Health Insurance Coverage

Health Insurance

As an adjustment on the Form 1040 or 1040A and possibly the Form 1040EZ.

Have taxpayers include the health insurance costs and possibly the cost of medical expenditures as an adjustment on the front page of the 1040, etc.

Or as an adjustment to the 1040, etc. for the medical insurance and the costs of medical expenses to continue as an itemized deduction amount but without the 7.5% adjustment. The 10% AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) amount should stay however due to the reason for the purpose of the AMT.

Have a Form 1098-H for the health insurance costs for verification in the following year.

Also, use the Form 1098-H for nursing home expenses. In this way a senior citizen with $70,000 in nursing home costs would not have to file an income tax return. Increase the filing requirement by the amount of the nursing home cost coverage.

The health insurance coverage adjustment could possibly reduce the Adjusted Gross Income amount and may change the Earned Income Tax Credit amount. Or this could artificially also modify the earned income so wages were reduced. This would increase (usually) the amount of earned income.

The number of covered dependents would be included on the Form 1098-H to verify the number of dependents. This could be compared with the dependents on the tax form so overstating of dependents on the filed tax return would be reduced.

The objective on the above is to reduce the necessity for the Health Coverage Crisis and the actual payment by the individual taxpayer would continue. An alternative before the people which is simple would be achieved.

CAUTION: In the early 1990’s an additional amount of $500 and maybe $100 per dependent was included in the Earned Income Tax Credit. Fraud was found to be rampant the the extra insurance amount paid by the EITC was dropped. Thus the reason for a Form 1098-H so concrete verification could be done. Or an electronic payment to these individual medical insurance coverage providers or employers could be made.

Sincerely

Keith Ljunghammar, EA

keithlj.wordpress.com

CFA and Investment company moving to Seattle

CFA Seattle Chapter

Was informed by Seattle Mayor candidate, Elizabeth Campbell, that from the Seattle Times reporter the Current Seattle Mayor Nickells wants to pay Russell Investments from Tacoma to relocate to Seattle. The amount of $250,000 was mentioned. Time frame for this value of money was not indicated.

 I am an Enrolled Agent and also have a dormant CFP (due to not being able yet to get around to paying the yearly dues). I prepare income tax returns in Lynnwood, Washington. I did notice the CPE education framework which you have available and I should be taking advantage of this.

Anyways…

Elizabeth Campbell disagrees with the Mayor in giving $250,000 to Russell Investments. She believes that if they would like to move to Seattle they can.

She believes that reducing the cost of operations of government and not increasing them should be the objective of government.

In Seattle, employing the current domestic citizens and other legal immigrants should be the objective of a government. By making things more civilized for the current legal citizenry and residents she believes we can make an environment more conducive to other companies then deciding to move or to make their home base of operations inside of the City of Seattle. The incentives for one company to come to Seattle do not outways the needs and desires of the current residents and citizens.

Knowing that your membership for the Seattle Chapter is 600 members and your base of operations is in Seattle I would agree with Russell Investments that the Pacific Northwest’s financial infrastructure is indeed centered in Seattle and not centered in Tacoma. I believe that Russell Investments should relocate and would relocate on their own free will to Seattle if the cities infrastructure is better than Tacoma’s.

You, the CFA Society of Seattle, I believe, have worked hard and diligently to create a locate certified financial advisors community and society which rivals other national societies. I have also thus noticed that Tacoma does not have by itself a CFA society.

Please inform us if this is not incorrect.

 Are there any members in your chapter who are from Tacoma as well. What is the number of CFA members that work for Russell Investments. Is Russell Investments dislocated from the other society members and thus the strength in professional correspondence is not as readily available.

 I also noted that one of your former Presidents had $2 Billion in Assets under management and this could directly compete with potential employees and capital acquisitions from investors.

Again, Elizabeth Campbell believes that making a government more streamlined and an infrastructure more conducive to the citizenries needs as a whole is the correct and best way to achieve everyones goals and desires. An artificial catapult for one company could weaken the current accomplishments of the current citizens and residents.

