Entries Tagged 'United States' ↓

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

The Silicon Valley is a fairly liberal place that has generally supported many of the Obama Administration’s moves, but yesterday  many in the tech industry do not seem happy about Obama’s proposal to effectively raise taxes on foreign income by billions of dollars.

Currently, U.S. based companies can defer corporate taxes on foreign income as long as they keep the income in another country.  Additionally, U.S. companies can deduct the foreign taxes and costs  they already paid against their income.  The Obama administration argues that this ships jobs overseas.  The problem with that argument  is that many U.S. based companies actually make more than 50% of their income from citizens of other countries.  Imagine if you are selling 1000000 units of something here in the United States, and you are selling 1000000 units of the same thing to the rest of the world, then you would absolutely need staff and offices in the rest of the world.  There is a Walmart in my hometown in China, and sure, it is staffed by Chinese people, but it also earns money from Chinese people.  Does the Obama administration think that taxing this Walmart more will bring those jobs to America?  That is absolutely ridiculous.  What it will do is that it would cut the profit margin of the Walmart in China, and the Chinese will have to suffer higher prices and they will probably just shop elsewhere.  This will reduce the competitiveness of American companies in other countries because other stores have to pay only the local taxes.

I really think this plan to enact protectionism via the tax code is really short sighted.  America has 5% of the world’s population, and a lot of the large multinational corporations have little room to expand in this country.  Just think of how many iPods and McDonalds you see everyday and you would understand that the United States is absolutely saturated with a lot of products and services and the growth rate for a company that stayed exclusively in the United States would not be as large as a company that sells to the rest of the world.  So why would the United States government punish corporations for making money from the rest of the 95% of the world?

Another consequence of this initiative that was not mentioned by the administration is that this will affect the stock prices of the bluest blue chips.  When you see those earnings per share numbers, they do include foreign earnings.  For example, Johnson and Johnson is a company that gets more than 50% of its earnings from foreign countries.  So imagine that half of its earnings suddenly had a tax of 30% compared to 2% the year before.  This will cut into the earnings per share significantly.  The result would be lower stock prices, and the further erosion of 401ks and pension funds.  What a great way to destroy more retirements.

The worst consequence is that large corporations could just pack up and leave the United States completely.  Just imagine all of the Silicon Valley greats like Oracle, Google, and Cisco reincorporating in another country with more favorable corporate tax systems and taking away tens of thousands of jobs permanently.  That would be a huge blow to the United States economy, and it may be irreparable.

So far, the reception to this plan has been somewhat hostile from many industry groups and foreign nations.  The Register in the UK states that “Obama declares war on Ireland” for its low business taxes.  In some ways, that is true.  U.S. based companies employ millions of people in foreign countries, and if the administration specifically targets foreign taxes, it is essentially targeting the livelihoods of these people.  It is also ridiculous to think that laying off foreign workers is good for America, because as the living standards of everyone else improves, they also purchase American goods.  If you take away those good paying jobs around the world, it is really worse for everyone.  The plan will supposedly raise $210 billion for the Treasury in the next decade, but at what cost to the global economy and America?

Share This

I admit it. I watch a lot of TV, and this year I have had the unpleasant experience of turning on the tube to find President Obama when I expected some funny or smart show to come on. This has happened repeatedly in the last few months and it is scheduled to happen again on 4/29.

Because of Obama I had to watch Valentine’s Day episodes of popular comedies in the middle of March. I am sorry but it just feels out of context to see a bunch of hearts on St. Patrick’s Day and every show was just a little less funny. Next, I now no longer know which day some shows are on because several networks changed airing dates to accommodate Obama. Some shows are also trying to catch up by showing multiple episodes in the same week and that is just plain confusing.

I have no problem with President Obama being on TV. After all, he has important things to say, but is it really necessary to preempt prime time television every few weeks on every single network channel? What is wrong with a 6pm news conference when news is usually shown on TV? It is possible to communicate to the public on cable news, the internet, or radio so I think all of these prime time conferences are done at least in part due to Obama’s enormous ego.

So what does this rant have to do with finance or business? Well, the TV networks are definitely losing millions of dollars with each prime time intrusion by President Obama. These two upcoming weeks are especially important because it is what’s known as May sweeps. This means that many shows are having their season finales so advertising is generally more expensive. Also, the sweeps ratings are important to every show since they are used to determine advertising rates for the next season. These prime time interruptions are really hurting the major networks and the shows they are airing. It also hurts the local network affiliates in every city and town in America who receive ad revenue from the shows they air. Most of all, the revenue loss will hurt the workers at these broadcasters and shows. If a company is forced to lose millions of dollars every few weeks they are bound to cut some personnel. Also, many of the new shows that are trying to establish themselves are hurt by the constantly shuffling scheduling, and every cancellation of a show is equivalent to the cancellation of hundreds of jobs.  So believe it or not, Obama’s decision to schedule his news conferences during prime time instead of say 4pm or 6pm is truly hurting people.  I think one of these networks should just stand up to the White House and say no and I am sure that network will get more viewers than the rest because they would be showing something different.

