To contact us Click HERE
I don't understand how this works - taking all increased revenues but leaving all increased overhead, more students from increased energy workers families, but not more land owners to pay property taxes is leveling the playing field? What wrong with local government having to make decisions with the resources that they have rather then taking from others?
I would have believed this would happen in most liberal socialist progressive states but not Texas. Goodness.
Funding Rules Test Schools
Source: Ana Campoy, "Funding Rules Test Schools," Wall Street Journal, November 20, 2012.
November 28, 2012
The Karnes, Texas, school district has long been among the poorest in the state -- and it remains so, local officials say, even though an oil boom has sent property values surging eightfold in the past two years, says the Wall Street Journal.
•That jump in value has changed the town's designation to "property wealthy" from "property poor," under Texas' school-funding formula.
•That means the town can't keep most of this year's projected property tax of $20 million -- up from $6.5 million last year -- and must instead share the bounty with other districts.
The property-tax windfall in the Eagle Ford Shale is mostly generated from collections on the oil and gas itself, which, like land, is taxable. For the most part, property taxes on oil and gas are paid by the companies extracting it, rather than by the ranchers and farmers that often live in these communities. But school officials say funding rules prevent them from making suddenly affordable improvements -- or even from dealing with rising costs, such as schooling for the children of oilfield workers.
•In Texas, about 55 percent of funding for school districts comes from local sources, mostly property taxes, according to the state comptroller.
•As oil and gas production climbs rapidly in Eagle Ford Shale and other oil-and-gas-producing areas, property-tax collections are soaring.
•As a result, 23 school districts, including Karnes City's, this year switched to "property wealthy," according to a preliminary list from the Texas Education Agency.
•The designation is based on several factors, including property values, and districts that cross into the "property wealthy" category often end up with roughly the same amount of money per student as they had when they were "property poor."
Opponents of the system, intended to equalize school funding, say the way it assigns resources doesn't reflect communities' needs.
Backers of the school-funding formula, which is widely dubbed "Robin Hood," say it is necessary to even out income differences in rich and poor communities.
30 Kasım 2012 Cuma
EPA's New Regulation Driving UP Food and Fuel - Again!
To contact us Click HERE
I believe the Environmental Protection Agency is the most dangerous entity in our country, even more so then the Justice Dept. Of course, Mr Obama is the single most dangerous individual and the greatest threat to our freedom and prosperity as he directs the EPA.
Just the fact that 40% of corn production in this country goes to Ethanol is insane. Oh, but wait, didn't just this November 51% of the population vote to continue the insanity? Is it possible that a majority of our population can't make the connection between a high food prices and gasoline and Mr Obama? After 4 years of this nightmare, the votes can't make this connection? Who voted for this, willingly? Who are these people????
The EPA vs. State Economies
Source: Marlo Lewis, "The EPA vs. State Economies," National Review Online, November 19, 2012
November 29, 2012
The renewable fuel standard (RFS) is increasing the biofuel-blending requirements. This change can give rise to numerous damaging spillovers throughout the economy, says Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow in environmental policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
•This program requires refiners to blend increasing quantities of biofuel, which are mostly corn ethanol, into the nation's motor-fuel supply.
•The 2012 target is to blend 13.2 billion gallons of biofuel into gasoline.
•In 2013, the target is 13.8 billion gallons.
•This year, 40 percent of the nation's corn will be used for ethanol manufacturing.
•This alone will increase corn prices, harming state poultry, beef, pork and dairy farmers who use corn as animal feed.
Moreover, such an initiative does not follow sound economic reasoning.
•In a competitive market, very few would buy ethanol as motor fuel because the substance has one-third less energy than gasoline and does not make up the difference in price.
•At the current rate, on average, it would cost the consumer $500 a year to switch to E85, a fuel that is 85 percent ethanol.
Arkansas' experience demonstrates the damaging effects the RFS can have on a state economy. According to Arkansas governor Mike Beebe:
•Virtually all of Arkansas is suffering from severe drought conditions, and accelerating corn prices impose a severe economic impact on the state's livestock producers.
•While the drought may have triggered the price spike in corn, the fuel standard aggravates the problem -- the policy has boosted corn prices 193 percent since 2005.
•Agriculture accounts for around 25 percent of the state's economic activity.
•Indeed, the RFS will disproportionally hurt regions with extensive farming industries, while following inefficient market principles.
Just the fact that 40% of corn production in this country goes to Ethanol is insane. Oh, but wait, didn't just this November 51% of the population vote to continue the insanity? Is it possible that a majority of our population can't make the connection between a high food prices and gasoline and Mr Obama? After 4 years of this nightmare, the votes can't make this connection? Who voted for this, willingly? Who are these people????
The EPA vs. State Economies
Source: Marlo Lewis, "The EPA vs. State Economies," National Review Online, November 19, 2012
November 29, 2012
The renewable fuel standard (RFS) is increasing the biofuel-blending requirements. This change can give rise to numerous damaging spillovers throughout the economy, says Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow in environmental policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
•This program requires refiners to blend increasing quantities of biofuel, which are mostly corn ethanol, into the nation's motor-fuel supply.
•The 2012 target is to blend 13.2 billion gallons of biofuel into gasoline.
•In 2013, the target is 13.8 billion gallons.
•This year, 40 percent of the nation's corn will be used for ethanol manufacturing.
•This alone will increase corn prices, harming state poultry, beef, pork and dairy farmers who use corn as animal feed.
Moreover, such an initiative does not follow sound economic reasoning.
•In a competitive market, very few would buy ethanol as motor fuel because the substance has one-third less energy than gasoline and does not make up the difference in price.
•At the current rate, on average, it would cost the consumer $500 a year to switch to E85, a fuel that is 85 percent ethanol.
Arkansas' experience demonstrates the damaging effects the RFS can have on a state economy. According to Arkansas governor Mike Beebe:
•Virtually all of Arkansas is suffering from severe drought conditions, and accelerating corn prices impose a severe economic impact on the state's livestock producers.
•While the drought may have triggered the price spike in corn, the fuel standard aggravates the problem -- the policy has boosted corn prices 193 percent since 2005.
•Agriculture accounts for around 25 percent of the state's economic activity.
•Indeed, the RFS will disproportionally hurt regions with extensive farming industries, while following inefficient market principles.
Government Care 24/7 : Prison As Retirement
To contact us Click HERE
What a hoot - a great example of the progressive socialists agenda at the extreme? Maybe but maybe not. I don't believe there is any limit to the progressives socialists agenda. History shows us what they want and how they got it and, of course, the out come.
This little story is just for fun but realize there is a lot of truth here as well. No matter how dysfunctional you may be or lacking in the will to succeed, the government is there to take of you. All you have to do is vote the right way.
By the way, guess who will have to pay for all this dysfunction, the productive members of society. Are they Suckers? I wonder how long it will be before the workers won't pay the bill? You decide.
(Author Unknown)
You're a sick senior citizen and the government says there is no nursing home available for you. So what do you do? Our plan gives anyone 65 years or older a gun and 4 bullets. You are allowed to shoot four Politicians.
Of course, this means you will be sent to prison where you will get three meals a day, a roof over your head, central heating, air conditioning and all the health care you need!
Need new teeth? No problem. Need glasses? That's great. Need a new hip, knees, kidney, lungs or heart? They're all covered. As an added bonus, your kids can come and visit you as often as they do now.
And who will be paying for all of this? It's the same government that just told you that you they cannot afford for you to go into a home. And you can get rid of 4 useless politicians while you are at it. Plus, because you are a prisoner, you don't have to pay any income taxes anymore. Is this a great country or what?
This little story is just for fun but realize there is a lot of truth here as well. No matter how dysfunctional you may be or lacking in the will to succeed, the government is there to take of you. All you have to do is vote the right way.
By the way, guess who will have to pay for all this dysfunction, the productive members of society. Are they Suckers? I wonder how long it will be before the workers won't pay the bill? You decide.
(Author Unknown)
You're a sick senior citizen and the government says there is no nursing home available for you. So what do you do? Our plan gives anyone 65 years or older a gun and 4 bullets. You are allowed to shoot four Politicians.
Of course, this means you will be sent to prison where you will get three meals a day, a roof over your head, central heating, air conditioning and all the health care you need!
Need new teeth? No problem. Need glasses? That's great. Need a new hip, knees, kidney, lungs or heart? They're all covered. As an added bonus, your kids can come and visit you as often as they do now.
And who will be paying for all of this? It's the same government that just told you that you they cannot afford for you to go into a home. And you can get rid of 4 useless politicians while you are at it. Plus, because you are a prisoner, you don't have to pay any income taxes anymore. Is this a great country or what?
Cliff Deal Spells Disaster for Consumers : Billions Lost
To contact us Click HERE
I think there will be a lot of cutting back this Christmas as consumers watch their collective wallets closer then they do the politicians who are taking their money. Consumers are a little dysfunctional right now in that they voted for more tax increases but really didn't understand what impact their vote would have on their lives.
Will consumers and others have remorse over voting for more tax increases, probably not, in that they, for the most part, still don't understand how the system works. Most people, I believe, think money that comes from the government comes from some place in Washington, not out of their wallets. Government money is free money. Who Knew?
A "Cliff" Deal Could Still Cost Consumers Billions
Source: "A 'Cliff' Deal Could Still Cost Consumers $218B," Fiscal Times, November 21, 2012.
November 29, 2012
Even if the country doesn't slide over the fiscal cliff, any deal to blunt the impact of the scheduled tax hikes and spending cuts is likely to create at least some drag on an economy that is still growing only modestly, says the Fiscal Times.
•The full set of changes would take more than $600 billion from the economy, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
•While the outlines of any deal are still sketchy to say the least, Goldman Sachs economists are modeling a $233 billion economic hit as their "base case scenario."
•Most of that impact -- $218 billion -- is likely to hurt the individual taxpayer the most because of many tax increases.
•For instance, the expiration of the payroll tax cut is expected to cost $126 million.
•As a result, the loss in consumer income would likely translate to $110 billion reduction in consumer spending, according to Goldman Sachs economists.
Holiday spending, a major source of revenue for many retail stores, could be curtailed if consumers don't see action on the fiscal cliff.
•Fifty-one percent of respondents in a survey said that they would curtail holiday spending because of the risk of the fiscal cliff.
•Before the fiscal cliff negotiations began last week, the Consumer Electronics Association projected that holiday sales would increase 4.1 percent to $586.1 billion this year.
•However, 64 percent of respondents said that the current political and economic uncertainty was weighing on their spending plans.
The president and CEO of the National Retail Federation sent a letter to President Obama urging his administration to come to a deal that would avert the fiscal cliff. He said that consumer confidence is necessary for an important holiday sales season and that the retail industry with its millions of jobs depended on it.
Analysts at Moody's Investor Service said that the fiscal cliff was unlikely to deter many consumers because most people want to spend money to celebrate the holidays. However, they did say that consumers are likely to rein in spending compared to last year by about 2.5 percent.
