Select Page

Florida to Surpass NY in Population — It’s The Taxes…

The NYTimes ran an article yesterday talking about the curious population shift from NY to FL. The biggest thing missing from the article’s conclusions, however, is the affect of taxes on New York’s population (re)location.

A CNSnews report last year discussed a study by the Tax Foundation found a net loss of 1.3 million New Yorkers who left the state over the 10 year period from 2000-2010.

3.4 million total moved out of state, but another 2.1 moved in, so the change was -1.3 million — which totaled a loss of $45.6 billion in income.

Although many factors determine one’s decision to move to or from a locality, taxes are typically part of the process. As such, the Tax Foundation noted many high tax facts that are unique to New York:

According to the group, New York ranked second among the states for the highest state and local tax burden in 2009.  The Empire State was ranked highest for tax burden every year from 1977 until 2006, except in 1984 when it was ranked second.

New York State has a progressive personal income tax rate ranging from 6.45 percent to 8.82 percent for those earning over $2 million. Sales varies by county, and is between seven and eight percent.  In Manhattan, the sales tax is 8.875 percent.

According to the Retirement Living Center, which examines tax burdens by state for those nearing retirement, New York also levies a gasoline tax at 49.0 cents per gallon and a cigarette tax of $4.35 per pack, along with an additional $1.50 per pack in New York City.

New York is also one of 17 states plus the District of Columbia that collects an estate tax, with a $1 million exemption and a progressive rate from 0.8 percent to 16 percent.

In 2007, New York State collected $1.1 billion from its estate and gift taxes, the highest of any of the states, according to the Tax Foundation.

I have mentioned these points before. Back in 2009, Rush Limbaugh fled the state due to the crushing taxes. And an Op-Ed in the NY Post last year discussed the implications of a shrinking population — loss of revenue, House of Representative seats, and policy power.

High taxes have devastating consequences. Thomas Sowell once quipped, “Elections should be held on April 16th- the day after we pay our income taxes. That is one of the few things that might discourage politicians from being big spenders”.

With the recent election of De Blasio as Mayor of NYC, you can expect even more flight. De Blasio has vowed to raise taxes both as a means of pushing his economic equality agenda and rewarding the unions for the patience with contract negotiations over the last 4+ years.

The state of NY is on the brink of fiscal insolvency and more and more people are waking up to that reality — and leaving the state in droves.

_______________________________
Now What?

Did you like what you read?

If you did, I hope you’ll join my Secret Tax Club.
It’s free, it’s via email, and it’s for you.

I periodically send out information such as tax tips, reading suggestions, articles and more, and the information is not always available anywhere else, even on my own website.

If you want to join, visit my Secret Tax Club page.

Thanks for visiting Tax Politix

Pope Francis and Free Markets

As a Jewish guy, I hardly pay attention to the leaders of other religions, but Pope Francis has won my admiration since his election this past spring. So it was somewhat dismayed when I read his recent Papal Exhortation published last month. In one section, Pope Francis seems to very nearly reject the idea of “trickle down economics”, a position that, if indeed true, would be devastating to the world.

Being in finance and business for decades, it has become abundantly clear that free markets are the best path to prosperity. So what to make of Francis’s thoughts?

My Catholic friends tell me that Francis’s discussion follows the the same path of Catholic Social Teaching — under which economics loosely falls — from the last several Popes, and therefore he hasn’t said anything new or different on the topic. This sentiment was echoed in Peggy Noonan’s piece published in the WSJ regarding Francis’s publication. Noonan was cautiously optimistic that Francis wasn’t rejecting free markets and she welcomed the conversation he has created.

On the other side of the aisle, Francis was blasted by some fiscal conservatives over a particularly thorny paragraph:

“In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase; and in the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.”

Here, it’s easy to see on the surface that the language Pope Francis employs — that trickle-down theories “have never been confirmed by the facts” of being successful — can be confusing. This is a very valid criticism. Certainly, the world has seen economic gains in numerous places where trickle-down economics has been practiced, including Pope Francis’s Argentina, but he seems not to discuss them.

A second reading suggests that “Free markets aren’t what Francis is criticizing here, but rather the lazy idea that “trickle down” economics somehow lifts people from poverty by its own volition, much as a sale at Wal-Mart somehow lifts people from poverty. Does it?
Francis — as well as any causal observer of any video showing Wal-Mart shoppers fight over $500 televisions — would disagree. Francis condemns a consumerist culture that is merely keeping up with the Joneses as it were (or in Francis’ words, “ we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase; and in the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle”) and simply views human beings as participants in the spectacle of consumerism as something abhorrent… “they fail to move us” as Pope Francis rightly mentions.
So what do the leaders of conservative finance and economics do about Pope Francis? Obviously he will be writing more during his pontificate. Clearly, the world is watching and his remarks and actions speak volumes not just to Catholics any more.