I personally believe that this move from Tacoma to Seattle will only be an even swap of $s for all concerned and would not have any Economic Stimulus impact.  The definite non-gainer of economic activity would be the Port of Seattle.  From Tacoma and from Seattle the airfare travel will be equal.  No stimulus here.  The only advantage might be in Seattle’s use of the RTA train from Sea-Tac to downtown Seattle.  The use of Seattle’s downtown conference and hotel community would have an impact.  Seattle would be a better financial climate for Russell Investments but what would we get for $250,000 in exchange.  They probably would come here anyways.

 Please advise,

 Keith Ljunghammar, EA

 Elizabeth Campbell 4 Mayor, Treasurer

Green Jobs eliminate Jobs

http://hawaii.gov/dbedt/ert/symposium/loudat/loudat.html

The Economic and Fiscal Impacts of The Hawaii Energy Conservation Income Tax Credit

Presents an employment economic status for a 25 year period of time. Installatin and maintenance in comparison. The analysis does not address other forms of employment being displaced which is actually what I was looking for. But if a product has installation employment in the initial year of 194 and maintenance employment at 38 per year. My observation without research would indicate that overall displacement of macro employment would result. I heard but could not verify that for every job created in the “green energy job” market then two jobs from other sources would be displaced. This actually is a standard number of jobs lost for consideration of a new product. If the product also can show a profit by its operation then this is a product to purchase.

So an initial investment and receiving of state and federal tax credits which would displace part of the initial investment and the costs of initial installation would help stimulate an incentive for installing a solar system in ones backyard. 

 

Table 4: Total Economic and Fiscal Impacts of the ECITC

 

Item	Benefits less Costs (millions of dollars)
	Case 1			Case 2
	Avg/Yr			Avg/Yr
	Year 1	Years 2-25	Total	Year 1	Years 2-25	Total
Economic Impacts
Total Output	$19.6	$3.83	$111.5	($21.0)	($6.33)	($172.9)
Employment	194	38		(207)	(62)
Total Labor Income	$6.6	$1.14	$34.0	($7.1)	($2.08)	($57.1)
Fiscal Impacts
Total Revenues	$2.0	$0.24	$7.8	($2.1)	($0.427)	($12.3)
Total Expenditures
ECITC Expenditure	$2.2	$0.00	$2.2	$0.00	$0.00	$0.0
Direct Fiscal Expend.	$0.00	$0.00	$0.0	$5.8	$0.49	$17.4
NET FISCAL IMPACT	($0.3)	$0.24	$5.6	($7.8)	($0.91)	($29.8)

 I was trying to also see how much is a minimum costs for a substantial market penetration in an area.  Could not specifically find this information but see below.

http://solar.energy-business-review.com/news/new_york_governer_announces_plans_for_solar_project_090515

According to NYPA, the power generated by 100 MW is the equivalent of powering approximately 15,000 homes.

******

Yet costs in various areas of the country are different.  Some areas like New York might be 6MB whereas in Washington it might be 4.5MB of applicable monthly solar radiation.  I do not know for instance how much the Seattle area might be in comparison to Spokane or Tri-Cities in Washington State.  These will be wildly different in their comparisons of monthly solar radiation.

http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/pubs/redbook/Individual PDFs
Manual (5.5MB)

• State/Territoy Data Tables
  Tables include the “Averages of solar radiation for each of the 360 months during the period of 1961-1990″ and “30-year (1961-1990) average of monthly solar radiation”.