Will consumers and others have remorse over voting for more tax increases, probably not, in that they, for the most part, still don't understand how the system works. Most people, I believe, think money that comes from the government comes from some place in Washington, not out of their wallets. Government money is free money. Who Knew?
A "Cliff" Deal Could Still Cost Consumers Billions
Source: "A 'Cliff' Deal Could Still Cost Consumers $218B," Fiscal Times, November 21, 2012.
November 29, 2012
Even if the country doesn't slide over the fiscal cliff, any deal to blunt the impact of the scheduled tax hikes and spending cuts is likely to create at least some drag on an economy that is still growing only modestly, says the Fiscal Times.
•The full set of changes would take more than $600 billion from the economy, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
•While the outlines of any deal are still sketchy to say the least, Goldman Sachs economists are modeling a $233 billion economic hit as their "base case scenario."
•Most of that impact -- $218 billion -- is likely to hurt the individual taxpayer the most because of many tax increases.
•For instance, the expiration of the payroll tax cut is expected to cost $126 million.
•As a result, the loss in consumer income would likely translate to $110 billion reduction in consumer spending, according to Goldman Sachs economists.
Holiday spending, a major source of revenue for many retail stores, could be curtailed if consumers don't see action on the fiscal cliff.
•Fifty-one percent of respondents in a survey said that they would curtail holiday spending because of the risk of the fiscal cliff.
•Before the fiscal cliff negotiations began last week, the Consumer Electronics Association projected that holiday sales would increase 4.1 percent to $586.1 billion this year.
•However, 64 percent of respondents said that the current political and economic uncertainty was weighing on their spending plans.
The president and CEO of the National Retail Federation sent a letter to President Obama urging his administration to come to a deal that would avert the fiscal cliff. He said that consumer confidence is necessary for an important holiday sales season and that the retail industry with its millions of jobs depended on it.
Analysts at Moody's Investor Service said that the fiscal cliff was unlikely to deter many consumers because most people want to spend money to celebrate the holidays. However, they did say that consumers are likely to rein in spending compared to last year by about 2.5 percent.
Progressive's Taxes Will Crush Middle Class Families
To contact us Click HERE
Just what our economy needs right now is more and higher taxes. The line that I like the most when discussing the rich and how they don't pay enough is 'when did anyone get hired by a poor person'. But really, this isn't about who isn't paying enough taxes, this is about what's fair.
This is about some people that have more then others and it's not fair. It's not fair that some people have more stuff then others. This about leveling the playing field - This about taking from the productive and giving it to the unproductive - this is about income redistrubution. Remember your history and how that worked out?
Warren Buffett doesn't pay as much taxes as his secretary because Warren doesn't have an income that is taxable like his secretary, his income comes from dividends which is taxed at a lower rate, and rightly so. Many seniors live on this income alone.
The bottom line here is, who voted for these people that are attacking the middle class with more taxes that will be as high as $3500 for a family of 4? What were they thinking? - oh wait, they weren't thinking, others will do the thinking for them, they're progressives socialists; liberal Democrats.
Buffett Tax on Rich Will Hurt Average Americans
Source: "Buffett Tax on Rich Will Hurt Average Americans," Investor's Business Daily, November 27, 2012.
November 29, 2012
Billionaire Warren Buffett, writing in the New York Times, proposed a minimum tax of 30 percent on incomes of $1 million to $10 million and 35 percent on incomes above that. Unfortunately, Buffett's proposed tax hike is just another way of removing investment capital -- the engine of economic growth -- from the U.S. economy. It would also do next to nothing to close our long-term budget deficits, now running at $1 trillion plus a year, says Investor's Business Daily.
•Last year, according to the Treasury Department, the U.S. deficit was $1.1 trillion.
•According to a study by Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation, a Buffett-style 30 percent tax on all millionaires would generate just $5 billion.
•That's less than one-half of 1 percent of our budget.
Buffett and others have said tax hikes on the rich are "fair."
•The top 1 percent earn about 16 percent of all income in the United States, but they pay 37 percent of all the federal income taxes.
•The 400 richest Americans pay about as much in taxes as the bottom 50 percent -- about 72 million Americans -- do.
•As a group, millionaires have an effective income-tax rate -- that is, what they actually pay -- of 24 percent.
•For the rest of us, it's 11 percent.
As for Buffett's idea for a "minimum" tax on the rich, the United States already has one. It's called the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). It was put in place in 1969, after it was revealed that 155 people with incomes over $200,000 had paid zero in income taxes in 1967. It was meant to catch a handful of rich folks who were not paying their "fair share." Next year, thanks to bracket creep, the AMT will snare as many as 20 million middle class Americans.
Moreover, as economist Alan Reynolds of the American Enterprise Institute pointed out, the 1990 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act raised taxes on the rich to make things more "fair" and to boost revenues to reduce the deficit. How did that work out?
•In 1989, income tax revenues as a share of gross domestic product totaled about 8.3 percent.
•By 1992, after the tax hikes kicked in, they dropped to 7.6 percent.
This is about some people that have more then others and it's not fair. It's not fair that some people have more stuff then others. This about leveling the playing field - This about taking from the productive and giving it to the unproductive - this is about income redistrubution. Remember your history and how that worked out?
Warren Buffett doesn't pay as much taxes as his secretary because Warren doesn't have an income that is taxable like his secretary, his income comes from dividends which is taxed at a lower rate, and rightly so. Many seniors live on this income alone.
The bottom line here is, who voted for these people that are attacking the middle class with more taxes that will be as high as $3500 for a family of 4? What were they thinking? - oh wait, they weren't thinking, others will do the thinking for them, they're progressives socialists; liberal Democrats.
Buffett Tax on Rich Will Hurt Average Americans
Source: "Buffett Tax on Rich Will Hurt Average Americans," Investor's Business Daily, November 27, 2012.
November 29, 2012
Billionaire Warren Buffett, writing in the New York Times, proposed a minimum tax of 30 percent on incomes of $1 million to $10 million and 35 percent on incomes above that. Unfortunately, Buffett's proposed tax hike is just another way of removing investment capital -- the engine of economic growth -- from the U.S. economy. It would also do next to nothing to close our long-term budget deficits, now running at $1 trillion plus a year, says Investor's Business Daily.
•Last year, according to the Treasury Department, the U.S. deficit was $1.1 trillion.
•According to a study by Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation, a Buffett-style 30 percent tax on all millionaires would generate just $5 billion.
•That's less than one-half of 1 percent of our budget.
Buffett and others have said tax hikes on the rich are "fair."
•The top 1 percent earn about 16 percent of all income in the United States, but they pay 37 percent of all the federal income taxes.
•The 400 richest Americans pay about as much in taxes as the bottom 50 percent -- about 72 million Americans -- do.
•As a group, millionaires have an effective income-tax rate -- that is, what they actually pay -- of 24 percent.
•For the rest of us, it's 11 percent.
As for Buffett's idea for a "minimum" tax on the rich, the United States already has one. It's called the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). It was put in place in 1969, after it was revealed that 155 people with incomes over $200,000 had paid zero in income taxes in 1967. It was meant to catch a handful of rich folks who were not paying their "fair share." Next year, thanks to bracket creep, the AMT will snare as many as 20 million middle class Americans.
Moreover, as economist Alan Reynolds of the American Enterprise Institute pointed out, the 1990 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act raised taxes on the rich to make things more "fair" and to boost revenues to reduce the deficit. How did that work out?
•In 1989, income tax revenues as a share of gross domestic product totaled about 8.3 percent.
•By 1992, after the tax hikes kicked in, they dropped to 7.6 percent.
29 Kasım 2012 Perşembe
Territorial Taxation in Germany : Increased Revenue
To contact us Click HERE
Germany is just one of many countries that have now implemented the Territorial Tax system. Every state that has done this has shown an increase in revenue as well as a reduction in unemployment.
The United States has not done this as of yet but it would be a real positive move to get a lot of dollars that are now overseas that want to come back here but the tax rate is too high. The question now is why hasn't this been done to help our struggling economy?
Germany Promotes Competition with Shift to Territorial Taxation System
Source: "Germany Promotes Competition with Shift to Territorial Taxation System," Tax Foundation, November 15, 2012.
November 28, 2012
The Tax Foundation looks at the example of Germany and its shift to the territorial tax system in its continuing effort to show the benefits the United States can derive from shifting to such a system.
•In 2001, Germany fully terminated international expense allocation requirements and allowed deductions for all expenses related to exempt foreign income.
•The government reduced the exemption for foreign income to 95 percent.
•Active and passive incomes that are subjected to tax rates over 25 percent in the original jurisdiction are eligible for exemption.
•In addition, any income generated by foreign branches of a German company is exempt if it resides in a treaty country.
•And to make its companies more competitive internationally, Germany reduced the combined tax rate on corporate income from 56 percent to 30.2 percent in 1998.
To prevent the tax base from eroding, the government has limited the deductibility of interest surplus, ensured that losses on the sale of subsidiary corporate stock are not deductible, and has levied taxes on all passive income in low-tax jurisdictions.
As a result of its shift, Germany has ranked at the top when it comes to gross domestic product per capita and has also become the third-leading exporter in the world. Moreover, the unemployment rate has been cut by more than half since 2005, registering at 5.4 percent now.
Corporate tax revenue was not a primary factor in Germany's decision to pivot to a territorial system because it has not relied heavily on it in past years.
The United States has not done this as of yet but it would be a real positive move to get a lot of dollars that are now overseas that want to come back here but the tax rate is too high. The question now is why hasn't this been done to help our struggling economy?
Germany Promotes Competition with Shift to Territorial Taxation System
Source: "Germany Promotes Competition with Shift to Territorial Taxation System," Tax Foundation, November 15, 2012.
November 28, 2012
The Tax Foundation looks at the example of Germany and its shift to the territorial tax system in its continuing effort to show the benefits the United States can derive from shifting to such a system.
•In 2001, Germany fully terminated international expense allocation requirements and allowed deductions for all expenses related to exempt foreign income.
•The government reduced the exemption for foreign income to 95 percent.
•Active and passive incomes that are subjected to tax rates over 25 percent in the original jurisdiction are eligible for exemption.
•In addition, any income generated by foreign branches of a German company is exempt if it resides in a treaty country.
•And to make its companies more competitive internationally, Germany reduced the combined tax rate on corporate income from 56 percent to 30.2 percent in 1998.
To prevent the tax base from eroding, the government has limited the deductibility of interest surplus, ensured that losses on the sale of subsidiary corporate stock are not deductible, and has levied taxes on all passive income in low-tax jurisdictions.
As a result of its shift, Germany has ranked at the top when it comes to gross domestic product per capita and has also become the third-leading exporter in the world. Moreover, the unemployment rate has been cut by more than half since 2005, registering at 5.4 percent now.
Corporate tax revenue was not a primary factor in Germany's decision to pivot to a territorial system because it has not relied heavily on it in past years.
Amtrak Subsides & Unions Crushes Business
To contact us Click HERE
Oh no, privatize the rail roads? What have we come to? Making the railraods pay their own way or go out of business is how the system should work, but with government sudsides it's out of control.