It’s worth it to remember that Pope Francis is not an economist first and foremost. That being said the sweeping generalities seen in his exhortation were ripe for wide interpretation. Don’t forget, the liberal media is always waiting in the wings for a statement or a sentence (this time paragraph 54) that “shows” the Pope is on their (liberal) side — in this case the issue was economics.

Pope Francis is a speaker of freedom, and in that should be included economic freedom. We have a potential opportunity to educate the Pope and ally with him about the truth about economics and the free market. Will the world listen?

The Liberty of Risk

Ben Casselman penned a thoughtful piece this summer in the WSJ which documented the decline of risk-taking in business ventures. Hard data show that both the number of new companies and the use of venture capital is waning. And this downward trend is a major contributor to the fact that the recovery from the recent recession is so painfully slow and anemic.

Casselman goes on to explain that economists aren’t entirely sure what is behind the decline and gave some potential causes: health care costs, licensing requirements, an aging population, and an increase in large corporations are among some of the suggestions. While these factors do contribute, Casselman missed the glaring elephant in the room. The government, and her anti-business policies, do more to stifle free business activity than any other than any other single mitigating circumstance.

This administration has been exceedingly heavy-handed in its efforts to demonize businesses, while promising that businesses will be highly taxed and regulated. Whether it is labor regulation by the NRLB or environmental regulation by the EPA, government interference is overreaching and restrictive.

Additionally there have been huge increases in both criminal rules and regulations about what businesses are allowed and not allowed to do — from nitpicky labor rules to dictating employee minutiae to minimum wage requirements which restrict business hiring.

More importantly, Obama has provided the background for a litigation-friendly environment. If a larger, more financially stable company wants to steal something from a smaller company, they can sue them or just threaten with a costly legal battle. Or, if labor doesn’t like them, they can force them to shut them down as an alternative to litigation.

Finally, Obama has taken the stuffing out of entrepreneurship by telling people “you didn’t build that” — meaning it’s not yours and it belongs to everyone else. He delivered the further blows that if you are successful, we’re going to take your success away from you by taxing you to death with higher rates and surtaxes.

Of course, there will be some successes. It just now takes a higher level of skill, ideas, and money to exercise your entrepreneurial spirit. It’s not like there won’t be the Jeffrey Bezo or the Bill Gates or the Steve Jobs. They’ll still come through everything despite the immense impediments. The problem is that it is the middle entrepreneurs who will have a hard time getting started, and even when they do, they will likely get discouraged in the mess. But it is this middle group, the bread-and-butter of small businesses, that have made this country great. That future is threatened, as we are seeing now in subtle shifts within the realm of business making.

The future of this country will continue to decline if the anti-business sentiment that Obama has unleashed is allowed to continue. The middle entrepreneurs, the mom-and-pops, the family businesses are the ones that make up the difference between the very tepid growth that we are seeing and the strong growth and recovery that could be better if businesses actually had better opportunity.

Businesses go into business not to comply with government dictates, but to provide a product, a service, to make things. The very liberty for Americans to have the opportunity to succeed and fail, to take risk, to survive, and to thrive is under siege.

_______________________________
Now What?

Did you like what you read?

If you did, I hope you’ll join my Secret Tax Club.
It’s free, it’s via email, and it’s for you.

I periodically send out information such as tax tips, reading suggestions, articles and more, and the information is not always available anywhere else, even on my own website.

If you want to join, visit my Secret Tax Club page.

Thanks for visiting Tax Politix

Obamacare Architect Now Says If You Want to Keep Your Doctor, You Can Pay More, but Whitehouse.gov Still Says Otherwise


Today, the architect of Obamacare, Zeke Emanuel, modified another one of Obama’s promises. This time, he explained the “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” now actually means “if you want to, you can pay for it,”.

During Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace pressed Emanuel to whether the promise would be upheld. Here’s the exchange, courtesy of The Weekly Standard.

The president never said you were going to have unlimited choice of any doctor in the country you want to go to,” said the Obamacare architect.

“No. He asked a question. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Did he not say that, sir?”

“He didn’t say you could have unlimited choice.”

“It’s a simple yes or no question. Did he say if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor?”

“Yes. But look, if you want to pay more for an insurance company that covers your doctor, you can do that. This is a matter of choice. We know in all sorts of places you pay more for certain — for a wider range of choices or wider range of benefits….

Here’s the problem. Right on the White House website, there is a document called “Health Insurance Reform Reality Check”. . There it states: “It’s never been more important to dispel these outlandish rumors and myths. Learn the facts and share them with your friends, family and neighbors.”

