As featured in The Wall Street Journal, Money Magazine, and more!

Posts tagged as:

government

Comments
Email this article Email this article
Print this article Print this article

President Obama and Congress Extend the $8,000 Home Buyers’ Credit

by Flexo on November 6, 2009

in Real Estate and Home

It’s official. Today President Obama will sign a bill into law that extends the $8,000 First Time Home Buyers’ Tax Credit, recently set to expire on November 30, until April 30 next year. The tax credit, originally part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was intended to stimulate the real estate industry, and Congress has been talking about extending the credit for months.

1.8 million home buyers have qualified for the $8,000 first time home buyers’ tax credit so far or will qualify by the end of November. According to the National Association of Realtors (who have a vested interest in seeing the credit be extended and expanded) says 335,000 of those home buyers would not have purchased a new house if not for the credit.

With house prices still lower than their highs and not much activity in the market, the industry wants more stimulation. And the industry is getting more than the $8,000 stimulus. Formerly, the tax credit was available only to home buyers who hadn’t owned a house in the past three years. The new bill adds a $6,500 tax credit for current home owners who buy a new house, and who have lived in their current house for at least five years. The extensions comes at a cost of $10.8 billion over 10 years according to the Joint Committee on Taxation

In order to qualify for either credit, the purchase contracts need to be signed by April 30, 2010 and the closing must take place by June 30, 2010. The value of the purchased house must be less than $800,000. There is an income limitation as well, but it has been increased with the passing of this bill into law. If your adjusted gross income is above $125,000 (single filers) or $225,000 (joint filers), the maximum credit you are allowed to claim is phased out.

The extension of the home buyers’ credit was included within H.R. 3548 (Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2009), a bill which increases unemployment benefits for Americans for up to 20 weeks.

Do you think this extension is a good idea or with the economy beginning to improve, should we cease creating more stimuli?

Photo credit: pnwra

{ 14 comments }



Comments
Email this article Email this article
Print this article Print this article

Pay Czar Ordering Bailed Out Companies to Reduce Pay

by Flexo on October 22, 2009

in Economy

The executives of these companies had to see this coming. When a company is “too big to fail,” it becomes a public institution in senses of the phrase but the most literal. And for a number of banks and other financial companies in the past year, the public has become a partial owner thanks to infusion of cash from the government bailouts.

A company has a responsibility to do what is in the best interest of its stakeholders. For these bailed-out companies, taxpayers hold more of that stake than ever before. Those who own shares of stock in these companies want nothing more than the companies to be self-sustaining and profitable, but taxpayers, all who have lent money to the companies to help prop up their balance sheets and create liquidity, just want these loans paid back regardless of profit.

The government officially represents the taxpayers, not the shareholders, but you can be sure the government wants to see these companies profit, too. The Obama administration’s “pay czar,” Ken Feinberg, is going to determine the compensation for the highest 25 paid individuals in each of the companies that have not yet repaid government funds. The new compensation plans would reduce total pay by an average of 50% per individual and would reduce the cash portion of pay by an average of 90%.

Wall StreetThis could benefit both taxpayers and shareholders in the short term:

  • Pay reductions create an incentive for companies to pay back the taxpayers and become fully private.
  • Lowering pay lowers companies’ expenses so they can report bigger profits in their quarterly an annual financial statements.

The challenge with government-mandated compensation restriction is that executives and boards of directors believe that bailed-out companies will be less appealing to the best and brightest talent. Corporate leaders who find they can only earn $40 million at Company A but could earn $80 million or more by moving to a company not partially controlled by the public might defect for greener pastures.

That sounds like a solid threat, but it’s not likely on a large scale. There are enough talented and qualified senior-level executives out there who would be happy to take the reins of a company partially owned by the government. At least, that is what Ken Feinberg is hoping.

It’s unlikely taxpayers will see bailed-out companies repay all of the money that they received. The government’s job right now is to get back as much of those funds as possible while still, to a point, preventing the companies from failing.

Photo credit: epicharmus
Wall Street Pay Cuts Stoke Debate About Washington’s Reach, Julianna Goldman, Ian Katz and Robert Schmidt, Bloomberg, October 22, 2009

{ 12 comments }



Comments
Email this article Email this article
Print this article Print this article

Friday Discussion: The Need for and Cost of Health Care Reform

by Flexo on October 9, 2009

in Health

I visit a doctor once a year at the most, and I hardly require prescription medicine. The cost of my health insurance premium is about $800 this year for my HMO plan. My employer pays a larger percentage of the total premium, but the prices increase each year by a percentage much higher than inflation. A similar HMO plan, if I were to quit my job and buy individual health insurance in New Jersey, I would pay more than $800 a month, though there are less expensive options.