Of course the unions are going hand in hand with the government to make Amtrak a sink hole for taxpayer dollars. Is this news?
The Case for Privatizing Amtrak
Source: Randal O'Toole, "Stopping the Runaway Train: The Case for Privatizing Amtrak," Cato Institute, November 13, 2012.
November 28, 2012
Despite being touted as a cheap, attractive option for intercity travel, Amtrak has become an insignificant mode of transportation that is bloated with government subsidies. It is increasingly important to evaluate Amtrak before Congress approves its future budget requests, says Randal O'Toole, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.
•The average American travels about 15,000 miles by automobiles around 2,000 miles by air.
•However, the average American only travels about 20 miles a year on Amtrak.
•As a result of Amtrak taking over the nation's passenger trains, rail fares have increased by 110 percent since 1970.
•Passengers pay more per mile on Amtrak fares that they would on airfares, yet it receives almost nine times more subsidies than the airline industry and more than 20 times more subsidies compared to driving.
Proponents of the passenger train have long touted the energy savings that riders could benefit from when compared to planes and automobiles. However, a look at the data may prove that claim to be false.
•At 2.4 people per car, the average automobile uses 2,226 British thermal units (BTU) per passenger mile.
•However, Amtrak uses an average of 2,271 BTU per passenger mile.
•Moreover, airline energy efficiency has been growing at 3.1 percent a year, meaning that it will become more energy efficient than Amtrak by 2023.
Passenger trains fail to gain the necessary ridership to make them independent of government support. There are several factors that have resulted in the decline of popularity of trains like Amtrak:
•Unions that insist on antiquated work rules.
•Government regulators that place unnecessary burdens on railroads.
•Subsidies to other transportation industries.
•Unfair taxation of railroads when publicly owned airports and highways pay no taxes.
•Railroad managers that would rather cater to freight trains because they are profitable.
Rather than continuing to subsidize an inefficient and unpopular mode of transportation, the federal government should privatize Amtrak. To make it effective, Congress should also level the playing field by reducing or eliminating subsidies for other modes of transportation. This would incentivize private operators to innovate and provide passenger rail services where it is needed most. Furthermore, private operators would find ways to make their services more efficient.
Of course the unions are going hand in hand with the government to make Amtrak a sink hole for taxpayer dollars. Is this news?
The Case for Privatizing Amtrak
Source: Randal O'Toole, "Stopping the Runaway Train: The Case for Privatizing Amtrak," Cato Institute, November 13, 2012.
November 28, 2012
Despite being touted as a cheap, attractive option for intercity travel, Amtrak has become an insignificant mode of transportation that is bloated with government subsidies. It is increasingly important to evaluate Amtrak before Congress approves its future budget requests, says Randal O'Toole, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.
•The average American travels about 15,000 miles by automobiles around 2,000 miles by air.
•However, the average American only travels about 20 miles a year on Amtrak.
•As a result of Amtrak taking over the nation's passenger trains, rail fares have increased by 110 percent since 1970.
•Passengers pay more per mile on Amtrak fares that they would on airfares, yet it receives almost nine times more subsidies than the airline industry and more than 20 times more subsidies compared to driving.
Proponents of the passenger train have long touted the energy savings that riders could benefit from when compared to planes and automobiles. However, a look at the data may prove that claim to be false.
•At 2.4 people per car, the average automobile uses 2,226 British thermal units (BTU) per passenger mile.
•However, Amtrak uses an average of 2,271 BTU per passenger mile.
•Moreover, airline energy efficiency has been growing at 3.1 percent a year, meaning that it will become more energy efficient than Amtrak by 2023.
Passenger trains fail to gain the necessary ridership to make them independent of government support. There are several factors that have resulted in the decline of popularity of trains like Amtrak:
•Unions that insist on antiquated work rules.
•Government regulators that place unnecessary burdens on railroads.
•Subsidies to other transportation industries.
•Unfair taxation of railroads when publicly owned airports and highways pay no taxes.
•Railroad managers that would rather cater to freight trains because they are profitable.
Rather than continuing to subsidize an inefficient and unpopular mode of transportation, the federal government should privatize Amtrak. To make it effective, Congress should also level the playing field by reducing or eliminating subsidies for other modes of transportation. This would incentivize private operators to innovate and provide passenger rail services where it is needed most. Furthermore, private operators would find ways to make their services more efficient.
Medical Device Tax Drives HealthCare Cost Up
To contact us Click HERE
What a good deal this is for our country, according to progressive socialists that is - one more ObamaCare nail in our coffin. Mr Obama believes that if America can punished enough by reducing our prosperity, other countries will like us more, and the world will finally know that America is getting it just what it deserves for all the problems we have caused the rest of the world with out greed and nation building.
Progressive socialist, as well as liberal Marxists of all strips, believe income redistribution is what will make America great, giving all classes all things. That freedom will be degraded or eliminated is of no importance, as long as the elite few have their freedom to direct the rest of us into dependency and poverty, a directed society from the top down, life will be sustainable.
After all, isn't life actually just about surviving from one day to the next? Why would anyone want to live like this? Why would anyone vote to make this happen? Can it be ignorance or are many among us ready to be subservient?
I guess when one looks at California and how they voted to raise taxes on themselves, the dark clouds heading our way become a little darker.
The Medical Device Excise Tax: Another Barrier to Innovation
Source: Thomas A. Hemphill, "The Medical Device Excise Tax: Another Barrier to Innovation," American Action Forum, November 13, 2012.
November 28, 2012
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was passed in 2010 and imposes several tax increases totaling approximately $800 billion over the next 10 years. A 2.3 percent excise tax will be imposed upon medical device manufacturers. This excise tax, which is set to be implemented in January 2013, will be applied to annual revenue and will be assessed on medical devices sold in the United States, including those that are imported, says Thomas A. Hemphill, an economic and regulatory expert with the American Action Forum.
•The medical device industry is highly competitive and has hundreds of firms in the market, with 95 percent of them reporting sales revenues less than $100 million.
•Ninety-eight percent of companies employ less than 500 workers and 80 percent of companies employ fewer than 50 employees.
•The United States is considered to be the leader of the medical device industry, housing 32 of the 46 medical device companies that report $1 billion or more in annual sales.
U.S. medical device companies have an edge in the status quo but that could slip as the excise tax reduces profits for many of these companies.
•One study found that net profits could be reduced anywhere between 6.8 percent and 40 percent.
•According to one survey, 42 percent of venture capital firms planned to make fewer medical device investments.
•Venture capital funding for the medical devices industry dropped to 10 percent of total funding dollars in the second quarter of 2012, a 2 percent decline from the first quarter.
The tax is going to be harmful to companies across the board. Small- and medium-sized companies will be especially hard hit considering that it will be difficult for them to attract the necessary funding from venture capitalists to fund their projects. Similarly, these companies are going to have a difficult time since companies that innovate typically suffer losses in the first years when they are researching and developing.
Progressive socialist, as well as liberal Marxists of all strips, believe income redistribution is what will make America great, giving all classes all things. That freedom will be degraded or eliminated is of no importance, as long as the elite few have their freedom to direct the rest of us into dependency and poverty, a directed society from the top down, life will be sustainable.
After all, isn't life actually just about surviving from one day to the next? Why would anyone want to live like this? Why would anyone vote to make this happen? Can it be ignorance or are many among us ready to be subservient?
I guess when one looks at California and how they voted to raise taxes on themselves, the dark clouds heading our way become a little darker.
The Medical Device Excise Tax: Another Barrier to Innovation
Source: Thomas A. Hemphill, "The Medical Device Excise Tax: Another Barrier to Innovation," American Action Forum, November 13, 2012.
November 28, 2012
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was passed in 2010 and imposes several tax increases totaling approximately $800 billion over the next 10 years. A 2.3 percent excise tax will be imposed upon medical device manufacturers. This excise tax, which is set to be implemented in January 2013, will be applied to annual revenue and will be assessed on medical devices sold in the United States, including those that are imported, says Thomas A. Hemphill, an economic and regulatory expert with the American Action Forum.
•The medical device industry is highly competitive and has hundreds of firms in the market, with 95 percent of them reporting sales revenues less than $100 million.
•Ninety-eight percent of companies employ less than 500 workers and 80 percent of companies employ fewer than 50 employees.
•The United States is considered to be the leader of the medical device industry, housing 32 of the 46 medical device companies that report $1 billion or more in annual sales.
U.S. medical device companies have an edge in the status quo but that could slip as the excise tax reduces profits for many of these companies.
•One study found that net profits could be reduced anywhere between 6.8 percent and 40 percent.
•According to one survey, 42 percent of venture capital firms planned to make fewer medical device investments.
•Venture capital funding for the medical devices industry dropped to 10 percent of total funding dollars in the second quarter of 2012, a 2 percent decline from the first quarter.
The tax is going to be harmful to companies across the board. Small- and medium-sized companies will be especially hard hit considering that it will be difficult for them to attract the necessary funding from venture capitalists to fund their projects. Similarly, these companies are going to have a difficult time since companies that innovate typically suffer losses in the first years when they are researching and developing.
EPA's New Regulation Driving UP Food and Fuel - Again!
To contact us Click HERE
I believe the Environmental Protection Agency is the most dangerous entity in our country, even more so then the Justice Dept. Of course, Mr Obama is the single most dangerous individual and the greatest threat to our freedom and prosperity as he directs the EPA.
Just the fact that 40% of corn production in this country goes to Ethanol is insane. Oh, but wait, didn't just this November 51% of the population vote to continue the insanity? Is it possible that a majority of our population can't make the connection between a high food prices and gasoline and Mr Obama? After 4 years of this nightmare, the votes can't make this connection? Who voted for this, willingly? Who are these people????
The EPA vs. State Economies
Source: Marlo Lewis, "The EPA vs. State Economies," National Review Online, November 19, 2012
November 29, 2012
The renewable fuel standard (RFS) is increasing the biofuel-blending requirements. This change can give rise to numerous damaging spillovers throughout the economy, says Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow in environmental policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
•This program requires refiners to blend increasing quantities of biofuel, which are mostly corn ethanol, into the nation's motor-fuel supply.
•The 2012 target is to blend 13.2 billion gallons of biofuel into gasoline.
•In 2013, the target is 13.8 billion gallons.
•This year, 40 percent of the nation's corn will be used for ethanol manufacturing.
•This alone will increase corn prices, harming state poultry, beef, pork and dairy farmers who use corn as animal feed.
Moreover, such an initiative does not follow sound economic reasoning.
•In a competitive market, very few would buy ethanol as motor fuel because the substance has one-third less energy than gasoline and does not make up the difference in price.
•At the current rate, on average, it would cost the consumer $500 a year to switch to E85, a fuel that is 85 percent ethanol.
Arkansas' experience demonstrates the damaging effects the RFS can have on a state economy. According to Arkansas governor Mike Beebe:
•Virtually all of Arkansas is suffering from severe drought conditions, and accelerating corn prices impose a severe economic impact on the state's livestock producers.
