information like user data to the United Sates  Government. If the bill passed, they could legally give data over to law  enforcement and not face legal repercussions.

——

Click below for the full article.

http://www.businessinsider.com/cispa-hits-a-brick-wall-in-the-senate-2013-4#ixzz2RcN2BNqS

04.26.13
by

Upworthy: What People Who Get Bombed All The Time Have To Say To Boston

Boston filmmaker Beth Murphy is in Afghanistan working on a documentary. Usually her family sends her anxious messages every time there’s a bombing in Kabul. That was until the Boston Marathon attack, and then the roles were reversed. Beth’s Afghan friends were so upset by the news that they helped her make some picture postcards to send back to Boston… from Kabul, with love.

Boston filmmaker Beth Murphy is in Afghanistan working on a documentary. Usually her family sends her anxious messages every time there’s a bombing in Kabul. That was until the Boston Marathon attack, and then the roles were reversed. Beth’s Afghan friends were so upset by the news that they helped her make some picture postcards to send back to Boston… from Kabul, with love.

04.25.13
by

Forbes: Congress Seeks to Opt Out of Participating in Obamacare’s Exchanges

As Obamacare was winding its way through the Senate in 2009, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) slipped in an amendment requiring that members of Congress, and their staff, enroll in Obamacare’s health insurance exchanges. The idea was simple: that if Congress was going to impose Obamacare upon the country, it should have to experience what it is imposing firsthand. But now, word comes that Congress is quietly seeking to rescind that provision of the law, because members fear that staffers who face higher insurance costs will leave the Hill. The news has sparked outrage from the right and left. Here’s the back story, and why this debate is crucial to the future of market-based health reform.

Sen. Grassley’s original idea was to require all federal employees to enroll in the exchanges, instead of in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, where most gain coverage today. Indeed, a previous Senate Finance Committee amendment proposed putting members and staffers on Medicaid. But “fierce opposition from federal employee unions” sank Grassley’s effort, and he had to water his amendment down to only apply to Congress and congressional staff.

Staffers grumble about being stuck on the exchanges

Ever since Obamacare became law, this has been a source of grumbling among the congressional staffers I talk to. One aspect of the Grassley amendment is that it originally appeared to exempt staffers who worked for congressional committees, and congressional leadership, because those staffers didn’t work for specific Members of Congress. (My understanding is that the Office of Personnel Management has since clarified the regulations to include all staff, including committee and leadership.)

—

It is always fascinating when politicians pass unconstitutional laws that are supposedly good enough for the people but not good enough for them.  Click below for the full article.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2013/04/25/congress-fearing-brain-drain-seeks-to-opt-out-of-participating-in-obamacares-exchanges/?partner=yahootix

04.25.13
by

National Consitution Center: Six things you may not know about the killer drone controversy

The Obama administration’s use of weaponized drones to kill suspected terrorists overseas was under a Senate microscope this week, as six different witnesses revealed some interesting facts about the controversial policy.

Predator_droneSenator Richard Durbin, an Obama supporter (on issues other than drones), chaired the subcommittee hearing on Tuesday.

Durbin was openly disappointed that the Obama administration didn’t send a witness to talk about the secretive program.

“I do want to note for the record, my disappointment that the administration declined to provide a witness to testify at today’s hearings. I hope that in future hearings we’ll have an opportunity to work with the administration more closely,” he said.

Durbin also said he hoped the administration understood its newfound technological killing power “is still grounded in words written more than 200 years ago.”

Political opponents Ted Cruz and Al Franken agreed with Durbin that the scope of the executive branch’s power was under question.

The administration says it has the power to undertake the drone tactics per a 2001 congressional resolution in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

The Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights has released the official testimony of the six witnesses, which show a cross-section of concerns and justifications about the program. here’s a brief look at what they said.

General James Cartwright

The retired general, a former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained that drones are cheap, at an average cost of $4 million to $5 million, compared with a conventional jet fighter, at $150 million. They are also cheap to fly and have advanced optics.

“[They’re] not hard to see why military operations are significantly improved by this technology. Drones offer many advantages over other conventional forces in counterterrorism,” he said.

“Legitimate questions remain about the use, authorities, and oversight of armed drone activities outside an area of declared hostility,” he acknowledged. “While I believe based on my experience all parties involved in this activity have acted in the best interests of the country, as with other new technologies, adaptation of policy and law tends to lag implementation of the capability.”

Farea Al-Muslimi

Al-Muslimi, a Yemini activist who was partly educated in the United States,  told the committee how drone attacks hurt the reputation of the United States in his country.

“Just six days ago, my village was struck by a drone, in an attack that terrified thousands of simple poor farmers. The drone strike and its impact tore my heart much as the tragic bombings in Boston last week tore your hearts and also mine,” he said.

Al-Muslimi said the drone attacks, especially those that killed innocent civilians, made his job as an advocate for America in Yemen “almost impossible.”

—

Click below for the full article.

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/04/six-things-you-may-not-know-about-killer-drone-controversy/

04.25.13
by

Live Science: Why Boston Marathon Bombings Ignited Conspiracies

Like the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Sandy Hook massacre and other tragedies, the recent Boston Marathon bombing has spawned several conspiracy theories. Some of the more cynical conspiracy theorists do it simply for attention and ratings, or to promote their books, DVDs and seminars promising to reveal the truth that no one else would dare.

