Entries Tagged 'News' ↓

I have found that I like the LA Times’ reporting a lot more than the SF Chronicle’s.  Today an article gave some details on Sacramento’s plan on how to balance the state budget, and some of it is truly hilarious.  Here is a short summary.

• State workers’ June paycheck would be paid on July 1st, thus pushing $1.2 billion of expenses into the next fiscal year.  Umm… this saves money how?
• $1.7 billion of school funding would be delayed until the next fiscal year.  Once again, this is another paper fix
• Withhold 10% more taxes from every working Californian starting Jan 1st 2010.  This is essentially an attempt to collect almost $2 billion in taxes in advance.  What prevents people from changing their withholdings and owe the state money even with a 10% increase?
• 3% tax withholding on payments to independent contractors.  This is another gimmick to advance tax payments, but the independent contractors could get the money back if they don’t owe 3%.
• $1 billion proposed money grab on local gasoline tax revenues.  This is already being fought by the League of California Cities with a lawsuit.
• $1.50 per pack extra taxes on cigarettes.  When New York imposed a huge hike of taxes on each pack of cigarettes some New Jerseyan “entrepreneurs” simply bought cigarettes with lower taxes from other states and imported them to New York and made a profit by selling them at the tax inclusive rate.  I’m guessing some Nevadans or Oregonians will be into this business in California now.
• Illegal immigrants in prisons are being sent to immigration to be deported.  They really should have done this years ago.  Isn’t this really common sense?

A lot of these attempts to delay or advance payments really add nothing to the bottom line.  In fact, I think some of them would backfire.  For example, if you usually get a state tax refund now, perhaps it is time to change your withholdings so that you end up owing money at the end of the year because the state is trying to milk more money out of you this year anyway.  Also we all know that the state delayed refund payments for months and months this year so why should they receive your money early?  Chances are this would happen again if they do not change the fundamentals of how they are operating.    If enough people change their withholding strategy then this advance grab of tax dollars would not work at all.  If you calculate your withholdings correctly it is possible to owe just enough to not have to pay a penalty.

I’m kind of annoyed to see that a lot of the original proposed cuts on some social programs are gone and all of these gimmicks are going on.  So they are pushing one month’s salary into the next year, what will they do the next year?  Push the salaries again?  Soon enough state worker’s will be getting their pay budgeted for years into the future.  That’s pretty pointless.

I really do not mind paying taxes if it is being used responsibly, but it does not seem like the government knows how to manage money properly.  Add that to the fact that Californians themselves control the law making proposition system you just get a complete mess.   Of course noone wants to cut education, healthcare, and freebies, and of course noone wants to increase taxes.  So what you have left over is a very dysfunctional state and another reason to hate California.

Share This

Today I read a headline “Echo boomers a lifeline for embattled housing market“.  At first I raised my eyebrow wondering what exactly an “echo boomer” is, and then I read this article and I thought it was hilarious.  Apparently echo boomer is another label for children of the baby boomers.  Haven’t we got enough labels already?

So the gist of the article is that a Harvard study said that  my generation is entering  a stage of peak home consumption and will shore up the housing market.   The problem with this conclusion is that they did not account for how many people in the “echo boom” generation already own homes, and how many already lost homes to foreclosure and cannot recover for seven years.  However, the study did acknowledge that the real income of my generation is much lower than the prior generation so the affordability of homes is much lower.  Additionally, younger workers are suffering more in the midst of high unemployment, so buying a home is even more out of reach due to the lack of jobs.

However, I agree that eventually our generation will be the ones that soak up the excess housing inventory on the market now, but that is almost the same as saying “the sun rises in the east”.    It will take time for homes to be affordable enough for my generation to buy en masse.  Some of my friends have an attitude of, “I am not going to be stupid like my parents and rush into home buying”, and even those who have parents with huge capital gains on their homes believe that it is still too expensive to buy a home at the current valuations.  Also I have seen a trend of frugality as being the “in” thing to do now so many are seeking a deal or just staying put.  Some are just saving money by living with their parents.