•While the drought may have triggered the price spike in corn, the fuel standard aggravates the problem -- the policy has boosted corn prices 193 percent since 2005.
•Agriculture accounts for around 25 percent of the state's economic activity.
•Indeed, the RFS will disproportionally hurt regions with extensive farming industries, while following inefficient market principles.
Just the fact that 40% of corn production in this country goes to Ethanol is insane. Oh, but wait, didn't just this November 51% of the population vote to continue the insanity? Is it possible that a majority of our population can't make the connection between a high food prices and gasoline and Mr Obama? After 4 years of this nightmare, the votes can't make this connection? Who voted for this, willingly? Who are these people????
The EPA vs. State Economies
Source: Marlo Lewis, "The EPA vs. State Economies," National Review Online, November 19, 2012
November 29, 2012
The renewable fuel standard (RFS) is increasing the biofuel-blending requirements. This change can give rise to numerous damaging spillovers throughout the economy, says Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow in environmental policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
•This program requires refiners to blend increasing quantities of biofuel, which are mostly corn ethanol, into the nation's motor-fuel supply.
•The 2012 target is to blend 13.2 billion gallons of biofuel into gasoline.
•In 2013, the target is 13.8 billion gallons.
•This year, 40 percent of the nation's corn will be used for ethanol manufacturing.
•This alone will increase corn prices, harming state poultry, beef, pork and dairy farmers who use corn as animal feed.
Moreover, such an initiative does not follow sound economic reasoning.
•In a competitive market, very few would buy ethanol as motor fuel because the substance has one-third less energy than gasoline and does not make up the difference in price.
•At the current rate, on average, it would cost the consumer $500 a year to switch to E85, a fuel that is 85 percent ethanol.
Arkansas' experience demonstrates the damaging effects the RFS can have on a state economy. According to Arkansas governor Mike Beebe:
•Virtually all of Arkansas is suffering from severe drought conditions, and accelerating corn prices impose a severe economic impact on the state's livestock producers.
•While the drought may have triggered the price spike in corn, the fuel standard aggravates the problem -- the policy has boosted corn prices 193 percent since 2005.
•Agriculture accounts for around 25 percent of the state's economic activity.
•Indeed, the RFS will disproportionally hurt regions with extensive farming industries, while following inefficient market principles.
Unemployment Numbers Managed by Obama Administration
To contact us Click HERE
What this boils down to is politics - what ever makes the Obama administration look good is the method that will be used. The real sad part in this is everyone knows this is a fraud, especially the media, but most turn a blind eye to the problem. The general public has no clue as they are kept in the dark by the media.
Worse, the general public that just watches the lettered channels and reads the local new paper will not know any of this. Would anyone that is awake to reality actually believe the news media in this country, other then FOX and maybe The Wall Street Journal, to report the fact that unemployment could actually be 16%?
Understanding Job Statistics
Source: Robert McTeer, "Understanding Job Statistics," National Center for Policy Analysis, November 29, 2012.
November 29, 2012
It is important to understand how job statistics are derived and what that means for public policy, says Robert McTeer, a distinguished fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis.
To-date, the United States has only regained about half of the almost 9 million lost jobs in 2008 and 2009. Job growth has improved recently, but is still below the rate of past recoveries. Consider:
•Payroll employment increased by 171,000 jobs in October and the unemployment rate increased to 7.9 percent, representing 12.3 million people.
•The payroll numbers were revised up by 50,000 in August and by 34,000 in September.
Unemployment averaged below 5 percent before the recession. It peaked at 10 percent in late 2009, and declined to 7.9 percent as of October. It is still about 3 percentage points above what would reasonably be considered normal or full employment.
The situation, however, is worse than these numbers portray. Not only is unemployment high as a percent of the labor force, but the labor force itself has been shrinking as job seekers give up and drop out.
•Indeed, labor force participation (job seekers and the employed) has declined from 66 percent before the recession to 63.8 percent.
•Moreover, employment, as a percent of the population, has declined from over 63 percent before the recession to 58.8 percent in October.
These numbers are estimates based on samples, which make them subject to sampling error. The payroll number comes from reports submitted by 141,000 business establishments and government entities representing about 486,000 workers. Statistically, at the 90 percent confidence level, the "true" payroll change is the estimated number plus or minus 100,000. In October, that is between 71,000 and 271,000. A larger sample size would narrow that range by reducing the sampling error.
The unemployment rate is derived from a separate household survey, which has an even smaller sample size and a wider confidence range. Because the household survey's sample size is smaller than the establishment survey, its confidence range is larger. At the 90 percent confidence level, the "true" number of unemployed persons is the estimated number plus or minus 280,000, and the "true" unemployment rate is the estimated rate plus or minus 1.9 percentage points. Thus, the estimated unemployment rate of 7.9 percent in October means that the "true" rate was between 6 percent and 9.8 percent.
Worse, the general public that just watches the lettered channels and reads the local new paper will not know any of this. Would anyone that is awake to reality actually believe the news media in this country, other then FOX and maybe The Wall Street Journal, to report the fact that unemployment could actually be 16%?
Understanding Job Statistics
Source: Robert McTeer, "Understanding Job Statistics," National Center for Policy Analysis, November 29, 2012.
November 29, 2012
It is important to understand how job statistics are derived and what that means for public policy, says Robert McTeer, a distinguished fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis.
To-date, the United States has only regained about half of the almost 9 million lost jobs in 2008 and 2009. Job growth has improved recently, but is still below the rate of past recoveries. Consider:
•Payroll employment increased by 171,000 jobs in October and the unemployment rate increased to 7.9 percent, representing 12.3 million people.
•The payroll numbers were revised up by 50,000 in August and by 34,000 in September.
Unemployment averaged below 5 percent before the recession. It peaked at 10 percent in late 2009, and declined to 7.9 percent as of October. It is still about 3 percentage points above what would reasonably be considered normal or full employment.
The situation, however, is worse than these numbers portray. Not only is unemployment high as a percent of the labor force, but the labor force itself has been shrinking as job seekers give up and drop out.
•Indeed, labor force participation (job seekers and the employed) has declined from 66 percent before the recession to 63.8 percent.
•Moreover, employment, as a percent of the population, has declined from over 63 percent before the recession to 58.8 percent in October.
These numbers are estimates based on samples, which make them subject to sampling error. The payroll number comes from reports submitted by 141,000 business establishments and government entities representing about 486,000 workers. Statistically, at the 90 percent confidence level, the "true" payroll change is the estimated number plus or minus 100,000. In October, that is between 71,000 and 271,000. A larger sample size would narrow that range by reducing the sampling error.
The unemployment rate is derived from a separate household survey, which has an even smaller sample size and a wider confidence range. Because the household survey's sample size is smaller than the establishment survey, its confidence range is larger. At the 90 percent confidence level, the "true" number of unemployed persons is the estimated number plus or minus 280,000, and the "true" unemployment rate is the estimated rate plus or minus 1.9 percentage points. Thus, the estimated unemployment rate of 7.9 percent in October means that the "true" rate was between 6 percent and 9.8 percent.
28 Kasım 2012 Çarşamba
Social Securty : Retirement Subsidy Only
To contact us Click HERE
This is a little confusing in that what one makes before retirement is relative to benefits they will receive upon retirement, especially with the rising or falling prices effecting living standards. What you make in preretirement will not be anything like what you will get from Social Security and with good reason. What you paid in is not even close to what you take out in retirement.
But hey, never mind all this confusion, the best way to retire is make sure you can live the life you think you want by preparing to live without Social Security. If you do this, and have the will power to deny yourself a little along the way, believe your retirement will be a breeze.
It's also important to point out, retirement is more then having enough money, it's about being satisfied with what you have and enjoy it. Don't complain about what you don't have as this will diminish the true returns of your new self directed life.
Myths and Realities of Social Security Replacement Rates
Source: Charles Blahous, "Understanding Social Security Benefit Adequacy: Myths and Realities of Social Security Replacement Rates," Mercatus Center, November 15, 2012.
November 28, 2012
The adequacy of Social Security benefits are often measured by the "replacement rate," a ratio of one's retirement benefit to preretirement income. While this is intended to provide equity in benefits over time, there are some misunderstood features that have some unintended consequences for the overall evaluation of the program, says Charles Blahous, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center and public trustee for Medicare and Social Security.
•First, younger workers' preretirement standards of living decline relative to their postretirement living standards because the cost of benefits increases over time.
•Second, the actual replacement rates are high because they are not reported as they would be calculated by financial planners.
•Third, the benefit formula causes replacement rates to rise over time for a given level of real wages.
There are also three often misunderstood aspects of Social Security replacement rate.
•First, the replacement rate is increasing relative to workers' standards of living. But since younger generations must pay higher tax burdens to receive the same replacement rates, there is a decline in net benefits.
•Second, Social Security replacement rates are higher than people assume. However, this assumes replacement rates as a percentage of career "wage-indexed" earnings, which results in under-evaluation.
•Finally, Social Security benefits are rising for a given level of real wages. However, the current benefit formula keeps replacement rates constant for average-wage workers, which delivers rising benefits to workers with the same real wages across time and contributes to rising system costs.
Furthermore, people are deterred from further labor market participation and saving because total retirement income replacement rates exceed 100 percent of late-career earnings. There are several reforms the federal government could pursue to make future program evaluation more accurate and help fix the finances of the program.
•First, prevent the decline in the ratio of preretirement income to postretirement benefits.
•Second, prevent Social Security from forcing low-income families and individuals from over-saving for retirement.
•Third, maintain constant replacement rates for those with the same real wages.
But hey, never mind all this confusion, the best way to retire is make sure you can live the life you think you want by preparing to live without Social Security. If you do this, and have the will power to deny yourself a little along the way, believe your retirement will be a breeze.
It's also important to point out, retirement is more then having enough money, it's about being satisfied with what you have and enjoy it. Don't complain about what you don't have as this will diminish the true returns of your new self directed life.
Myths and Realities of Social Security Replacement Rates
Source: Charles Blahous, "Understanding Social Security Benefit Adequacy: Myths and Realities of Social Security Replacement Rates," Mercatus Center, November 15, 2012.
November 28, 2012
The adequacy of Social Security benefits are often measured by the "replacement rate," a ratio of one's retirement benefit to preretirement income. While this is intended to provide equity in benefits over time, there are some misunderstood features that have some unintended consequences for the overall evaluation of the program, says Charles Blahous, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center and public trustee for Medicare and Social Security.
•First, younger workers' preretirement standards of living decline relative to their postretirement living standards because the cost of benefits increases over time.
•Second, the actual replacement rates are high because they are not reported as they would be calculated by financial planners.
•Third, the benefit formula causes replacement rates to rise over time for a given level of real wages.
There are also three often misunderstood aspects of Social Security replacement rate.
•First, the replacement rate is increasing relative to workers' standards of living. But since younger generations must pay higher tax burdens to receive the same replacement rates, there is a decline in net benefits.