  Alabama   (3.5MB) Alaska   (14MB) Arizona   (3.5MB) Arkansas   (2MB) California   (8.5MB) Colorado   (5.5MB) Connecticut   (5MB) Delaware   (1MB) Florida   (6MB) Georgia   (5.5MB) Hawaii   (3.5MB) Idaho   (2MB) Illinois   (4.5MB) Indiana   (3.5MB) Iowa   (3.5MB) Kansas   (3.5MB) Kentucky   (3MB) Louisiana   (3.5MB)

  Maine   (2MB) Maryland   (1MB) Massachusetts   (2MB) Michigan   (11MB) Minnesota   (4.5MB) Mississippi   (2MB) Missouri   (3.5MB) Montana   (7.5MB) Nebraska   (4.5MB) New Hampshire   (1MB) New Jersey   (2MB) New Mexico   (2MB) New York   (6MB) Nevada   (5MB) North Carolina   (5MB) North Dakota   (2.5MB) Ohio   (6MB)

  Oklahoma   (2MB) Oregon   (7.5MB) Pacific Islands   (1MB) Pennsylvania   (6.5MB) Puerto Rico   (1MB) Rhode Island   (1MB) South Carolina   (2.5MB) South Dakota   (3.5MB) Tennessee   (4.5MB) Texas   (14.5MB) Utah   (2MB) Vermont   (1MB) Virginia   (4.5MB) Washington   (4.5MB) West Virginia   (2.5MB) Wisconsin   (4.5MB) Wyoming   (4.5MB)

http://www.statesadvancingsolar.org/solar-101/solar-resource-map

Solar Resource Map

But just like all sources of data the data really can only truly be evaluated on a local area basis.  For the project in New York perhaps the thinking is to incorporate a little bit of aesthetics for the perceived intrinsic value which is trying to be achieved.  Then again, the same project could be installed in a cloudy environment and have the same perceived intrinsic value but rather from a purely micro economic standpoint the results could be a money drain.

END

Credit Cards Unconstitutional

Credit cards today think they can arbitrarily without notice raise interest rates.  This they dowith no notice, no warning, and without recourse from the customer.  This is also true if no late payments have been made.

But I say this is unconstitutional.  If the constitution disallows the govenment to retroactively change a lawthen since the laws of contracts and the order are established by Congress then in the same manner individual contracts cannot be changed midstream.

No Bill or Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.  Article 1, Section 9.

Putting into a contract that at a specific time the interest rates will increase or putting into a contract that the interest rate shall be adjusted as to according to a third party index is still a meeting of the mind.  But inputting that one of the parties can increase the interest rate so they can increase their profit bottom line in essence has no meeting of the minds at the time of the contract being signed nor could it be.

More on this possibly later.

END

The ECONOMY SPRINTS

Everyone sees or says there is a recession.  Quite frankly I do not see even a hint of a recession.  I only see a complete accounting debacle which when corrected the economy will be back on the fast track.  Yes, the fast track. 

When the government switched everything to a mark-to-market type of accounting system this instantaneously depressed the financial accounting books.  This is strickly an accounting maneouver and invariable accounting maneouvers correct themselves.  If they do not correct themselves then the CEO, CFO, or the COO will change assets around so the older lighter valued assets change to a more realistic value. 

If the correction in the valuations due to mark-to-market were instantaneoous then the downward push while the market is correcting will be miniscule.  Yes, that means small.  Consider this in a large capitalize stock and a small capitalized stock.  If you are a chartist like I am not you will understand that the resistance point at a specific level is harder to penetrate in a large capitalized stock then a smaller capitalize stock.  I believe part of the reason is due to product or market penetration and the aspects which many products from a single companywill show.  One thing which gets a market moving is the greater demand which one product gets.  The most recent example would be when the swine flu became apparent to everyone just this last week then a very specific and specialized company who had a product which possible could address the swine flu increased in value by 80% overnight.  This really should be of no surprise to anyone.  But if the same company were in a much larger company which might be on the big board and the product would be one of maybe 6000 product the stock may have increased 1% or 5%. 

The product is houses which depressed the United States economy.  Real Estate agents are getting busier.  Slowly the markets are moving.  The real estate market can act quickly and with a positive fever.  (Sorry but I could not resist.)  Buyers have been pent up and the idea of multiple bids on one house could push the markets higher in a very short period of time.  Quite a few houses which previously were on the market were taken off the market.  When the market starts to heat up then those former houses which are off the market may or may not be put back on the market.  If I am a seller then I want the highest price.  If I am mildly optimistic and not particularly motivated and the market gains by $10,000 in one month for the average home sale then my inclinations is to withhold the house until this would absolutely be necessary. 