Then it has a “Reality Check” list. The very first bullet item says this:

You Can Keep Your Own Insurance

Reform isn’t about putting government in charge of your health insurance; it’s about putting you in charge of your health insurance. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan”.

Notice that it doesn’t say, “if you like your doctor, you might have to pay more”

This isn’t the only place on whitehouse.gov that has the Doctor Promise. On the FAQ page entitled “Putting Americans In Charge of their Health Care”, it says:

“Q

: Will the government take my choice of doctor away?

A: No.

Nothing about the President’s proposal will interfere with the choice of doctors you have today. The legislation will not cause you to change the coverage you have at work today”

Here’s the screencap:
whtiehousegovdoctorpromise

In fact, the Doctor Promise goes all the way back to at least 2009. On whitehouse.gov, you can find Obama’s weekly address from August 8th, 2009, where he states,

So, let me explain what reform will mean for you. And let me start by dispelling the outlandish rumors that reform will promote euthanasia, cut Medicaid, or bring about a government takeover of health care. That’s simply not true. This isn’t about putting government in charge of your health insurance; it’s about putting you in charge of your health insurance. Under the reforms we seek, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.

So, since at least 2009, we’ve been hearing the simple promise, “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”. Yet today we hear a modified version of that Promise, much like the recent caveat to the “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan” promise”.

Now we find out the caveat to the Doctor Promise. Here’s the rest of the interview with Emanuel from earlier today. The exchange with Wallace finishes up:

“The president guaranteed me I could keep my doctor,” said Wallace.

“And if you want to, you can pay for it,” said Emanuel.

Caveat emptor, indeed.

The Founding Fathers on Obamacare

“It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?” ~

~Federalist #62

How To Solve Detroit’s Pension System Problem In One Easy Step


The NY Post had a good piece today by William McGurn on the state of the union (pension system) in Detroit, making the case for Detroit to switch to defined contribution plans for their union workers. McGurn is right on the mark that the such a move is critical for the city’s revitalization. Dispensing with this one particularly enormous financial burden which has added greatly to the city’s fiscal insolvency would change the city’s finances for the better going forward. However, he seems skeptical that such a radical change could ever be achieved.

There is a way to implement a change to a defined contribution system. Even though the city of Detroit is billions of dollars in debt, the emergency manager, Kevyn Orr, has the opportunity to make to make it happen.

Orr is currently at odds with the unions over the total amount that union’s two pension system are underfunded. Using the actuarial projections provided by the unions, the funds are only short by $650 million, while Orr’s calculations show that the underfunding is a good $3.5 billion. Who is right? Orr believes he is correct and some independent studies seem to back his assertions. In actuality, it doesn’t necessarily matter who is correct, because the conflict actually provides a solution for the city.

If the unions wish to argue that their pension liability is merely $650 million, the city should wholeheartedly agree to fully fund their request — with one important condition. The unions must either a) agree to a fixed annual contribution to the defined benefit plans going forward, or b) (the better solution) cease using a defined benefit plan and move to a defined contribution plan going forward for all of their employees. In either case they must take full ownership, responsibility, and management, from here on out.

Once the unions pensions are fully paid up with the $650 million from the city, they will be in a position to take over the management of their funds. Let the unions use their expertise and earn the 8% that they maintain should be readily achievable. If they can do it, their members will continue to thrive-as-usual, ultimately collecting the pensions that have been promised to them for work up to this point. If they can only earn 3-4 or 6%, it will be on them to explain to their own members why their numbers are suddenly now off.

Even though $650 million sounds like a large number to pay off and fully fund the union pensions, it is a small amount to pay for the fiduciary freedom that comes with not having to manage an incredibly complex, risky, and fiscally unsound system. Such a move will contribute greatly to the long term health of the city of Detroit.

Obamacare “Essential Benefits” Rendered Most Insurance Plans Obsolete


The great bait-and-switch of Obamacare (“you can keep your plan and your doctor”) was intentionally orchestrated by the architects of the legislation. There were thousands of policies offered nationwide that were good and even very good but now they can’t be sustained under the new Obamacare policy requirements. These regulations are so narrow that it intentionally made obsolete or non-compliant the vast majority of health care policies in that were currently in existence, thereby requiring the insurers to cancel those offerings.

There are 10 essential benefits to Obamacare that every policy now must have. Most of them are routine and were likely found in some form on the vast majority of plans pre-Obamacare. Forbes recently compiled a list of these required items:

1) Ambulatory patient services – Care you receive without being admitted to a hospital, such as at a doctor’s office, clinic or same-day (“outpatient”) surgery center. Also included in this category are home health services and hospice care (note: some plans may limit coverage to no more than 45 days).