•Second, Social Security replacement rates are higher than people assume. However, this assumes replacement rates as a percentage of career "wage-indexed" earnings, which results in under-evaluation.
•Finally, Social Security benefits are rising for a given level of real wages. However, the current benefit formula keeps replacement rates constant for average-wage workers, which delivers rising benefits to workers with the same real wages across time and contributes to rising system costs.
Furthermore, people are deterred from further labor market participation and saving because total retirement income replacement rates exceed 100 percent of late-career earnings. There are several reforms the federal government could pursue to make future program evaluation more accurate and help fix the finances of the program.
•First, prevent the decline in the ratio of preretirement income to postretirement benefits.
•Second, prevent Social Security from forcing low-income families and individuals from over-saving for retirement.
•Third, maintain constant replacement rates for those with the same real wages.
I've Been Banned
To contact us Click HERE
So much for having a conversation.
I visited the FaceBook page, True Dinos, of a young Earth creationist (YEC) run a fellow named Aaron Tulllock. You can no longer see my posts, because I've blocked by the administrator for "being a troll."
What did I do?
I asked about the design of the vas deferens and the recurrent laryngeal nerve. [See Smack Down.] Here's what left of the comments about Intelligent Design.
Then there was my comments on this post. Since True Dinos is also a biblical literalist, I informed him that the bible literally claims that the Sun revolves around the Earth. When pressed by another YEC called The Question Evolution Project, I provided not only the biblical verses, but a link to other biblical literalists who truly believe in geocentrism. [Regular readers might know my earlier blog posts Your Elementary School Teachers Were Right and LA Times Does Story on Geocentrism.] He never responded; in fact, his comments on True Dinos have been wiped.
Since The Question Evolution Project was unwilling to confront his obvious hypocrisy on the bible being literally true, I visited The Question Evolution Project FaceBook page. Because I had the audacity to debate, he promptly blocked me .
Oh, what am I to do now?
If any of the administrators from those pages wish to comment on this blog, they are free to do so. All I ask is that they not do so anonymously. They are free to use whatever language they see fit to use. They will not be banned.
A bit more about these two pages.
Aaron Tullock (True Dinos) claims to have sighted a living pterosaur in 1995 in Marion County, Texas. The fossil and geologic evidence shows quite dramatically that these reptiles became extinct about 65.5 million years ago. An excellent resource for those interested in pterosaurs is Pterosaur.net.
The paleontologists there say
Now for The Question Evolution Project. In their About section, they write "true science is not afraid to examine contrary evidence and allows alternative theories to the interpretation of the evidence." Agreed. Science does not make progress without questioning. Consider the Copernican revolution or the quantum revolution. So why was I banned? I presented biblical evidence that didn't fit their preconceived notions about what the bible says.
On the other hand, "the Admins have other things to do besides engage in lengthy debates." It's strange that for people that being interested in "scientific evidence and its interpretation" and "intellectual honesty and freedom," they refuse to discuss anything. How does The Question Evolution Project feel about questions? They say "[the site] is for people who can think for themselves and dare to ask questions," but don't ask them if they're geocentrists, because that will get you banned.
One last item, The Question Evolution Project claims that evolution is not a fact." What do scientists say about that?
The National Academy of Sciences says
The American Association for the Advancement of Science states
I imagine The Question Evolution Project will just say we're being bullies.
 |
| CREDIT: True Dinos |
 |
| CREDIT: True Dinos |
So much for having a conversation.
I visited the FaceBook page, True Dinos, of a young Earth creationist (YEC) run a fellow named Aaron Tulllock. You can no longer see my posts, because I've blocked by the administrator for "being a troll."
What did I do?
I asked about the design of the vas deferens and the recurrent laryngeal nerve. [See Smack Down.] Here's what left of the comments about Intelligent Design.
 |
| CREDIT: True Dinos |
Since The Question Evolution Project was unwilling to confront his obvious hypocrisy on the bible being literally true, I visited The Question Evolution Project FaceBook page. Because I had the audacity to debate, he promptly blocked me .
Oh, what am I to do now?
If any of the administrators from those pages wish to comment on this blog, they are free to do so. All I ask is that they not do so anonymously. They are free to use whatever language they see fit to use. They will not be banned.
A bit more about these two pages.
Aaron Tullock (True Dinos) claims to have sighted a living pterosaur in 1995 in Marion County, Texas. The fossil and geologic evidence shows quite dramatically that these reptiles became extinct about 65.5 million years ago. An excellent resource for those interested in pterosaurs is Pterosaur.net.
The paleontologists there say
Unusual winged animals reported from around the world have been suggested by some cryptozoologists and creationists to be modern-day pterosaurs that survived the end-Cretaceous extinction event. From Africa, people have reported a semi-aquatic winged animal called the kongamato while on New Guinea and the surrounding islands sightings are claimed of a gigantic, bioluminescent, crested flying creature (the duah) and a smaller, long-tailed version, the ropen. Fossil evidence demonstrates overwhelmingly that pterosaurs did not survive beyond the end of the Cretaceous, and the sightings of pterosaur-like animals that have been reported appear to be a combination of hoaxes and misidentification of large birds and bats. So-called modern pterosaurs are generally ugly, dark, carnivorous, bat-winged horrors—they sound more like imaginary generic flying monsters than the pterosaurs we know from the fossil record.
Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence.Plus technically speaking, pterosaurs aren't dinosaurs, although they did coexist.
Now for The Question Evolution Project. In their About section, they write "true science is not afraid to examine contrary evidence and allows alternative theories to the interpretation of the evidence." Agreed. Science does not make progress without questioning. Consider the Copernican revolution or the quantum revolution. So why was I banned? I presented biblical evidence that didn't fit their preconceived notions about what the bible says.
On the other hand, "the Admins have other things to do besides engage in lengthy debates." It's strange that for people that being interested in "scientific evidence and its interpretation" and "intellectual honesty and freedom," they refuse to discuss anything. How does The Question Evolution Project feel about questions? They say "[the site] is for people who can think for themselves and dare to ask questions," but don't ask them if they're geocentrists, because that will get you banned.
One last item, The Question Evolution Project claims that evolution is not a fact." What do scientists say about that?
The National Academy of Sciences says
Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science states
But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.
I imagine The Question Evolution Project will just say we're being bullies.
Dr. Oz's Diet Advice
To contact us Click HERE
I was really bored yesterday, August 6, 2012. Flipping through the channels, I came upon the Dr. Oz show, and I wondered what woo he was pushing today. Sure enough, he begins the show with metabolism boosters.
I immediately began to wonder whether a person can really boost their metabolism by simply drinking tomato juice spiked with a little Tabasco sauce and lime juice, but then he said this.
"And while wine snobs may not approve, adding ice chips to your red wine forces your body to burn calories, as it has to use its own energy to warm the liquid to body temperature."
Let's see what science has to say about this.
One learns in both physics and chemistry courses that to raise the temperature of any substance it takes an amount of energy equal to Q = mcdT where m is the mass of the substance, dT is the final temperature minus the initial temperature, and c is called the specific heat. The specific heat takes into account all the complicated physics and chemistry of how energy is distributed among the atoms and molecules.
I went to my freezer and looked at a ice cube - technically it's not a cube, it's a rectangular solid, but I'm being pedantic. I don't have a kitchen scale, so I'll determine its mass by measuring its dimensions. My cube is 5 cm by 3 cm by 3.5 cm or about 53 cm3. The density of ice is 0.998 grams per cubic centimeter, so I can calculate its mass by multiplying the density by the volume. Therefore, my ice cube's mass is 53 grams.
The ice will melt and cool the wine as cold as 0ºC. After you drink the wine, your body will warm the liquid to body temperature, about 37ºC.
The specific heat of water is 1 calorie per gram per Celsius degree. So your body will use
So your body has to expend almost 2 Calories to warm the cold wine. I think you can burn 2 Calories by breathing for a whole minute.
UPDATE: Oops! I made a mistake here. Your body has to warm all the liquid, not just the melted ice. If you have a standard serving of wine, 6 oz., then your body expends 8.5 Calories.
You can do a little better by eating the ice, since your body has to melt the ice, too. I''ll spare you the details, but that takes a whopping 4 10 Calories! Assuming you drink the wine, too.
Even if you live a sedentary lifestyle, you will burn at least 1200 Calories every day by just existing. This is your metabolic activity. If you are active, your metabolic activity can be as high as 3000 Calories.
If you want a little dieting advice, I share with you the only diet proven to work.
The Thermodynamic Diet
The 1st law of thermodynamics states that one cannot create nor destroy energy. All that can be done is to convert energy from one form to another. Your body converts chemical energy in the food to kinetic energy (energy of motion) and thermal energy (you may call that heat, but that's technically incorrect). Any energy not converted into these two forms may be converted into another form of chemical energy; that is, weight gain.
So the thermodynamic diet is burn more calories than you ingest.
I was really bored yesterday, August 6, 2012. Flipping through the channels, I came upon the Dr. Oz show, and I wondered what woo he was pushing today. Sure enough, he begins the show with metabolism boosters.
I immediately began to wonder whether a person can really boost their metabolism by simply drinking tomato juice spiked with a little Tabasco sauce and lime juice, but then he said this.
"And while wine snobs may not approve, adding ice chips to your red wine forces your body to burn calories, as it has to use its own energy to warm the liquid to body temperature."Let's see what science has to say about this.
One learns in both physics and chemistry courses that to raise the temperature of any substance it takes an amount of energy equal to Q = mcdT where m is the mass of the substance, dT is the final temperature minus the initial temperature, and c is called the specific heat. The specific heat takes into account all the complicated physics and chemistry of how energy is distributed among the atoms and molecules.
I went to my freezer and looked at a ice cube - technically it's not a cube, it's a rectangular solid, but I'm being pedantic. I don't have a kitchen scale, so I'll determine its mass by measuring its dimensions. My cube is 5 cm by 3 cm by 3.5 cm or about 53 cm3. The density of ice is 0.998 grams per cubic centimeter, so I can calculate its mass by multiplying the density by the volume. Therefore, my ice cube's mass is 53 grams.
The ice will melt and cool the wine as cold as 0ºC. After you drink the wine, your body will warm the liquid to body temperature, about 37ºC.
The specific heat of water is 1 calorie per gram per Celsius degree. So your body will use
Q = (53 g)(1 cal/(g ºC))(37ºC–0ºC) = 1961 calories.But I have to correct something here. A food calorie is different from a calorie. A food calorie, also called the Calorie (notice the capital C), is equal to 1000 calories.
So your body has to expend almost 2 Calories to warm the cold wine. I think you can burn 2 Calories by breathing for a whole minute.
UPDATE: Oops! I made a mistake here. Your body has to warm all the liquid, not just the melted ice. If you have a standard serving of wine, 6 oz., then your body expends 8.5 Calories.
You can do a little better by eating the ice, since your body has to melt the ice, too. I''ll spare you the details, but that takes a whopping
Even if you live a sedentary lifestyle, you will burn at least 1200 Calories every day by just existing. This is your metabolic activity. If you are active, your metabolic activity can be as high as 3000 Calories.