If the problem is mark-to-market in real estate then really how does this affect business owners without real estate.  Now is the time to look at development and growth.  What you do not need to be caught in is trying to develop a new market when others also have the funds to develop.  Make your presence known and get that early share.  Real estate has its greatest sales in the month of April and this continues for the summer.  The weather brings out a positive extraction of money.  Go for it. 

As sales increase and from my above example they will grow dramatically then if you have not put in the appropriate groundwork then where can you harvest.  If some other company has already done the sewing and you are just planting you will miss out. 

Get to that convention.  Sign up for more contacts.  Press the issue.  I could fire up a sales crew.  Least costs but the greatest impact.  Remember that as your marketing becomes more indirect the costs per individual decrease.  But as your per individual contacts increase your sales are more current.  Weigh the possibilty of that current sale with how long it take to bring that lead to a sale.  TV or radio advertising may be your first step again.  Marketing mailers need to be sent out to help in regaining old accounts and pushing to get new ones. 

I remember my fathers approach to marketing.  He had a printing company and made a catalog of wedding invitation folders to stationery stores, print shops, department stores, flower shops, wedding gown retailers, etc.  Every time he presented a new catalog there was a 20% increase in sales.  He travelled around the region and talked with all of the shop owners.  Once he had an exclusive in a small town with one shop owner.  Another shop owner also wanted the wedding invitation book.  He reluctantly place a catalog their also.   Astonishingly the other store sales were the same and the new store eventually had about the same sales as the other store.  In essence sales doubled.  Cultivate, cultivate, cultivate.  This is what the theme needs to be for your sales people. 

After our competitor bought my dad’s company out they said they could not penetrate the market he had and then tried and tried hard.  So they just bought him out.  This was easier.   

Push the envelope.  Dig deeper.  Listen longer.  But of course, pray longer as well.

Work it and get the plants in the sod so when the weather turns and the water starts to fall you will see an over abundance of plants to harvest.

DO IT!!!

Seattle Tunnel Ballard Community Forum

Seattle Tunnel Ballard Community Forum

This forum left more questions unanswered than were answered.

Tolls for one. How much on the tolls. Will it be feasible to collect tolls or will the operations bog down and choke off the entrance.

No answer as of yet on the quality of the dirt. How far down will the dirt dictate to go to non-shifted dirt. Remember that the phrase “Shop ’till you drop” was originated in Seattle. From Western Avenue every 1st floor was at the street level. At First Avenue the second floor was at street level. At Second Avenue the third floor was at street level. So in order to get from the street level on Second Avenue on had to climb down a ladder to get to the first floor of a building to enter the building. If your packages were too heavy or cumbersome then you could literally drop down the ladder. Of course, at that time it was time to drop. This happened when the fill-in dirt was put in. Subsequently the Second Avenue entrance is the equivalent of the former second floor level. The first floor is two stories down.

Why was the above raised is that also in consideration is the slope of the grade for the truck travel. A literally only 5% grade is extremely hazardous to the semi-truck industry. It was mentioned that this grade could possibly be a four percent grade or even a three percent grade when the question was raised. The tone of the answer was not based upon any studies or half-breed evidence but rather what the questioner probably wanted to hear. This type of answer is not conducive to the perception of confidence being instilled by anyone. But rather I smell an alternative plan or in other words a snow job. Is this really how government is supposed to conduct a community forum.

Another comment is that the construction of the tunnel will generate 2.9 jobs for every tunnel job created. Is this really true. I say the 2.9 jobs are just old smoke and mirrors for this particular project. When one job is created additional delays of travel are created for the rest of us. So if I want to go to another job for my second part time job and presently work downtown this will be impossible to do unless I also have a second job outside of the core downtown Seattle area. At night downtown Seattle virtually is dead. An occasional job at the Quest filed or Safeco field could be worked at but will the job expire if no one is traveling to downtown due to the traffic congestion created by a few Tunnel workers. In certain situations an economic model of the creation of 2.9 additional workers is not applicable.

