The Federal Weatherization Assistance Program has been around for decades and funding has been increased as part of the stimulus bills. This type of spending is better than much of what government does. It actually invests in something with positive externalities. It targets spending to those that need help (instead of say those that pay politicians to give their companies huge payoffs and then pay themselves tens of millions in bonuses).
The Depart of Energy provides funding, but the states run their own programs and set rules for issues such as eligibility. They also select service providers, which are usually nonprofit agencies that serve families in their communities, and review their performance for quality. In many states the stimulus funds have increased the maximum funds have increased to $6,500 per household, from $3,000.
The weatherization program targets low-income families: those who make $44,000 per year for a family of four (except for $55,140 for Alaska and $50,720 for Hawaii).
The program provides funds for those with low-income for the like of: insulation, air sealing and at times furnace repair and replacement. Taking advantage of this program can help you reduce your energy bills and reduce the amount of energy we use and pollution created. And it employs people to carry out these activities.
The Weatherization Assistance Program invests in making homes more energy efficient, reducing heating bills by an average of 32% and overall energy bills by hundreds of dollars per year.
Weatherization is also often a very good idea without any government support. If you are eligible for some help, definitely take a look at whether it makes sense for you. And even if you are not, it is a good idea to look into saving on your energy costs.
Related: Oil Consumption by Country in 2007 – Japan to Add Personal Solar Subsidies – personal finance tips – Kodak Debuts Printers With Inexpensive Cartridges – Personal Finance Basics: Dollar Cost Averaging
Read more
Is it cynical to think that politicians want to provide payments from the treasury to those that paid the politicians? More cynical to think the politicians that created huge Wall Street Welfare payments won’t actually do anything except talk about how they think it is bad that those they paid billions to are buying new mansions and yachts? More cynical to think they will continue to provide huge amounts of nearly free cash for those that paid them to speculate with? More cynical to think if any of those speculators lose money they will give them more welfare? More cynical to think those bought and paid for politicians won’t actually take any steps to tax or curtail speculation? I think maybe I am cynical about Washington doing anything other than talk about how they don’t want to provide huge amounts of cash to Wall Street all the while giving their Wall Street friends huge amounts of cash that will be paid back by our grandchildren.
Wouldn’t it be nice if the politicians actually took actions to fund a partial payback of the hundreds of billions (or maybe trillions) of bailout dollars by taxing financial speculation? I doubt it will happen. But maybe I am too cynical. Maybe politicians will not just do what they have been paid to do. But it seems the best predictor of what congress will do is based on what they are paid to do, based on their past and current behavior. Now what congress will say is very different. those paying Congressmen might not love it if the congressmen call them names but through a few billion more and they are happy to be called names while given the cash to buy new jets and sports teams and parties for their daughters.
Making Wall Street pay by Dean Baker
The logic of a financial transactions tax is simple. It would impose a modest fee on trades of stocks, futures, credit default swaps and other financial instruments. For example, the UK puts a 0.25% tax on the sale or purchase of shares of stock. This has very little impact on people who buy stock with the intent of holding it for a long period of time.
…
We can raise more than $140bn a year taxing financial transactions, an amount equal to 1% of GDP.
…
Since the financial sector is the source of the country’s current economic and budget problems it also makes sense to have this sector bear the brunt of any new taxes that may be needed. The economic collapse caused by Wall Street’s irrational exuberance has led to a huge increase in the country debt burden. It seems only fair that Wall Street bear the brunt of the clean-up costs. A financial transactions tax is the way to make sure that this happens.
The decisions over the past 30 years to pass huge huge tax bills to those in the future is unsustainable. Saying you cut taxes when all you actually do is postpone them is dishonest. However, many people go along with such false statements so politicians have learned to buy votes today by raising taxes on the future. Since the public keeps voting for such people when the facts are clear the only explanation is they support raising taxes, not today, but in the future (or, I suppose, they are not able to understand the clear implications of what they vote for). The Long-Term Budget Outlook
…
For decades, spending on Medicare and Medicaid has been growing faster than the economy. CBO projects that if current laws do not change, federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid combined will grow from roughly 5 percent of GDP today to almost 10 percent by 2035. By 2080, the government would be spending almost as much, as a share of the economy, on just its two major health care programs as it has spent on all of its programs and services in recent years.
…
CBO projects that Social Security spending will increase from less than 5 percent of GDP today to about 6 percent in 2035 and then roughly stabilize at that level.
…
Federal interest payments already amount to more than 1 percent of GDP; unless current law changes, that share would rise to 2.5 percent by 2020.
The cost of paying for a dysfunctional medical system has been a huge drain on the USA economy for decades. But that is nothing compared to what the future holds if we don’t adopted sensible strategies that reduce the huge extra costs we pay and the worse performance we receive for that cost.