By now I can already predict what Obama is going to say on the news conference because he generally says the same thing over and over. First, he will say something to the effect that we are in a difficult economic crisis and everyone needs to work together. Then he will say that he has cut taxes for 95% of Americans and he is cracking down on the greedy bankers. Finally he will end up with the cliche that there is hope for America. Basically, Obama is continuing his campaign and since he is president now he has the power to get primo prime time coverage for free!

I am definitely not the only one mad about these prime time TV interruptions. It may seem silly that I care about TV so much, but it is my leisure time that Obama is sacrificing for his own ego. After working 8 to 10 hour days, I think millions of Americans deserve to be shown something that makes them happy for 20 minutes to an hour. Millions of people want to escape from the reality of this horrible economy and real life just for a little while, and Obama is taking that away when he can choose not to. So I don’t think it’s stupid to say that if your President really cared about your well being he or she would leave your favorite shows alone. News conferences belong on news channels, and not during Chuck or Bones.

Here is an idea, if Obama seriously wants to be on TV on prime time so often then he should just get his own reality show. I am sure that will have great ratings and actually add to the coffers of the network that snags it. At least that would stimulate the economy instead of taking money away from broadcasters.

Share This

Some readers have said that I should write more about personal finance, and less about the politics of the United States, but I think the two topics are inherently related because the government is a very large part of our everyday lives and it affects financial decisions we make in so many ways.  Some commenters have said that they were surprised I am so much of a “conservative” considering that I am from such a liberal part of the country and seem to be fairly intelligent.  I thought about this, and I realized that most frugal personal finance writers would be politically conservatives whether they realize it or not.

First of all, being frugal is all about being fiscally conservative with your own finances.   So if you are pinching pennies by using coupons and sales, then why would you want your government to spend your tax dollars without any concern to the pricetag of things?  I imagine that most frugal people want a frugal government that looks for the best price in every purchase.  Unfortunately, this is not happening at all under the current regime, and that is disconcerting.

Second, being frugal is about being responsible for what you have been given in terms of income.  Nearly every personal finance blog I have read do not support the housing bailout and other bailouts that have been happening lately because these bloggers including myself think of the bailouts as rewarding the irresponsible.  So logically, these frugal bloggers would have voted with the Republicans against the new stimulus bills and bailouts and be labeled as “conservatives”.

Next, a lot of frugal bloggers write about getting rid of debt.  This is once again another fiscally conservative ideal.  Right now the United States is in $11 trillion dollars of debt, and the new administration wants to increase it by 27%.  Granted, the 8 years of Bush was not very conservative, either, and many people believe that George Bush is not a true conservative.   For the most part I think most frugal people want the government to get rid of its mounting debt, and again, being frugal is the same as being conservative.

I think it is sad that people think of conservatism as a bad word, but I guess just a few years ago frugality was not very popular, either.   Hopefully as frugality and fiscal responsibility becomes more accepted Americans will realize that they cannot afford to have big spenders in their government.  After all, more taxes means less savings, and letting the government take more of your own ability to be financially independent is equivalent to giving up your life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Share This

The last two weeks have been incredibly busy for me because the entire engineering team was working on an important major release of our software. We all worked multiple weekends and nights and finally the software is out! As a reward we got to have five days floating holidays for the extra time we worked. I am taking one of those days off today just to unwind a bit, and also work on our dreaded taxes.

I already entered our W-2s and 1099s into the tax software and it looks like we owe quite a bit of money. The reason is that we adjusted our W-4 from single to married at the end of 2007. Strangely enough, this made our paychecks bigger for the duration of 2008, but we actually owe more taxes than when we were single because of the marriage tax penalty. Basically, we withheld less, and we owe more. So we may owe $4000 to $6000 for last year. This is not that bad because we actually needed the cash during the year to complete the home purchase. We also have the cash to pay for the taxes so it is not a dire situation. From my calculations we should be fine with the same W-4 status this year because our mortgage interest deduction will be around $6000 for the year and it will basically be a wash. Last year we only made two mortgage payments and a couple months of property taxes so the deductions are not very large.  I think the optimal thing to do is to owe a little bit of money every year in case the government needs to give out an IOU.

Nevertheless, paying taxes is always pretty depressing. I did a bit of math yesterday and our biggest monthly expense is actually our taxes and that is pretty sad. In fact, the amount we are required to spend on taxes every month is more than our rent and food money. Ironically, all of this money is mostly wasted by the government on bailouts upon bailouts.

Additionally, I am not a citizen, but a  permanent resident of this country, but the IRS states that I should be taxed like any other citizen working here.  I am fine with that since I have the same work opportunities as citizens, but for me it is truly taxation without representation.

Anyway, I should pull out all my various tax statements now and start working.  This is quite depressing indeed.

Share This