This project also ignors the will of the voters from two years ago. Overwhelmingly the voters said “NO” to a cut and cover Tunnel along the waterfront. What is the difference here. Should not a vote of all of the alternatives be given to the citizens to exactly find out what the voice of the people are for them, “the community”.

The clearest and least expensive choice still is a retrofit which would only cost around $1B. In this day of economic crisis and of BOEING’s major buyer not being able to get financing for jet purchases should not the belt be tightened. The yearly accumulation of funds for this project could be done and this would truly lessen the burden and the interest costs of construction. Interest expense on bonds is really the cost of construction.

The Port of Seattle is also talking about contributing $300 million of the costs and it is really questionable whether infrastructure renovations not directly associated with the Port is part of the Port’s charter. What we do not need is a law suite contraditory to a Public Agencies Charter. Let’s think this thru and VOTE NO on a Seattle Tunnel. Sign I-99 or download and sign I-99 so this City Hall con-game can stop.

Seattle Tunnel versus Viaduct alternatives

Mr. Scott White.

I believe you are on the Transportation Committee when I looked this up previously.

Am the treasurer for the initiative I-99 which seeks to take away the right-of-way for the Seattle Tunnel as proposed by Mayor Nickels.

The cost of a tunnel at this time is extremely expensive and Elizabeth Campbell who is the sponsor of the initiative will be having a 100% effort in gathering signatures for this initiative after her Winter 09 class ends.  I will join the signature gathering efforts after the tax season ends on April 15, 2009.

However, this effort would be null and void if the funding for the Seattle Tunnel is not approved by the State Legislature and yourself and the committee on Transportation.

Have spoken with many people concerning this effort, obviously, and almost virtually everyone is opposed to the Seattle Tunnel idea.  Some comments circle around the State Budget and the need to balance the budget and others also still do love the idea of the beautiful travel route which the current Seattle Waterfront Viaduct passes by.  Others are extremely upset that voting does not count and recollecting the vote which overwhelmingly ditched a tunnel option previously.  The voters do not like to be ignored whatsoever.  As you recall I had said I would approve a teachers pay raise as per the voters even if no other state employee were to get a raise as per the voters electing this a few years ago.

Personally I still would like a retrofit of the Viaduct and then an accumulation of funds for the setting aside of funds for other more appropriate roadway construction in about 20 years or so.  I assume you would still like a Street Version of the Viaduct.  Both are incongruent with the Seattle Tunnel alternative and I would wish you to vote “NO” on any approval of a Seattle Tunnel version.

Thanking you in advance for your deep concern on this important roadway structure for the beautification of the Seattle Waterfront and the drivers of Seattle and the enjoyment of the beautiful vista which drivers are able to enjoy at the present time.  An enjoyable drive while in Seattle will remain if you agree to Vote against funding of a Seattle Tunnel project. 

Thanks

Keith Ljunghammar, EA

To buy a car or to wait to buy a car

To buy a car or to wait to buy a car

That definitely is the question.

This is concerning the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) as related to the Deduction of Sales Tax on the Purchase of New Vehicles. I am getting my basic information from an email from my employer Larry R. French and Associates which they received from UltraTax CS an income tax program developers which we use at the office who received the information from Thomson Reuters under user bulletin 4351.

To my friends from www.coldron.us and all of the other taxpayers who live in Washington State and other states which do have a sales tax and not an income tax your strategy for buying a car is explained here. To the other taxpayers in states where they only have an income tax like Oregon and no sales tax only part of this blog may be of importance to you. I will explain your situation first.