Social security is not the huge problem many think it is. Still I would support reducing the payout to wealthy individuals and bringing the age limits more in line with the changes in life expectancy. 12.4% of pay for low and middle wage workers (high income earners stop paying social security taxes so in effect marginal tax rates decrease by 12% for any income above $106,800). Medicare taxes add 2.9% bringing the total social security and Medicare taxes to 15.1% (including both the amount paid directly by the employee and the amount paid for the employee by the employer).
Related: True Level of USA Federal Deficit – USA Federal Debt Now $516,348 Per Household – quotations about economics – articles on improving the health care system – USA Spent $2.2 Trillion, 16.2% of GDP, on Health Care in 2007
One problem with investing in mutual funds is potential tax bills. If the fund has invested well and say bought Google at $150 and then Google was at $700 (a few years ago) there is the potential tax liability of the $550 gain per share. So if funds have been successful (which is one reason you may want to invest in them) they often have had a large potential tax liability.
With an open end mutual fund the price is calculated each day based on the net asset value, which is fair but really the true value if there is a large potential tax liability is less than if there was none. So in reality you had to believe the management would outperform enough to make up for the extra taxes that would be owed.
Well, the drastic stock market decline over the last few years has turned this upside down and many mutual funds actual have tax losses that they have realized (which can be used to offset future capital gains). Say the fund had realized capital losses of $30,000,000 last year. Then if they have capital gains of $20,000,000 next year they can use the losses from last year and will not report any taxable capital gains. And the next year the first $10,000,000 in capital gains would be not table either. Business Week, had an article on this recently – Big Losers Can Be Big Tax Shelters
…
Yet it is Miller’s newer charge, Legg Mason Opportunity, which holds stocks of all sizes and can take short positions, that will prove to be the real tax haven. Morningstar pegs its losses at 285% of its $1.2 billion in assets.
…
There are other funds with returns so ugly and losses so large that it may not matter what their trading style is for many years: Fidelity Select Electronics (FSELX), -539%; MFS Core Equity A, -369%; Janus Worldwide (JAWWX), -304%; Vanguard U.S. Growth (VWUSX), -227%.
How does a fund have over 100% tax losses? The way I can think of is if they have a great deal of redemptions. If the fund shrinks in size from a $3 billion fund to a $300 million fund they could have a 50% realized capital loss (down to $750 million) but then another $450 million in redemptions). Now the $300 million has a $750 million capital loss or 250%.
Related: Shorting Using Inverse Funds – Lazy Portfolio Results – Does a Declining Stock Market Worry You? – Asset Allocations Make A Big Difference
Group of Rich Americans Sues UBS to Keep Names Secret in Tax Case
…
The lawsuit, which UBS described in an internal memo late Tuesday, stems from UBS’s agreement last week to turn over to federal authorities in Washington the names of 250 wealthy Americans suspected of using secret UBS offshore accounts and entities to evade taxes.
UBS reached a $780 million deferred-prosecution agreement to settle accusations that it used undisclosed offshore private banking services to help wealthy Americans evade taxes. But the bank is still under scrutiny by the Justice Department, which is seeking to force it to disclose the names of the 52,000 American clients it suspects may have evaded taxes.
So how many of these people will be serving time in jail do you think. Lets say for example, they ended up stealing $10,000 from the US government by evading taxes. Now UBS has to worry about the Swiss laws on disclosing information. But for the Americans all they are doing is trying to cover up a crime they committed. Do you think they will be punished for the crime in the first place? What about for trying to cover up the crime after the fact? The lack of moral fiber of so many rich in the USA is disheartening. I hope those that tried to steal from all the rest of us, and then tried to cover up their crimes, are thrown in jail at least as long as an average criminal that is young and poor that steals the amount they did and then tries to prevent witnesses from providing evidence to the Justice Department. And not in some country club jail either. But I doubt they will be. More rich people act ethically than those that don’t, but the number that are outrageously unethical is far too high.
Related: Super Spoiled Brats – Why Pay Taxes or be Honest – Estate Tax Repeal – CEOs Plundering Corporate Coffers
Feds Rethink Rules on Retirement Savings
Among the possible changes: allowing taxpayers to delay taking required withdrawals from their individual retirement accounts, 401(k) plans and other similar accounts this year — or at least reducing the amount that must be withdrawn. Also under consideration are various ways to provide tax relief for people who already have made their required withdrawals for this year.
This is silly. Everyone in the situation of having to make a withdrawal has know about the requirement for years. My guess is this has been the law for over 20 years. Yes, the stock market is down. Yes, being forced to sell now would be bad. And how does providing “tax relief” to those who already made required withdrawals make any sense? Why not just have the treasury send checks to every American, who had a loss on an investment this year, equal to the amount of their loss? (By the way this is sarcasm – they should not really do that). These people have lost any sense of what investing, planning, responsibly… are.