If you want a little dieting advice, I share with you the only diet proven to work.
The Thermodynamic Diet
The 1st law of thermodynamics states that one cannot create nor destroy energy. All that can be done is to convert energy from one form to another. Your body converts chemical energy in the food to kinetic energy (energy of motion) and thermal energy (you may call that heat, but that's technically incorrect). Any energy not converted into these two forms may be converted into another form of chemical energy; that is, weight gain.
So the thermodynamic diet is burn more calories than you ingest.
Get ready for the new year with January's Tax Due Date Reminders!
To contact us Click HERE
The staff at Holdsworth & Co. joins you in saying goodbye to 2011 and ringing in a healthy and prosperous 2012!
Thanks for visiting our recently launched blogsite. As we begin the new year, we want to help keep you on course with a list of tax due date reminders for January. We're happy to answer any of your questions and are just a phone call away.
The staff at Holdsworth & Co. joins you in saying goodbye to 2011 and ringing in a healthy and prosperous 2012!
Thanks for visiting our recently launched blogsite. As we begin the new year, we want to help keep you on course with a list of tax due date reminders for January. We're happy to answer any of your questions and are just a phone call away.
| January 10 | Employees - who work for tips. If you received $20 or more in tips during December, report them to your employer. You can use Form 4070, Employee's Report of Tips to Employer. |
| January 17 | Employers - Social Security, Medicare, and withheld income tax. If the monthly deposit rule applies, deposit the tax for payments in December 2011.Individuals - Make a payment of your estimated tax for 2011 if you did not pay your income tax for the year through withholding (or did not pay in enough tax that way). Use Form 1040-ES. This is the final installment date for 2011 estimated tax. However, you do not have to make this payment if you file your 2011 return (Form 1040) and pay any tax due by January 31, 2012.Employers - Nonpayroll Withholding. If the monthly deposit rule applies, deposit the tax for payments in December 2011.Farmers and Fishermen - Pay your estimated tax for 2011 using Form 1040-ES. You have until April 17 to file your 2011 income tax return (Form 1040). If you do not pay your estimated tax by January 17, you must file your 2011 return and pay any tax due by March 1, 2012, to avoid an estimated tax penalty. |
| January 31 | Employers - Give your employees their copies of Form W-2 for 2011 by January 31, 2012. If an employee agreed to receive Form W-2 electronically, post it on a website accessible to the employee and notify the employee of the posting by January 31.Businesses - Give annual information statements to recipients of 1099 payments made during 2011.Employers - Federal unemployment tax. File Form 940 for 2011. If your undeposited tax is $500 or less, you can either pay it with your return or deposit it. If it is more than $500, you must deposit it. However, if you already deposited the tax for the year in full and on time, you have until February 10 to file the return.Employers - Social Security, Medicare, and withheld income tax. File Form 941 for the fourth quarter of 2011. Deposit any undeposited tax. (If your tax liability is less than $2,500, you can pay it in full with a timely filed return.) If you deposited the tax for the quarter in full and on time, you have until February 10 to file the return.Employers - Nonpayroll taxes. File Form 945 to report income tax withheld for 2011 on all nonpayroll items, including backup withholding and withholding on pensions, annuities, IRAs, gambling winnings, and payments of Indian gaming profits to tribal members. Deposit any undeposited tax. (If your tax liability is less than $2,500, you can pay it in full with a timely filed return.) If you deposited the tax for the year in full and on time, you have until February 10 to file the return.Individuals - who must make estimated tax payments. If you did not pay your last installment of estimated tax by January 17, you may choose (but are not required) to file your income tax return (Form 1040) for 2011. Filing your return and paying any tax due by January 31 prevents any penalty for late payment of last installment.Payers of Gambling Winnings - If you either paid reportable gambling winnings or withheld income tax from gambling winnings, give the winners their copies of Form W-2G.Certain Small Employers - File Form 944 to report Social Security and Medicare taxes and withheld income tax for 2011. Deposit or pay any undeposited tax under the accuracy of deposit rules. If your tax liability is $2,500 or more from 2011 but less than $2,500 for the fourth quarter, deposit any undeposited tax or pay it in full with a timely filed return. |
Discover Your Pot o' Gold...in Your Tax Deductible Vacation!
To contact us Click HERE
Tim, who owns his own business, decided he wanted to take a two-week trip around the US. So he did--and was able to legally deduct every dime that he spent on his "vacation". Here's how he did it.
1. Make all your business appointments before you leave for your trip.
Most people believe that they can go on vacation and simply hand out their business cards in order to make the trip deductible.
Wrong.
You must have at least one business appointment before you leave in order to establish the "prior set business purpose" required by the IRS. Keeping this in mind, before he left for his trip, Tim set up appointments with business colleagues in the various cities that he planned to visit.
Let's say Tim is a manufacturer of green office products looking to expand his business and distribute more product. One possible way to establish business contacts--if he doesn't already have them--is to place advertisements looking for distributors in newspapers in each location he plans to visit. He could then interview those who respond when he gets to the business destination.
In order to deduct all of your on-the-road business expenses, you must be traveling on business. The IRS states that travel expenses are 100% deductible as long as your trip is business related and you are traveling away from your regular place of business longer than an ordinary day's work and you need to sleep or rest to meet the demands of your work while away from home.
For every day you are on business travel, you can deduct 100% of lodging, tips, car rentals, and 50% of your food. Tim spends three days meeting with potential distributors. If he spends $50 a day for food, he can deduct 50% of this amount, or $25.
If you have a business day on Friday and another one on Monday, you can deduct all on-the-road expenses during the weekend.
The IRS says that you can deduct transportation expenses if business is the primary purpose of the trip. A majority of days in the trip must be for business activities, otherwise, you cannot make any transportation deductions.
Since Tim accrued six business days, he could spend another five days having fun and still deduct all his transportation to San Diego. The reason is that the majority of the days were business days (six out of eleven). However, he can only deduct six days worth of lodging, dry cleaning, shoe shines, and tips. The important point is that Tim would be spending money on lodging, airfare, and food, but now most of his expenses will become deductible.
Consult us before you plan your next trip. We'll show you the right way to legally deduct your vacation when you combine it with business. Bon Voyage!
Tim, who owns his own business, decided he wanted to take a two-week trip around the US. So he did--and was able to legally deduct every dime that he spent on his "vacation". Here's how he did it.
1. Make all your business appointments before you leave for your trip.
Most people believe that they can go on vacation and simply hand out their business cards in order to make the trip deductible.
Wrong.
You must have at least one business appointment before you leave in order to establish the "prior set business purpose" required by the IRS. Keeping this in mind, before he left for his trip, Tim set up appointments with business colleagues in the various cities that he planned to visit.
Let's say Tim is a manufacturer of green office products looking to expand his business and distribute more product. One possible way to establish business contacts--if he doesn't already have them--is to place advertisements looking for distributors in newspapers in each location he plans to visit. He could then interview those who respond when he gets to the business destination.
In order to deduct all of your on-the-road business expenses, you must be traveling on business. The IRS states that travel expenses are 100% deductible as long as your trip is business related and you are traveling away from your regular place of business longer than an ordinary day's work and you need to sleep or rest to meet the demands of your work while away from home.
For every day you are on business travel, you can deduct 100% of lodging, tips, car rentals, and 50% of your food. Tim spends three days meeting with potential distributors. If he spends $50 a day for food, he can deduct 50% of this amount, or $25.
If you have a business day on Friday and another one on Monday, you can deduct all on-the-road expenses during the weekend.
The IRS says that you can deduct transportation expenses if business is the primary purpose of the trip. A majority of days in the trip must be for business activities, otherwise, you cannot make any transportation deductions.
Since Tim accrued six business days, he could spend another five days having fun and still deduct all his transportation to San Diego. The reason is that the majority of the days were business days (six out of eleven). However, he can only deduct six days worth of lodging, dry cleaning, shoe shines, and tips. The important point is that Tim would be spending money on lodging, airfare, and food, but now most of his expenses will become deductible.
Consult us before you plan your next trip. We'll show you the right way to legally deduct your vacation when you combine it with business. Bon Voyage!
 |
| Dublin, Ireland |
Tim, who owns his own business, decided he wanted to take a two-week trip around the US. So he did--and was able to legally deduct every dime that he spent on his "vacation". Here's how he did it.
1. Make all your business appointments before you leave for your trip.
Most people believe that they can go on vacation and simply hand out their business cards in order to make the trip deductible.
Wrong.
You must have at least one business appointment before you leave in order to establish the "prior set business purpose" required by the IRS. Keeping this in mind, before he left for his trip, Tim set up appointments with business colleagues in the various cities that he planned to visit.
Let's say Tim is a manufacturer of green office products looking to expand his business and distribute more product. One possible way to establish business contacts--if he doesn't already have them--is to place advertisements looking for distributors in newspapers in each location he plans to visit. He could then interview those who respond when he gets to the business destination.
Example: Tim wants to vacation in Hawaii. If he places several advertisements for distributors, or contacts some of his downline distributors to perform a presentation, then the IRS would accept his trip for business.
Tip: It would be vital for Tim to document this business purpose by keeping a copy of the advertisement and all correspondence along with noting what appointments he will have in his diary.2. Make Sure your Trip is All "Business Travel."
In order to deduct all of your on-the-road business expenses, you must be traveling on business. The IRS states that travel expenses are 100% deductible as long as your trip is business related and you are traveling away from your regular place of business longer than an ordinary day's work and you need to sleep or rest to meet the demands of your work while away from home.
Example: Tim wanted to go to a regional meeting in Boston, which is only a one-hour drive from his home. If he were to sleep in the hotel where the meeting will be held (in order to avoid possible automobile and traffic problems), his overnight stay qualifies as business travel in the eyes of the IRS.
Tip: Remember: You don't need to live far away to be on business travel. If you have a good reason for sleeping at your destination, you could live a couple of miles away and still be on travel status.3. Make sure that you deduct all of your on-the-road -expenses for each day you're away.
For every day you are on business travel, you can deduct 100% of lodging, tips, car rentals, and 50% of your food. Tim spends three days meeting with potential distributors. If he spends $50 a day for food, he can deduct 50% of this amount, or $25.
Tip:The IRS doesn't require receipts for travel expense under $75 per expense--except for lodging.
Example: If Tim pays $6 for drinks an the plane, $6.95 for breakfast, $12.00 for lunch, $50 for dinner, he does not need receipts for anything since each item was under $75.
Tip: He would, however, need to document these items in your diary. A good tax diary is essential in order to audit-proof your records. Adequate documentation shall consist of amount, date, place and business reason for the expense.
Example: If, however, Tim stays in the Bates Motel and spends $22 on lodging, will he need a receipt? The answer is yes. You need receipts for all paid lodging.