Below is the wording which I am looking at:

“Deduction for Sales Tax on Purchase of New Vehicle – ARRA allows state and local sales and excise taxes paid on the purchase of a qualified motor vehicle as a deduction. A qualified vehicle must meet the following conditions:

* Purchased after February 17, 2009, and before january 1, 2010

* New not used

* May be passenger car, minivan, light truck, motorcycle, motor home

The Motor Vehicle Tax deduction is limited to a purchase price of $49,500 and is phased out beginning with modified adjusted gross income of $125,000 ($250,000 jointly filed returns). The deduction is allowed as an additional standard deduction when not itemizing on Schedule A and when not electing to deduct state and local sales taxes in lieu of state and local income taxes. The new Tax Projection Worksheet – American Recovery Act (ARRA) includes a worksheet for the Motor Vehicle Tax Deduction and new Screen TPW-3 contains a data entry section for motor vehicle purchase information.”

Concerning those in Oregon and other income tax only states.

Since the buying of a new car is concerning an inclusion of a sales tax amount and your state and a few others only have an income tax this part of the ARRA deduction of sales tax on the purchase of a new vehicle will not affect your federal income tax return. Your choice of purchasing a vehicle would be left to: 1) a new car with no sales tax deduction advantage as with other states who have a sales tax; 2) Buy a used car where the law of being able to deduct the sales tax does not affect any of the states because a used automobile is not an option under the new law for 2009; 3) Buy a car which still has an alternative hybrid tax creditor alternative fuel credit and also tax double advantage if your state include an additional credit so your personal income tax on the federal and state level can be reduced; 4) Wait to buy past the 2010 year a more efficient vehicle due to the announcement of the ion battery discovery/invention by MIT researchers to be able to recharge car batteries in the time it takes to fill up your tank. Thus innovation will make the road quiet and the environment cleaner. You may even think about investing in sources of electric production. Maybe even a windmill from your backyard for the production of your personal vehicle and home usage for recharging and home usage.

Concerning those living in Washington and other states with a sales tax.

Since the buying of a new car may allow you to include the sales tax as an income tax deduction or as an increase to your standard deduction you may need to consider the following items.

1) If you itemize you will be able to use the sales tax as an itemized deduction. But if your state also has an income tax return they you will also have to consider using your income tax withheld or paid to the state as an itemized deduction or the amount paid for sales taxes as a deductible amount. Using the large of the two is usually a behind the scene calculation which appropriately calculated software will automatically determine for you. So including the proper sales tax amount for the sales tax amount on the new automobile purchase will be necessary. The checking of a box or some other feature in the software to indicate a new car purchase will have to be implemented in all software. This then should be a simple process.

2) If instead of itemizing you use the standard deduction there are additional amounts which will increase the standard amount.

a) if you are blind a box needs to be checked.

b) If you are 65 years of age or older you will be getting an additional amount added to your standard deduction. This information is usually picked up by the software based upon your birthday input. So definitely make sure your input of your birthday and your spouse’s birthday is correct.

c) For 2008 and 2009 you will get an extra amount if you are not itemizing and you own real estate and are paying real estate taxes on your domicile. The amount is $500 and for married filing jointly couples this amount is raised to $1000.

d) Finally the amount of the sales tax paid for the state portion and the local portion will be included as an additional amount to be included for the standard deduction increase. In Washington State we also pay in some areas an RTA tax or Regional Transit Tax. The IRS previously when calculating the sales tax does not include the additional RTA amount or the excise tax associated with the continuing tax of a automobile which is paid every year. Sorry but I guess Congress does not want to have everything as being deductible. I did not see specifically any wording to this affect except the wording only to include the state and local sales tax. In previous instruction the IRS does not explain exceptions but only what can be included. If previous instructions have explained that the other taxes beyond local sales tax are not included then I would be assuming the IRS will not be included other sales tax amounts beyond the state and local sales tax basic amount.

And again even if you are able to include the sales tax with the standard deduction I really do question the potential frequency of the use of this provision. Individual income tax preparers who are using the standard deduction quite frequently without doing any research are buying used cars instead of new cars. The individuals who are itemizing would have higher incomes and thus a higher disposable income base and a better capacity to increase their deductions when it comes to purchasing a vehicle.