2) Emergency services – Care you receive for conditions that could lead to serious disability or death if not immediately treated, such as accidents or sudden illness. Typically, this is a trip to the emergency room, and includes transport by ambulance. You cannot be penalized for going out-of-network or for not having prior authorization.

3) Hospitalization – Care you receive as a hospital patient, including care from doctors, nurses and other hospital staff, laboratory and other tests, medications you receive during your hospital stay, and room and board. Hospitalization coverage also includes surgeries, transplants and care received in a skilled nursing facility, such as a nursing home that specializes in the care of the elderly (note: some plans may limit skilled nursing facility coverage to no more than 45 days).

4) Laboratory services – Testing provided to help a doctor diagnose an injury, illness or condition, or to monitor the effectiveness of a particular treatment. Some preventive screenings, such as breast cancer screenings and prostrate exams, are provided free of charge.

5) Maternity and newborn care – Care that women receive during pregnancy (prenatal care), throughout labor, delivery and post-delivery, and care for newborn babies.

6) Mental health services and addiction treatment – Inpatient and outpatient care provided to evaluate, diagnose and treat a mental health condition or substance abuse disorder (note: some plans may limit coverage to 20 days each year).

7) Rehabilitative Services and devices – Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices to help you gain or recover mental and physical skills lost to injury, disability or a chronic condition. Plans have to provide 30 visits each year for either physical or occupational therapy, or visits to the chiropractor. Plans must also cover 30 visits for speech therapy as well as 30 visits for cardiac or pulmonary rehab.

8) Pediatric Services – Care provided to infants and children, including well-child visits and recommended vaccines and immunizations. Dental and vision care must be offered to children younger than 19. This includes two routine dental exams, an eye exam and corrective lenses each year.

9) Prescription drugs – Medications that are prescribed by a doctor to treat an illness or condition. Examples include prescription antibiotics to treat an infection or medication used to treat an ongoing condition, such as high cholesterol. At least one prescription drug must be covered for each category and classification of federally approved drugs.

10) Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease treatment – Preventive care, such as physicals, immunizations and cancer screenings designed to prevent or detect certain medical conditions. Also, care for chronic conditions, such as asthma and diabetes.

The bulk of this list consists of items that were not necessarily mandatory on any insurance plan, but were fairly common in some form or another. For instance, maternity care might have been an add-on some plans, included on others, but was relatively common in the industry. However, there are two items in particular on this list which are recent healthcare innovations not widely found. Therefore, their inclusion as criteria for assessing whether a health plan was “good” or “not good” rendered most current insurance plans incomplete — and therefore obsolete — for Obamacare. They are 1) “rehabilitative and habilitative care” and 2) “pediatric services”.

On the matter of rehabilitative and habilitative services, the new Obamacare essential makes a distinction between Rehabilitative Services (which help to recover lost capacities) and Habilitative Services (which “help people acquire, maintain, or improve skills and functioning for daily living”). Statereforum.org, a site devoted to health reform implementation, concurs that Habilitative services — a word not readily familiar to many people — are “a set of benefits not traditionally covered by private health insurance”.

When Health and Human Services made their final decisions this past November on the 10 Essentials for health plans, it “recognized that many health plans across the country do not recognize habilitative services as a distinct group of services. HHS proposed a flexible policy that allows states to define habilitative services if their benchmark plan fails to do so”. In the Federal Register published on November 26, 2013, it was specifically noted that this flexibility “will provide a valuable opportunity for states to lead the development of policy in this area and welcome comments on this proposed approach to providing habilitative services”. In other words, HHS created an benefit requirement that most insurance plans didn’t cover and isn’t even uniformly defined in the industry. Because nearly all plans lacked this “essential item”, most existing health insurance plans have been declared non-compliant.

With regard to pediatric services, it has typically been a matter in the healthcare industry that dental and vision coverage — particularly for children — are not to be included as part of a health insurance policy. Those that do have almost always have it as an add-on where you get services elsewhere, and only a few of the largest companies even bothered to offer it. This “must have” was never a part of a normal healthcare environment, and by making this one of the compliance items, it too has rendered nearly all plans incompatible with Obamacare regulations.

It has become clear that few existing health insurance policies pass the Obamacare litmus test. This carefully engineered attack on the “bad apple” health care industry was to induce a large-scale shift of citizens onto the exchanges (to pay for Obamacare) after their insurance was inevitably canceled. “If you like your plan you can keep it”, was a hollow promise all along. With the website calamity, Obamacare has utterly backfired — but the citizens are left holding the bag of higher costs, canceled plans, and an uncertain future. There is a sense of irony that the Obamacare “benefits” have done nothing to benefit anyone.