Tip: Not only are your on-the-road expenses deductible from your trip, but also all laundry, shoe shines, manicures, and dry-cleaning costs for clothes worn on the trip. Thus, your first dry cleaning bill that you incur when you get home will be fully deductible. Make sure that you keep the dry cleaning receipt and have your clothing dry cleaned within a day or two of getting home.4. Sandwich weekends between business days.
If you have a business day on Friday and another one on Monday, you can deduct all on-the-road expenses during the weekend.
Example: Tim makes business appointments in Florida on Friday and one on the following Monday. Even though he has no business on Saturday and Sunday, he may deduct on-the-road business expenses incurred during the weekend.5. Make the majority of your trip days business days.
The IRS says that you can deduct transportation expenses if business is the primary purpose of the trip. A majority of days in the trip must be for business activities, otherwise, you cannot make any transportation deductions.
Example: Tim spends six days in San Diego. He leaves early on Thursday morning. He had a seminar on Friday and meets with distributors on Monday and flies home on Tuesday, taking the last flight of the day home after playing a complete round of golf. How many days are considered business days?All of them. Thursday is a business day, since it includes traveling - even if the rest of the day is spent at the beach. Friday is a business day because he had a seminar. Monday is a business day because he met with prospects and distributors in pre-arranged appointments. Saturday and Sunday are sandwiched between business days, so they count, and Tuesday is a travel day.
Since Tim accrued six business days, he could spend another five days having fun and still deduct all his transportation to San Diego. The reason is that the majority of the days were business days (six out of eleven). However, he can only deduct six days worth of lodging, dry cleaning, shoe shines, and tips. The important point is that Tim would be spending money on lodging, airfare, and food, but now most of his expenses will become deductible.
Consult us before you plan your next trip. We'll show you the right way to legally deduct your vacation when you combine it with business. Bon Voyage!
Tim, who owns his own business, decided he wanted to take a two-week trip around the US. So he did--and was able to legally deduct every dime that he spent on his "vacation". Here's how he did it.
1. Make all your business appointments before you leave for your trip.
Most people believe that they can go on vacation and simply hand out their business cards in order to make the trip deductible.
Wrong.
You must have at least one business appointment before you leave in order to establish the "prior set business purpose" required by the IRS. Keeping this in mind, before he left for his trip, Tim set up appointments with business colleagues in the various cities that he planned to visit.
Let's say Tim is a manufacturer of green office products looking to expand his business and distribute more product. One possible way to establish business contacts--if he doesn't already have them--is to place advertisements looking for distributors in newspapers in each location he plans to visit. He could then interview those who respond when he gets to the business destination.
Example: Tim wants to vacation in Hawaii. If he places several advertisements for distributors, or contacts some of his downline distributors to perform a presentation, then the IRS would accept his trip for business.
Tip: It would be vital for Tim to document this business purpose by keeping a copy of the advertisement and all correspondence along with noting what appointments he will have in his diary.2. Make Sure your Trip is All "Business Travel."
In order to deduct all of your on-the-road business expenses, you must be traveling on business. The IRS states that travel expenses are 100% deductible as long as your trip is business related and you are traveling away from your regular place of business longer than an ordinary day's work and you need to sleep or rest to meet the demands of your work while away from home.
Example: Tim wanted to go to a regional meeting in Boston, which is only a one-hour drive from his home. If he were to sleep in the hotel where the meeting will be held (in order to avoid possible automobile and traffic problems), his overnight stay qualifies as business travel in the eyes of the IRS.
Tip: Remember: You don't need to live far away to be on business travel. If you have a good reason for sleeping at your destination, you could live a couple of miles away and still be on travel status.3. Make sure that you deduct all of your on-the-road -expenses for each day you're away.
For every day you are on business travel, you can deduct 100% of lodging, tips, car rentals, and 50% of your food. Tim spends three days meeting with potential distributors. If he spends $50 a day for food, he can deduct 50% of this amount, or $25.
Tip:The IRS doesn't require receipts for travel expense under $75 per expense--except for lodging.
Example: If Tim pays $6 for drinks an the plane, $6.95 for breakfast, $12.00 for lunch, $50 for dinner, he does not need receipts for anything since each item was under $75.
Tip: He would, however, need to document these items in your diary. A good tax diary is essential in order to audit-proof your records. Adequate documentation shall consist of amount, date, place and business reason for the expense.
Example: If, however, Tim stays in the Bates Motel and spends $22 on lodging, will he need a receipt? The answer is yes. You need receipts for all paid lodging.
Tip: Not only are your on-the-road expenses deductible from your trip, but also all laundry, shoe shines, manicures, and dry-cleaning costs for clothes worn on the trip. Thus, your first dry cleaning bill that you incur when you get home will be fully deductible. Make sure that you keep the dry cleaning receipt and have your clothing dry cleaned within a day or two of getting home.4. Sandwich weekends between business days.
If you have a business day on Friday and another one on Monday, you can deduct all on-the-road expenses during the weekend.
Example: Tim makes business appointments in Florida on Friday and one on the following Monday. Even though he has no business on Saturday and Sunday, he may deduct on-the-road business expenses incurred during the weekend.5. Make the majority of your trip days business days.
The IRS says that you can deduct transportation expenses if business is the primary purpose of the trip. A majority of days in the trip must be for business activities, otherwise, you cannot make any transportation deductions.
Example: Tim spends six days in San Diego. He leaves early on Thursday morning. He had a seminar on Friday and meets with distributors on Monday and flies home on Tuesday, taking the last flight of the day home after playing a complete round of golf. How many days are considered business days?All of them. Thursday is a business day, since it includes traveling - even if the rest of the day is spent at the beach. Friday is a business day because he had a seminar. Monday is a business day because he met with prospects and distributors in pre-arranged appointments. Saturday and Sunday are sandwiched between business days, so they count, and Tuesday is a travel day.
Since Tim accrued six business days, he could spend another five days having fun and still deduct all his transportation to San Diego. The reason is that the majority of the days were business days (six out of eleven). However, he can only deduct six days worth of lodging, dry cleaning, shoe shines, and tips. The important point is that Tim would be spending money on lodging, airfare, and food, but now most of his expenses will become deductible.
Consult us before you plan your next trip. We'll show you the right way to legally deduct your vacation when you combine it with business. Bon Voyage!
27 Kasım 2012 Salı
Education Changes for Success : Parents & Competition
To contact us Click HERE
All good ideas to change the outcomes of our failed educational system. The best of these incorporate the free market, that is competition.
Our public school system has failed our students, and will continue to do so if the community doesn't step in and make changes like the ones brought forward in this article. Basically though it will be the parents that make the difference in how the system is fixed.
But the problem here is, and has always been the problem, a lot of parents can't make the connection between success and failure as being determined by their lack of participation on their part in their children's education. Parents have to care and understand they are what will change the system.
Five Pathways to Fundamentally Reshaping American Schooling
Source: Jal Mehta, "The Futures of School Reform: Five Pathways to Fundamentally Reshaping American Schooling," American Enterprise Institute, November 14, 2012
November 27, 2012
The American education system is plagued with failed reform attempts that seek to correct the decline in student achievement, says Jal Mehta of the American Enterprise Institute.
•In the past, reformers have experimented with standards, vouchers, charters, merit pay and other methods for increasing student achievement.
•However, huge numbers of students -- nearly 40 percent to 50 percent in some urban districts -- don't graduate from high school.
•Furthermore, the United States ranks 14th in reading, 17th in science and 25th in math on international standardized tests.
There are five broad avenues that policymakers could take in order to make lasting changes to the educational system for the better.
First, transform the system by making the teaching profession more professional.
•Right now, the United States draws its teachers from the bottom two thirds of the distribution and gives them little training on the best methods for teaching.
•Instead, requirements for teaching should be tougher which would attract more skilled workers.
Second, replace traditional institutions with new actors such as charter schools. These schools currently provide competition to the traditional public school system but receive less support.
Third, rather than have a school that offers math, science, English and history, have a school function as a general contractor, bringing in different organizations that excel in teaching the various subjects. Some of these subjects might be taught online rather than in person, or through a combination of online practice and in-person coaching.
Fourth, create an out-of-school system that complements what children learn in school.
•Studies show that some students experience a "summer learning loss" that puts them behind their peers.
•Instead, an educational system that uses a student's free time outside of the classroom to reinforce concepts learned in school can help close the gap in student achievement.
Finally, dissolving the current system may do more in preparing students than any other option. Schools that teach from old textbooks fail to take into account how much information a student has at their fingertips with a computer. Employing committees comprised of adults at the state, district and school level can decide what should be taught at schools.
Our public school system has failed our students, and will continue to do so if the community doesn't step in and make changes like the ones brought forward in this article. Basically though it will be the parents that make the difference in how the system is fixed.
But the problem here is, and has always been the problem, a lot of parents can't make the connection between success and failure as being determined by their lack of participation on their part in their children's education. Parents have to care and understand they are what will change the system.
Five Pathways to Fundamentally Reshaping American Schooling
Source: Jal Mehta, "The Futures of School Reform: Five Pathways to Fundamentally Reshaping American Schooling," American Enterprise Institute, November 14, 2012
November 27, 2012
The American education system is plagued with failed reform attempts that seek to correct the decline in student achievement, says Jal Mehta of the American Enterprise Institute.
•In the past, reformers have experimented with standards, vouchers, charters, merit pay and other methods for increasing student achievement.
•However, huge numbers of students -- nearly 40 percent to 50 percent in some urban districts -- don't graduate from high school.
•Furthermore, the United States ranks 14th in reading, 17th in science and 25th in math on international standardized tests.
There are five broad avenues that policymakers could take in order to make lasting changes to the educational system for the better.
First, transform the system by making the teaching profession more professional.
•Right now, the United States draws its teachers from the bottom two thirds of the distribution and gives them little training on the best methods for teaching.
•Instead, requirements for teaching should be tougher which would attract more skilled workers.
Second, replace traditional institutions with new actors such as charter schools. These schools currently provide competition to the traditional public school system but receive less support.
Third, rather than have a school that offers math, science, English and history, have a school function as a general contractor, bringing in different organizations that excel in teaching the various subjects. Some of these subjects might be taught online rather than in person, or through a combination of online practice and in-person coaching.
Fourth, create an out-of-school system that complements what children learn in school.
•Studies show that some students experience a "summer learning loss" that puts them behind their peers.
•Instead, an educational system that uses a student's free time outside of the classroom to reinforce concepts learned in school can help close the gap in student achievement.
Finally, dissolving the current system may do more in preparing students than any other option. Schools that teach from old textbooks fail to take into account how much information a student has at their fingertips with a computer. Employing committees comprised of adults at the state, district and school level can decide what should be taught at schools.
Middle Class Businesses Crushed by New Tax : Obama's Profit Tax
To contact us Click HERE
Think about this for a few minutes, 39% of small business are considered 'middle class' and they are the biggest producer of jobs in our country.
Mr Obama's tax on the rich brings these small businesses under the gun as they make over $250K, they are not millionaires or billionaires, but out of this $250K, they will use this to sustain themselves and grow the business.