I’m lucky I don’t have any dependents.

The more individuals in the world with access to good and affordable heath care, the healthier the world will be in general, so I am in favor in reform that brings better care to more people. While reduced costs for me would be nice, that would be just an ancillary — and selfish — benefit. Will any of the various sets of proposed legislation succeed? I don’t know anyone who can answer that question with any sort of definitive answer. Health care is a monster, a complicated system with many moving parts that won’t be fixed right away.

The Congressional Budget Office released their cost estimates for the version of the legislation that is up for a vote within the Senate Finance Committee, and the numbers look better than expected: The bill would could $829 billion over ten years and actually reduce the budget deficit by $81 billion over the same time period. This bill doesn’t include a government-run plan, but it also leaves more people uninsured than some would like.

This legislation has a long way to go. The version of health care reform offered by the Senate Finance Committee needs to be combined with the version being considered by the Senate Health Committee. The Senate then needs to vote on and pass a bill. The House of Representatives also needs to vote on and pass its version of the health reform bill (H.R. 3200). Eventually the bills that pass both the House and the Senate need to be combined, voted on, passed and presented to the President.

None of this will happen without more changes and compromises, and even then it may not gain the votes needed to succeed.

Please share your thoughts and join the discussion. What issues should health reform address? What are your experiences with health care?

{ 26 comments }

Comments
Email this article Email this article
Print this article Print this article

Overkill At the United States Mint With New Coin Designs

by Flexo on October 8, 2009

in Consumer

In 1909, the U.S. Mint decided to honor assassinated President Abraham Lincoln by putting his likeness on the obverse of the lowest denominated coin in regular circulation, the cent. This new design, introduced for the centennial anniversary of Lincoln’s birth, replaced the “Indian head” cent. The model for this design was most likely not a native American; most sources point to Sarah Longacre, the daughter of the cent’s engraver, wearing an Indian-style head dress.

This was the first time a coin in this country would depict a political leader. Those who created the first coinage in the country several centuries prior desired to distance this country from the monarchies of the Old World, where it was common for state leaders to decree their countries’ coinage should depict their images. American coins, for the most part, would depict a representation of “liberty” until the introduction of the Lincoln cent.

Public reaction

The design change in that year drew mixed emotions among the public. Some welcomed the change. As A.A. Leve wrote on August 15, 1909, in his letter to the editor of the New York Times in 1909, “… [T]he long line of illustrious Americans on our coins will have more education and patriotic influence on the citizens of our country than all the biographies and histories ever combined.” At least in the coin collecting community, you often hear of long-time collectors using their coins to teach their children and grandchildren about American history, so Leve may have been correct.

But there was also dissent. C.F.H. also wrote to the New York Times in August of 1909:

… [T]he chief aim governing a plan to honor such a being as Abraham Lincoln should be to comply with what his wished might be were he given full opportunity to express them. For, in failing to take account of so important a factor, such an honor as that involved in the new product of the mints of this freedom is left incomplete.

To think that Lincoln would find progress expressed in the recent insult to our National symbol of liberty, the “Indian head” on the cent, which, though it might be improved upon, should always remain, is inconceivable.

Throughout the twentieth century, the U.S. Mint was judicious in changing designs on coins. But over the past decade, they, and Congress who has been authorizing these changes, have been on a tear. Although the government’s stated purpose was to incite interest in coins again, it is clear that the U.S. Mint would much rather function like the Franklin Mint, releasing new products as often as possible so they can collect money from coin collectors.

The beginning of redesign overkill

First we had the State Quarters program, which began in 1999. Five new designs would adorn the reverse of the quarter dollar each year for ten years. The artistic and metaphorical engravings of prior centuries were replaced with run-of-the-mill images of whatever each state could come up with to commemorate itself. In 2000, the dollar coin came back in full force with the Sacagawea dollar.

The next coin to be awarded a new design was the nickel in 2004. This year saw two different designs for the reverse. In 2005, two more new reverse designs were used, as well as a new portrait of Thomas Jefferson on the obverse. The following year, the Mint found yet another portrait of Jefferson for the obverse and returned to the pre-2004 reverse.

In 2007, the Mint began a new dollar coin design in addition to the Sacagawea coin. To satisfy Presidents other than those already depicted on coinage, every American President would get a chance to appear on the dollar coin. Four new designs have been released every year since 2007, each with a portrait of a President, released in the order they took office.