Anyway, I wouldn’t say that we as a generation is  a lifeline for the current horrible housing situation, but I think it is a good thing that this crisis is happening now while we are still young. We still have time to figure stuff out,  learn from our parents’ mistakes, and build up our assets.  Unfortunately,  many baby boomers who were most affected by this economic disaster may be running out of time to rebuild.

Share This

The latest news is that the unemployment rate in the Silicon Valley is now at 11.2% and this is the highest unemployment rate on record for our area.  From a survey of my friends and family it seems that everyone is a bit unsettled about their jobs right now.  Here is what I found.

Many of the large tech companies around here already went through rounds of publicized and internally announced layoffs and a good majority has had pay freezes or paycuts starting as early as late last year.  These are all public companies that you probably have heard of.  Basically noone I know in a large company has had a raise this year with the exception of people at Lockheed Martin.  Lockheed is doing fine since is a defense contractor and we are in the midst of war.  The government cut some of their contracts and added others.    The largest organization in California is the state of California itself, and we all know how terrible the state coffers are right now.  Pretty much all public employees I know are  getting paycuts in the form of furloughs and some are being laid off.  Banking is another industry that got hit extremely hard for obvious reasons.  For example, we have a Downey Savings, WaMu, Wachovia, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America all on the same block.  Two of those banks are technically dead.

On the flip side the friends I know that work for smaller corporations still managed to get raises and bonuses this year.  This is not to say that smaller companies are doing better than larger corporations as a whole, but I think that in general smaller companies have less fat to trim than large corporations.  Most startups tend to pay less than large companies, and have a leaner team to operate everything.    For the most part raises are rare this year, and they are also much smaller than previous years.   Many small companies depend on the spending of large corporations so there is really a trickle down effect.   Personally I have no idea if my company is giving out raises, but I am not expecting anything.  I would seriously be happy with a 1% raise just to cover the increase in state taxes.  The hubby got a small 3.75% raise and I am pretty happy about that even though it is smaller than any previous raise.

Anyway, the greater economy is really out of our control, and I am pretty grateful that we still have jobs.  However, I think everyone should try to give themselves a bonus or raise through saving or earning more money.  I have done several things to essentially give ourselves a raise this year such as refinancing our mortgage, renegotiating our rent, and continuing to blog.  Reducing our mortgage and rent is basically saving us 3300 after tax money every year, and that is significant.  My blogging income is also much higher than last year as my articles age and I have a bigger collection of articles.  These changes make me a little less uneasy about the general doom and gloom atmosphere we are in, and I am hopeful that the American economy will recover eventually.

Share This

The Golden States is not so glittery right now.  It seems that the special election yesterday went just as I expected, the propositions to extend taxes, borrow from the lottery, and divert funds were all rejected.  The only thing that passed was 1F, which restricts raises on state legislators, and this would not save much money at all.  So now what?  Many are saying that California will need a federal bailout since the state is facing a $21 billion deficit.  Here are some of my thoughts on the issue.

My feelings on a federal bailout is somewhat mixed.  First of all, I feel that Californians deserve some payback from the federal government because for years we have been paying more taxes than what we get back.  As I have written before, the Tax Foundation estimates that California gets 79 cents for every dollar we ship to the Feds.  This has been going on for many years, and California’s GDP is by far the largest in the Union, so perhaps California deserves to be bailed out due to its contributions to this nation.

Of course, if the bailout happens due to the reason I cited above, then other states like New York, Massachusetts, and New Jersey may just line up for a bailout as well since they have also been getting a lot less federal money back than what they put in.  All the other states would of course be quite furious.  The bailout may also make California more dependent on the federal government, and that
is never a good thing.

One big reason why I would be against such a bailout is that California’s main problem comes down to the simple fact that the entire system is living beyond its means and throwing more money at it is not the solution.  The legislators do not seem to know how to budget for the future.  It seems that the budgets are based on an assumption that things are always going up, and as a result programs are established in the boom years and never cut in the lean years.  Californian voters also hate to cut any services they already have and also hate taxes so the balance between income and spending becomes out of whack.