The new tax rate will be nearly 44% or more which will force these small businesses to lay off or fire people just to stay afloat. Not to mention ObamaCare that will take what's left of any operating revenue the business might have.
Please explain to me why anyone, knowingly, would vote such a calamity?
Tax Hikes over $250k: End of the Upper Middle Class?
Source: Jacqueline Leo, "Tax Hikes over $250k: End of the Upper Middle Class?" Fiscal Times, November 13, 2012.
November 27, 2012
After winning a second term, the Obama administration plans to push forward with a tax hike on high income Americans. The current concerns over the fiscal cliff threshold have initiated faster actions, says the Fiscal Times.
Obama wants to start the tax hikes for those making $250,000 or more. This figure also includes working couples who have a combined income of $250,000. The tax increases on high-income earners would deliver about $42 billion in 2013. The increase will create a small 0.1 percent drag on gross domestic product (GDP), according to the Congressional Budget Office. However, the real cost might be much steeper.
No doubt, by most measures, a $250,000 household income is a large sum. Indeed, it is five times the national average -- just 2.9 percent of couples earn that much or more. However, one must also be cognizant of the cost of living in different regions.
•$250,000 is a lot of money -- especially if you live in, say Peoria, Illinois.
•But if you live in or around New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, Chicago or Dallas, you're not rich -- you're simply what is known as "upper middle class," according to Roberton Williams, an analyst at the Tax Policy Center.
•According to Salary.com, the cost of living in New York, for example, is 105.7 percent higher than in Peoria.
A theoretical working couple earning $250,000 annually, who also lives in a region with a high cost of living, has numerous financial responsibilities ranging from college and graduate school debt to housing costs in expensive areas.
•Two years ago, the Fiscal Times asked BDO USA, a national tax accounting firm, to compute the total state, local and federal tax burden of a hypothetical two-career couple with two kids, earning $250,000.
•To factor in varying state and local taxes, as well as drastically different costs of living, BDO placed the couple in seven different locales around the country with top-notch public school districts, using national government data on spending.
•The findings reflect that life is not an easy journey for working families earning $250,000.
•Even with an additional $3,000 in investment income, couples end up in the red -- after taxes, saving for retirement and their children's education, and a middle-of-the-road cost of living -- in seven out of the eight communities in the analysis.
Mr Obama's tax on the rich brings these small businesses under the gun as they make over $250K, they are not millionaires or billionaires, but out of this $250K, they will use this to sustain themselves and grow the business.
The new tax rate will be nearly 44% or more which will force these small businesses to lay off or fire people just to stay afloat. Not to mention ObamaCare that will take what's left of any operating revenue the business might have.
Please explain to me why anyone, knowingly, would vote such a calamity?
Tax Hikes over $250k: End of the Upper Middle Class?
Source: Jacqueline Leo, "Tax Hikes over $250k: End of the Upper Middle Class?" Fiscal Times, November 13, 2012.
November 27, 2012
After winning a second term, the Obama administration plans to push forward with a tax hike on high income Americans. The current concerns over the fiscal cliff threshold have initiated faster actions, says the Fiscal Times.
Obama wants to start the tax hikes for those making $250,000 or more. This figure also includes working couples who have a combined income of $250,000. The tax increases on high-income earners would deliver about $42 billion in 2013. The increase will create a small 0.1 percent drag on gross domestic product (GDP), according to the Congressional Budget Office. However, the real cost might be much steeper.
No doubt, by most measures, a $250,000 household income is a large sum. Indeed, it is five times the national average -- just 2.9 percent of couples earn that much or more. However, one must also be cognizant of the cost of living in different regions.
•$250,000 is a lot of money -- especially if you live in, say Peoria, Illinois.
•But if you live in or around New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, Chicago or Dallas, you're not rich -- you're simply what is known as "upper middle class," according to Roberton Williams, an analyst at the Tax Policy Center.
•According to Salary.com, the cost of living in New York, for example, is 105.7 percent higher than in Peoria.
A theoretical working couple earning $250,000 annually, who also lives in a region with a high cost of living, has numerous financial responsibilities ranging from college and graduate school debt to housing costs in expensive areas.
•Two years ago, the Fiscal Times asked BDO USA, a national tax accounting firm, to compute the total state, local and federal tax burden of a hypothetical two-career couple with two kids, earning $250,000.
•To factor in varying state and local taxes, as well as drastically different costs of living, BDO placed the couple in seven different locales around the country with top-notch public school districts, using national government data on spending.
•The findings reflect that life is not an easy journey for working families earning $250,000.
•Even with an additional $3,000 in investment income, couples end up in the red -- after taxes, saving for retirement and their children's education, and a middle-of-the-road cost of living -- in seven out of the eight communities in the analysis.
Employers Opt for High Deductable Insurance : Employee Assunes Some Risk
To contact us Click HERE
This makes a lot of sense - why shouldn't the employee assume some of the risks of daily life? If the risks are assumed by the individual they will take more care of themselves if no other reason other then to save money on the deductibles.
It works. I have been doing this for years. It's called taking responsibility for your own actions. Who knew?
More Employers Embrace High-Deductible Health Plans to Pare Costs
Source: "More Employers Embrace High-Deductible Health Plans to Pare Costs," Los Angeles Times, November 14, 2012
November 27, 2012
Consumer-directed health plans are gaining popularity as many employers are beginning to offer them in an effort to reduce health care costs, says the Los Angeles Times.
•Employers prefer consumer-directed health plans because they are about 20 percent cheaper than preferred-provider organization (PPO) plans.
•The cost of a high-deductible medical plan with a health savings account is $7,833 annually per employee compared to $10,007 for a PPO plan.
•Thirty-six percent of large employers offer consumer-directed, high-deductible health plans, compared to only 14 percent five years ago.
•Enrollment in those plans has risen to 16 percent of all covered employees, compared to only 5 percent in 2007.
Under new federal rules, the minimum deductible for these plans with a health savings account is $2,500. Because of the shift, health benefit costs per employee have only risen by 4.1 percent, the smallest increase since 1997. Employers nationwide expect a 5 percent increase in health benefit costs next year.
Some experts contend that the lower costs are a result of employers shifting more of the costs on to workers and the patients postponing care and out-of-pocket medical expenses.
It works. I have been doing this for years. It's called taking responsibility for your own actions. Who knew?
More Employers Embrace High-Deductible Health Plans to Pare Costs
Source: "More Employers Embrace High-Deductible Health Plans to Pare Costs," Los Angeles Times, November 14, 2012
November 27, 2012
Consumer-directed health plans are gaining popularity as many employers are beginning to offer them in an effort to reduce health care costs, says the Los Angeles Times.
•Employers prefer consumer-directed health plans because they are about 20 percent cheaper than preferred-provider organization (PPO) plans.
•The cost of a high-deductible medical plan with a health savings account is $7,833 annually per employee compared to $10,007 for a PPO plan.
•Thirty-six percent of large employers offer consumer-directed, high-deductible health plans, compared to only 14 percent five years ago.
•Enrollment in those plans has risen to 16 percent of all covered employees, compared to only 5 percent in 2007.
Under new federal rules, the minimum deductible for these plans with a health savings account is $2,500. Because of the shift, health benefit costs per employee have only risen by 4.1 percent, the smallest increase since 1997. Employers nationwide expect a 5 percent increase in health benefit costs next year.
Some experts contend that the lower costs are a result of employers shifting more of the costs on to workers and the patients postponing care and out-of-pocket medical expenses.
Get ready for the new year with January's Tax Due Date Reminders!
To contact us Click HERE
The staff at Holdsworth & Co. joins you in saying goodbye to 2011 and ringing in a healthy and prosperous 2012!
Thanks for visiting our recently launched blogsite. As we begin the new year, we want to help keep you on course with a list of tax due date reminders for January. We're happy to answer any of your questions and are just a phone call away.
The staff at Holdsworth & Co. joins you in saying goodbye to 2011 and ringing in a healthy and prosperous 2012!
Thanks for visiting our recently launched blogsite. As we begin the new year, we want to help keep you on course with a list of tax due date reminders for January. We're happy to answer any of your questions and are just a phone call away.
| January 10 | Employees - who work for tips. If you received $20 or more in tips during December, report them to your employer. You can use Form 4070, Employee's Report of Tips to Employer. |
| January 17 | Employers - Social Security, Medicare, and withheld income tax. If the monthly deposit rule applies, deposit the tax for payments in December 2011.Individuals - Make a payment of your estimated tax for 2011 if you did not pay your income tax for the year through withholding (or did not pay in enough tax that way). Use Form 1040-ES. This is the final installment date for 2011 estimated tax. However, you do not have to make this payment if you file your 2011 return (Form 1040) and pay any tax due by January 31, 2012.Employers - Nonpayroll Withholding. If the monthly deposit rule applies, deposit the tax for payments in December 2011.Farmers and Fishermen - Pay your estimated tax for 2011 using Form 1040-ES. You have until April 17 to file your 2011 income tax return (Form 1040). If you do not pay your estimated tax by January 17, you must file your 2011 return and pay any tax due by March 1, 2012, to avoid an estimated tax penalty. |
| January 31 | Employers - Give your employees their copies of Form W-2 for 2011 by January 31, 2012. If an employee agreed to receive Form W-2 electronically, post it on a website accessible to the employee and notify the employee of the posting by January 31.Businesses - Give annual information statements to recipients of 1099 payments made during 2011.Employers - Federal unemployment tax. File Form 940 for 2011. If your undeposited tax is $500 or less, you can either pay it with your return or deposit it. If it is more than $500, you must deposit it. However, if you already deposited the tax for the year in full and on time, you have until February 10 to file the return.Employers - Social Security, Medicare, and withheld income tax. File Form 941 for the fourth quarter of 2011. Deposit any undeposited tax. (If your tax liability is less than $2,500, you can pay it in full with a timely filed return.) If you deposited the tax for the quarter in full and on time, you have until February 10 to file the return.Employers - Nonpayroll taxes. File Form 945 to report income tax withheld for 2011 on all nonpayroll items, including backup withholding and withholding on pensions, annuities, IRAs, gambling winnings, and payments of Indian gaming profits to tribal members. Deposit any undeposited tax. (If your tax liability is less than $2,500, you can pay it in full with a timely filed return.) If you deposited the tax for the year in full and on time, you have until February 10 to file the return.Individuals - who must make estimated tax payments. If you did not pay your last installment of estimated tax by January 17, you may choose (but are not required) to file your income tax return (Form 1040) for 2011. Filing your return and paying any tax due by January 31 prevents any penalty for late payment of last installment.Payers of Gambling Winnings - If you either paid reportable gambling winnings or withheld income tax from gambling winnings, give the winners their copies of Form W-2G.Certain Small Employers - File Form 944 to report Social Security and Medicare taxes and withheld income tax for 2011. Deposit or pay any undeposited tax under the accuracy of deposit rules. If your tax liability is $2,500 or more from 2011 but less than $2,500 for the fourth quarter, deposit any undeposited tax or pay it in full with a timely filed return. |
Kaydol:
Yorumlar (Atom)