These days most conspiracy theories are promoted by one or two (relatively) high-profile people. A man named Alex Jones was at the forefront of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Sandy Hook school attack last year — including the claim that the shooting didn’t really happen. This time around, former Fox News host Glenn Beck is among those leading the charge that a conspiracy is afoot in the Boston bombing case that left several dead and one suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, in the hospital.

Beck is apparently not denying that the Boston bombings took place — the thousands of eyewitnesses, countless videos and forensic evidence is too overwhelming to be dismissed. No, instead the conspiracy seems to center around what Beck believes is the suspicious government handling of a Saudi national named Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi, who was supposedly investigated (and cleared) of some connection to the Boston attack, but whose student visa had expired, and who may or may not be in the process of being deported back to Saudi Arabia.

—

Click below for the full article.

http://www.livescience.com/29038-why-boston-bombings-ignited-conpsiracies.html

04.25.13
by

CBS News: Newtown, Conn. residents reject budget with extra school security

A child gazes from a school bus as it passes by the St. Rose of Lima Catholic church while mourners gathered for a funeral service for shooting victim Jessica Rekos, 6, on December 18, 2012 in Newtown, Connecticut.
Residents have rejected a budget that included money for extra school security in the wake of the December school shootings, with town leaders suggesting the spending and required tax increases were a hard sell.Voters on Tuesday turned down the $72 million school budget by 482 votes and rejected the $39 million town government budget by 62 votes. Nearly 4,500 residents voted on the plans, which would have represented an increase of more than 5 percent next fiscal year.

First Selectwoman Patricia Llodra said the killings of 20 children and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School had an impact on the vote, the first since the massacre.

“We’re very fragile as a community,” she said. “We’ve lost some of our confidence.”

Officials had put an extra $770,000 in the school and town budgets to hire extra police officers and unarmed security guards in each of Newtown’s public and private schools. The plan was spurred by the Dec. 14 shootings.

Jeff Capeci, chairman of the Legislative Council, said the higher school budget also would have expanded half-day kindergarten to full-day and allowed for the hiring of a new high school administrator and for capital spending and technology.

“I thought it was an incredibly high increase for this economy,” Capeci said. “At the end of the day, Newtown voters thought it was too much of an increase.”

Llodra called the spending increases substantial.

“It’s just beyond the ability of our community to grapple with,” she said.

In contrast, the current budget is up by a fraction of 1 percent over the previous year.

—

Some may find it interesting that people would be willing to throw away the most sublime constitution ever written by man in the history of the world and sacrifice their liberty for the sake of security……yet they don’t want a local tax hike to pay for school security.  Click below for the full article.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57581137/newtown-conn-residents-reject-budget-with-extra-school-security/

04.25.13
by

Forbes: Big Brother Has A New Face, And It’s Your Boss

Recently, the CVS Caremark Corporation began requiring employees to disclose personal health information (including weight, blood pressure, and body fat levels) or else pay an annual $600 fine. Workers must make this information available to the company’s employee “Wellness Program” and sign a form stating that they’re doing so voluntarily.

CVS argues this will help workers “take more responsibility for improving their health.” At one level, this makes a certain sense. Because the company is paying for their employees’ health insurance, they naturally prefer healthier workers. But at a deeper level, CVS’ action demonstrates a growing problem with our current system of employer-provided health insurance. If our bosses must pay for our health care, they will inevitably seek greater control over our lifestyles.

Although most Americans take it for granted that they receive health insurance through the workplace, this is an artifact of federal tax rules from World War II. When the U.S. government imposed wartime wage controls, employers could no longer compete for workers by offering higher salaries. Instead, they competed by offering more generous fringe benefits such as health insurance. In 1943, the IRS ruled that employees did not have to pay tax on health benefits provided by employers; in 1954, the IRS made this permanent.

The federal government thus distorted the health insurance market in favor of employer-based plans. If a company paid $100 for health insurance with pre-tax dollars, the employee enjoyed the full benefit. But if the employee received that $100 as salary, he could only purchase $50-70 of insurance after taxes. Over time, this tax disparity helped employer-based health insurance dominate the private insurance market. In 2008, over 90% of non-elderly Americans with private insurance received it through their workplace.

Hence, government policy artificially injects the employer into the relationship between a patient and the health insurance system. Normally, what a worker ate or whether he smoked at home would be of no concern to his boss (unless it affected job performance). But U.S. government policy makes it the employer’s business.

To make matters worse, ObamaCare reinforces this status quo. ObamaCare requires large employers to offer health insurance to workers (or else pay a penalty). As a result, more people are discussing how best to link employment to healthy behavior. For example, the New England Journal of Medicine recently featured a pair of high-profile editorials debating the merits of allowing companies to discriminate against smokers, “for their own good.”

Furthermore, ObamaCare pays government grants to encourage companies to implement these “wellness programs.” Hence, employers who wouldn’t otherwise concern themselves with workers’ lifestyles now have an incentive to do so in order to collect federal funds.

—

This is very well written and informative article.  For those that wonder why employers are involved in health insurance (and not home owners insurance, car insurance, etc.) it was simply because of government intervention.  Salary freezes caused the creation of “benefit packages.”

What do you think about government intervention like price freezes and the constitutionality of them?  Click below for the full article.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2013/04/25/big-brother-has-a-new-face-and-its-your-boss/