First, knowing you have required withdrawals from your IRA, you should not hold those assets in stock (I suppose you could have significant cash assets outside your IRA and chose to just use the next option). Second, you can buy the stock outside your IRA at the same minute you sell them in the IRA. What is the big deal: the cost should be about $20 in stock commission for each stock – you save that much each time you fill up your gas tank lately (compared to prices this summer). All that not having to withdraw funds does is let those wealthy enough not to need a small amount of their IRA or 401(k) savings by the time they are 70 1/2 to keep deferring taxes on their investment gains.
Therein lies one of the major problems. This year’s distributions are based on Dec. 31, 2007, levels — a time when market prices generally were far above today’s deeply depressed values. As a result, “millions of Americans are forced to withdraw larger-than-anticipated amounts from already-depleted retirement funds,” says David Certner, legislative policy director at AARP, an advocacy group that represents nearly 40 million older Americans.
What kind of 1984 newspeak is this? I mean this is absolutely ridicules. You have to withdraw the exact amount you knew on January 1st 2008. Nothing about that has changed in almost a year. How can the Wall Street Journal report this without pointing out the completely false claim.
Read more
The USA national debt decreased almost $1 billion yesterday. If it decreased by $1 billion dollars a day in just 10,526 days the USA government would be out of debt. That is just under 29 years, that doesn’t seem so bad. Unfortunately the decrease yesterday is not likely the start of a new trend (it is just daily variation).
In the last month the debt is up over $580 Billion. At that rate, well lets just say if that rate continued long we would be in even more serious trouble than we have been placed in by the amazingly irresponsible behavior of the politicians increasing taxes on our grandchildren (with massive spending they chose to fund by huge tax increases on our grandchildren) have been doing the last 5 years. In the last year they have spent $1.46 Trillion more than they paid for (which will have to be paid for by future taxes – although the recent decision to purchase $125 billion in bank stocks perhaps opens another option for the the government to start buying companies and use profits they make to pay off the debt they are taking on).
The current debt stands at $10,525,823,144,117. That is a bit over $10.5 Trillion.
Related: True Level of USA Federal Deficit – USA Federal Debt Now $516,348 Per Household – Washington Paying Out Money it Doesn’t Have
Federal Deficit To Double This Year
…
The budget picture is likely to grow even bleaker once government analysts factor in the anticipated costs of the Treasury Department’s decision last weekend to take over struggling mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
It is no surprise those that spend what they don’t have personally elect those that do the same thing for the nation. But as those that spend money they don’t have eventually realize you have to become responsible at some point.
Related: More Government Waste – True Level of USA Federal Deficit – Lobbyists Keep Tax Off Billion Dollar Private Equities Deals and On For Our Grandchildren
Foreclosure Filings Continue to Rise
…
last week the Mortgage Bankers Association reported that about 2.47 percent of home mortgages were in foreclosure during the first quarter of the year, almost double the 1.28 percent rate of a year earlier, and the highest point since the group began compiling such figures in 1979. A Credit Suisse report this spring predicted that 6.5 million loans will fall into foreclosure over the next five years, reaching more than 8 percent of all U.S. homes.
There numbers really are astounding. How lame were the decisions of banks and mortgagees that nearly 1 in 40 mortgages are in default (and that number likely increasing in the next year to much more?
Related: Homes Entering Foreclosure at Record (Sep 2007) – Homes Entering Foreclosure at Record – Ignorance of Many Mortgage Holders
What’s the real federal deficit? by Dennis Cauchon, 2006
…
The audited financial statement – prepared by the Treasury Department – reveals a federal government in far worse financial shape than official budget reports indicate, a USA Today analysis found. The government has run a deficit of $2.9 trillion since 1997, according to the audited number. The official deficit since then is just $729 billion.
…
The new Medicare prescription-drug benefit alone would have added $8 trillion to the government’s audited deficit. That’s the amount the government would need today, set aside and earning interest, to pay for the tens of trillions of dollars the benefit will cost in future years.
Standard accounting concepts say that $8 trillion should be reported as an expense. Combined with other new liabilities and operating losses, the government would have reported an $11 trillion deficit in 2004 – about the size of the nation’s entire economy.
The federal government also would have had a $12.7 trillion deficit in 2000 because that was the first year that Social Security and Medicare reported broader measures of the programs’ unfunded liabilities. That created a one-time expense.
The continued attempts by politicians to distract from the huge taxes they are voting to place on our children and grandchildren is disheartening. And the continued actions that are the equivilent of getting another credit card when they spend so much that even the “official” books that they have exceeded the allowable total federal debt that is damaging the economy. They need to learn how to live within the current taxes they collect just as people need to learn to live within their earning. Either that fails to do so mortgages their future.
Related: Politicians Again Raising Taxes On Your Children – USA Federal Debt Now $516,348 Per Household – Washington’s Funny Accounting – Lobbyists Keep Tax Off Billion Dollar Private Equities Deals and On For Our Grandchildren – Failed Leadership: Estate Tax Repeal