The Mint couldn’t go another year without announcing something new, so in 2008 they decided to follow the State Quarters series with additional designs, including representations of D.C., Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Northern Mariana Islands.

Are we done yet? No. This year is the centennial anniversary of Lincoln’s first appearance on the cent. If you’ve looked carefully at your change this year, you may have noticed new penny designs.

A better idea

It’s time to stop commemorating people on our coins. Let’s go back to artistic designs depicting the idea of liberty, like this beautiful engraving of “walking liberty” by Adolph A. Weinman or another liberty engraving by Augustus Saint-Gaudens. Choose one design for each coin and stick with it for a long time, at least one generation and perhaps more than two. Give the public some time to get used to each design.

Continuous design changes don’t make coin collecting interesting for the long term. And for those interested in investing, I doubt that collecting any new coins will ever be financially worthwhile due to the vast quantities that are minted each year. All that is left for collectors besides the coin’s face value is the art. It might as well be good art rather than homages to elected leaders.

The Lincoln Cent (Letter to the Editor), A.A. Leve, The New York Times, August 15, 1909.
The Lincoln Cent (Letter to the Editor), C.F.H., The New York Times, August 6, 1909.

{ 16 comments }

Comments
Email this article Email this article
Print this article Print this article

10 Percent of U.S. Post Offices Under Evaluation, 700 to Be Closed

by Flexo on August 4, 2009

in Economy

The U.S. Postal Service has not been a thriving business for a while, and the recession has worsened its condition. In order to save $7 billion, the government is evaluating about 3,200 offices out of the total of 32,741, and 700 of these are currently marked for closure.

Personally, I am a fan of the U.S. Postal Service. I’ve found their services to be less expensive than other shipping options and just as reliable. The biggest drawback I have experienced is when visiting the facilities. The lines are often too long and the hours are inconvenient. Post office employees, those that I have seen, often seem disgruntled, frustrated and overworked. There are never enough works available to assist customers, and from what I understand, my experiences are not unique.

The U.S. Postal Service is disadvantaged against the capital available for their competitors like UPS and FedEx. They have no competition for the millions of people who first began communicating my phone rather than letter, and later, by email and text messaging. There are many people, possibly even a majority, who would be happy to see the U.S. Postal Service disappear.

People living in the areas served by the 700 offices slated for closing might be the first to experience life without USPS. If not, they will have to travel farther to the post office, make use of more expensive mailing options, and possibly receive mail less often. But the complete disappearance of the U.S. Postal Service would have a devastating effect. Households receive mail every day. Much of it is unwanted marketing, but it’s unlikely that will stop. Without the Postal Services, other companies will have to fill the void with standard daily mail delivery. And the great pricing that the U.S. Postal Service offers customers for this mail — and the even better pricing offered for bulk mail and non-profit organizations (and religious organizations) — would disappear as well.

If the website is available, you should be able to download the list of the 700 stations to be closed here. More information is available at the Postal Regulatory Commission’s website.

{ 8 comments }

Comments
Email this article Email this article
Print this article Print this article

Congress Passes Credit CARD Act of 2009, Now What?

by Flexo on May 21, 2009

in Credit

Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted on and passed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009, the Senate’s alternative to the Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights. Here are some of the provisions, taking effect in February 2010:

Credit card companies must give 45 days notice before raising interest rates. Under current rules, a credit card company can raise interest rates on a customer for any reason at any time with no notice. Normally, the cardholder can refuse the rate increase and close the account, and the issuer will provide a chance for the customer to pay down the balance. The new bill, once signed into law and put into effect, will require advance notice.

Credit card companies must apply your payments to your highest interest rate balance first. Let’s say you took advantage of a 0% balance transfer offer for $10,000 but ended up needing to use the credit card for an emergency and made a $2,000 purchase at an interest rate of 10.99%. Currently, any payment you make is likely to be applied to your balance transfer until you pay off the $10,000, forcing you to be charged interest on your $2,000 balance. The new rules would change this practice.

Minors will not be able to own their own credit cards. Anyone under the age of 21 requires a parent or legal guardian to be the main account holder. The child or student could then be an authorized user on the account. There is an exception for students who have income and can prove they can be responsible for the charges on their own. Currently, my cat could get a credit card. He’s only twelve years old.

Consumers will need to “opt in” to charge above their credit limit. In the “good old days” of credit cards, if you charged more than the level of credit the issuer decided to grant you, your purchase would be declined, the waiter would return to your table, embarrass you in front of your friends, and cut your card in half with a pair of scissors. These days, you are allowed to go over your limit, but you will be charged a fee for doing so.