Another consideration for these individuals able to claim an itemized deduction would be to wait another year a purchase a vehicle which might be green or able to use with a plug-in electric power grid for recharging. The new dynamics of innovation are exploding and current decisions will help in deciding what will be a viable consumer product in a short period of time as well. Five years out in vehicle purchase time is probably about a half-life.

Happy auto purchasing in any situation. New, used or wait your pursuit of happiness is what strengthens our economy.

Then again, what happens if the price of oil goes up again in a crazy fashion.

#####

 

Mexico to be Overthrown.

Mexico to be Overthrown.

Some internet articles seem to indicate that the imminent overthrow of the Mexican government is just at hand.

Other internet articles indicate this will not happen at all. This is just a little town occurrence and the central government strength will come to the rescue.

Reading one article indicated that the Mexican government starts from the center or Mexico City and lessens as the distance from the capital increases. In affect this would create a castle mentality for the central government. The fortifications around the main city are untouchable and if they are penetrated the strength of the “inner walls” will squelch and potential uprising.

The problem with this thinking is that indeed outlying areas can be manipulated and coerced. This is dangerous and leaves no sympathy for the multitude of citizens in outlying areas. This same situation could exist with the United States except that each state has its own militia and thus weakness internally is shallow in relationship to a centralized military power. Indeed this multiple castle technique was just an outcropping of our geographical decentralization from our founding.

The Mexican border citizens also have a more complex situation in that the Mexican enemy or the drug czars of Mexico have the capability to infiltrate the United States and kill at will natives of Mexico who oppose their marketing plans.

Eventually I do see where the good citizens of Mexico will either: 1) Flee their native lands for a more comfortable living style in the United States; 2) Rise up and demand their government decentralize the military might of the government: 3) the United States will have to accept fleeing Mexican citizens under refugee status thus causing more unemployment in the United States; 4) the United States will halt at the request of the Mexican government transfers of payments from Mexican citizens in the United States to Mexico in order to stop illegal payments into Mexico; 5) other deep restrictions which would cause non-benefits for Mexicans and for United States citizens.

Temporarily legalizing Mexican citizens legal VISA status is what I see but this solution would weaken and not strengthen Mexico. The further collapsing of a government can never be a strong solution. Weakening tax collection within a government is never a solution. Stopping illegal flow into or around the United States is for the benefit of the United States and for the strengthening of the Mexican government. Our system of government is enhanced by the respecting of law. The unfortunate strength of the Mexican government seems to be still in a feudalistic characteristic. The mighty rule and not the fear of the law.

See also RespectWashington.us or the State of Washington inititiative I-1043.

What do you say.

 

 

Consumer Protection Act

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre27.pdf

Consumer Protection Act

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre27.pdf

Under the Fair Trade Consumer Protection Act I am not seeing anything which punishes the casher of a bad check when the casher knows that the check is indeed bad.

Under different sections of the Protection Act a penalty of $1000 is enforced.

Quite commonly a PayDay Loan institution will get a prepaid check. If you then call the PayDay loan location and state that the check is not good they will then cash the check anyways. This would seem to indicate to me that the consumer could charge a $1000 fee as provided by the Act and since the amount of the loan would probably be less than $1000 have the entire amount of the PayDay Loan eliminated.

In other aspects of law I have seen that paying attention to the small details of how a law is written is paramount. But in practice things can be constructively different.

Being previously caught in this tight-rope I called the PayDay location and notified them that the check which they have did not have enough money on deposited for the check to clear. But in about a three day period of time I should have the funds in the bank account. Not only did I get an insufficient funds penalty from the PayDay loan company but a penalty fee from the bank.

If the Federal Government does not clarify this amount then the State should clarify this by instituting their own law. The federal government law at the bottom of the law only states that the States cannot have a tougher interpretation than the federal law with respect to the consumer. Since this may not have been clarified then the state should interpret this matter.

Notwithstanding the consumer loan business tramples on consumers when it comes to credit collection time. Perhaps now is the time for the consumer to trample on the creditor until they come back into compliance. Many debt collectors do not leave a phone number or if they do leave a phone number they do not leave an address where they can be written to.

What do you say.  What is your opinion.