Someone at the top has to look at the state programs right now line by line and
cut anything that looks redundant and useless. The state’s credit ratings are not exactly stellar so the only choice is to cut things as soon as possible.  I actually support Governor Schwartzenegger’s effort to cut services and state employees right now because there is really no other choice.  In lean times like these individual families live without luxuries such as eating out or even birthday presents, and the state needs to do the same.
~

Share This

Today the overseers of Social Security and Medicare reported that these programs are now closer to insolvency due to the recession and falling tax revenues.  Medicare is already pulling in less tax revenues than it pays out in benefits and will no longer be able to pay 100% of benefits in less than 8 years.  It seems that these programs would need to either increase tax rates or cut back benefits to be sustainable.  At the same time, many Americans are calling for single-payer healthcare, which means that the government alone would set up a health insurance system that pays all medical claims and negotiate rates with care providers.  Essentially, people are clamoring for universal healthcare, but how much would it cost?  Here are some of my thoughts on the issue.

First of all, I agree that healthcare expenses are  quite ridiculous in America.  If you ever get an itemized bill from a hospital where you were treated you would see that some small items such as bandaids are charged at exorbitant rates.  If you have adequate insurance from your workplace then the out of pocket expenses are not so bad.  For example, I will be paying $100 total for my upcoming delivery and hospital stay.  However, if you do not have good insurance having a baby could cost tens of thousands of dollars.  One of my friends said that a doctor was in her room for about half an hour while she was delivering her baby, and in the itemized bill she got the charge for that service was over $3000.  It is really no surprise to me that unexpected medical expenses are the number one cause of personal bankruptcy.

The biggest problem I see with the current system is that there is not much transparency in how much each hospital and care provider charges for various services.  Every care provider sets their own price for the uninsured and then another set of prices for each insurer they deal with.  There is pretty much no way for a consumer to get a decent discount without going through an insurer.  Basically, there is this extra layer of medical insurance consumers have to wade through.  Consumers are forced to shop between medical insurers, and not medical servicers and the priorities of medical insurers and medical servicers are vastly different.  Medical insurers do not want to pay for claims if they don’t have to, and so they have an incentive to reject applicants who need care the most.  As a result,medical insurance is prohibitively expensive for those with existing conditions or need constant care.

So what happens if the government takes over the healthcare system completely?  If that happens consumers will not have the choice of choosing between insurers and the government will have to negotiate prices with the care providers.  It would cut down a lot of overhead, but  it may not cost less than the current system for the individual consumer and here is why. Currently most people in America have some form of employment sponsored private insurance that costs very little out of pocket. Even without an employer, there are high deductible plans available with low premiums for most healthy people that individuals can choose from.   Some young healthy individuals even skip health insurance to save money because they have the choice to do so.    However, if we switch to a completely government based system it would be paid out of taxes, and there would be no choice but to pay it.   Currently Medicare is 2.9% of payroll, and it is not enough to insure just  the elderly and disabled.  It is estimated that Medicare taxes needs to be nearly 7% of payroll to be sustainable.  Just imagine if the program has to cover everyone in the United States and you will see that the tax may be well over 10% of someone’s pay.  Do you currently pay 10% of your yearly income on medical insurance?  I certainly don’t, and I think most people don’t.

I think a better way to healthcare reform is to let consumers have more transparency into the costs of services and allow a bit of comparison shopping.  I know how much it costs to fix my car, so why can’t I know how much it costs to remove a mole? It is possible that some people do not need insurance if they just want some basic preventive services that can be provided by care providers directly at reasonable rates provided that they stay healthy.   Insurers also shouldn’t be able to reject or price gouge patients based on existing conditions because everyone should get the care they need.  Perhaps universal healthcare could work here, but  many more relatively healthy people will have to pitch in much more money than before, and they won’t have a choice in the matter.  Once such a system is in place it would also be very difficult to remove, and it would only get more expensive as people live longer lives.

Share This