Credit card issuers claim this is a service; they would be mortified if one of their customers would be forced to live without air conditioning in the dark because the payment via credit card for the electric bill didn’t go through. Under the new law, consumers would have to “opt in” to receive the benefit of being charged a fee. In any situation, it helps to monitor your usage so you know when you are approaching the limit.

Your existing balance will not be subject to “universal default.” Today, it’s common practice for many credit card issuers to automatically raise interest rates if you are over 30 days late, or default, on a debt payment to anyone else who reports to agencies like Equifax and Experian. If this happens to you, you may find your interest rate to be increased on your full balance. The new law does not outlaw universal default, but it does prevent old balances from being affected. Only new charges will be able to be assigned a default rate.

Anticipating and fearing the future expense of these changes, some credit card issuers have already begun raising interest rates, lowering limits, and reducing rewards across the board. Many people I’ve spoken to, and some who have commented on Consumerism Commentary, are concerned that well-behaved credit card users who pay their bills in full each month and reap the rewards will have trouble finding amazing credit card deals in the future. I’m not too concerned.

The glut of rewards in the past decade is an anomaly. The game of credit card arbitrage, moving balances around from one card to another to take advantage of 0% interest rates while your borrowed money is earning high interest in a bank account, has always been dangerous, and in the end, a losing proposition. The ubiquity of these deals has significantly decreased over the past few years, anyway.

Credit is flowing better than it was six months ago. Yes, there are still people out there having difficulty obtaining loans, but for the well-qualified, like those who pay in full and are responsible, won’t find much trouble with credit card offers.

Credit card companies will still be competitive. They’re not going to drop their rewards programs. Even if they’re not making money on interest fees and late charges, they are making up to 3%, sometimes more, on every regular transaction through merchant fees, and the value of rewards that come back to the consumer is usually less than 1%. Credit card users who seek rewards, like me, charge more on their credit cards, so the issuers make more money on us than we’d like to believe.

Personal responsibility is an important lesson that should be learned prior to opening a credit card account. Paying attention to your own finances may alleviate 80% of the headaches pertaining to credit cards. But as customers get savvier, the industry finds ways to make dealing with them more difficult for the issuer, hiding rules deep in the twenty-page pamphlet of fine print and changing those rules on a whim.

I expect that credit card issuers will continue finding new ways to make money off of customers who either don’t pay attention to their finances or find themselves in financial distress due to external or unforeseen circumstances, and I expect that responsible users will continue to find moderate and reasonable rewards for good credit behavior.

{ 12 comments }

Comments
Email this article Email this article
Print this article Print this article

President Obama’s Financial Disclosure

by Flexo on May 15, 2009

in Personal Finance

In a move should sound familiar to readers who have been with Consumerism Commentary since 2003 and to those who have noticed my monthly personal financial reporting, the President and Vice President have used the White House blog to provide updates on the financial condition about each of the Executive Branch families.

President Obama and his wife Michelle seem to prefer investing in the Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund (VFTSX. Barack’s retirement fund, valued between $50,000 and $100,000, is invested solely in this fund although he is carrying a pension as well. Michelle’s retirement accounts are invested in VFTSX as well. This seems to be a smart choice for the family, with an expense ratio of 0.24%.

Barack also own between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000 in Treasury bills, and for the daughters Malia and Sasha, the Obamas have between $100,000 and $200,000 in Bright Directions 529 college savings plans.

Both the President and Vice President Joe Biden have substantial income from royalties paid by publishers for their books. In fact, right before taking office, Obama agreed to postpone writing his next book until he is no longer in office and to a $500,000 advance for the royalties (from 7.5% to 15% of U.S. sales) to be paid for a new, abridged version of Dreams From My Father for children.

Read the President’s financial disclosure here.
Read the Vice President’s financial disclosure here.

{ 9 comments }

Comments
Email this article Email this article
Print this article Print this article

Insurance Companies Now Qualify for TARP Bailout Money

by Flexo on May 15, 2009

in Economy

Even though they are not bank holding companies as originally required for the original qualifications for receiving bailout money from the public, six insurance companies will now have the option of receiving this money.

Among others, Allstate, Ameriprise Financial, Hartford Financial Services, Lincoln National Group, Principal Financial, and Prudential applied earlier for inclusin in the Troubled Asset Relief Program. These six companies have now been approved for a chance to shore up their balance sheets with a piece of the $135 billion remaining for bailout.

{ 1 comment }

Page 1 of 612345Earlier Articles »···Last »