KevinSauls.com

Today’s Atlanta Journal carried an article about the state legislature’s plans to drop the property tax on vehicles in favor of a one-time “title tax”. Sound appealing on first blush, but then I got to thinking about it.

As written, the law has a couple of problems that will work to continue the kind of consumerism that has brought about the current crisis:

• The new tax structure only applies to new purchases. Everyone else will continue to pay the annual property tax. This, of course, will encourage people to buy a new vehicle. That’s great for the economy (at least the economy of the auto industry) but encourages people to go deeper into debt.
• The “title tax” is capped at $2000. Sounds good, huh? Well, consider this: If you buy a $25000 car, you pay $1750 in taxes (7% of purchase). If you buy a $75000 car you only pay $2000 (2.67%). The upshot? People are encouraged to buy the more expensive vehicle – pushing themselves further into debt. One legislator, Tom Rice (R) chairman of the House Motor Vehicles committee, is quoted as saying: “The cap was designed … to induce people to buy up.” Yeah, Tom, that’s right. Let’s encourage people to continue to take on more debt than they can handle.

Not surprisingly, the Georgia Automobile Dealers Association is all for this. After all, it will stimulate lots of sales as “[p]eople might do the math and figure out they are better off buying a car”, said William Morie, president of the GADA.

Bottom line? Georgia Legislators apparently don’t really care about their constituent’s financial health. They want to continue the same kind of irrational spending based on credit that got us into the current financial meltdown.

Remember, it wasn’t just the housing market that brought it about, it was the entire system of credit. When we’ve extended ourselves beyond our ability to repay and just continued to dig the hole deeper.

And now the Georgia Legislature apparently wants to encourage us to do it.

To me, this is shameful. In the wake of the current situation, our government leaders should be leading the way in helping people recognize the stupidity of living our lives on credit. The government should be passing legislation that helps protect us from unsavory lenders. They should be providing education on how to properly manage finances and credit. Not encouraging us to go still deeper in debt.

Got an opinion? Write your legislator.

Source: http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2009/03/14/legislature_birthday_car_tax.html

Whatever your political persuasion, it would be hard not to recognize that today represents a momentous time in American history. I’m not talking about a black man being sworn in as President. If we have truly acheived our stated goals of eliminating racism, the color of the man holding the office should be irrelevant. Rather, I’m talking about the sense of hope that seems to be pervading the country. There is a change in this country. Hope that we are going to move in a new direction. Hope that other countries may, for the first time in a long time, see America not as a the aggressor that we seem to have become, but as the country that provides hope for the rest of the world and still represents opportunities far beyond those available in many other countries. Frankly, I hope for his sake, and for that of the country, he is able to achieve the goals he has set. I believe it is the sense of hope that has so many excited about this new president.

Sadly, there are many who are so shallow and ignorant that they can’t see beyond the color of a man’s skin. For them, unschooled as they clearly may be, it is not possible for a black man to have the intellect to do the best for this country. Yet, listening to him, I am convinced that he is probably the most intellectual president we’ve had in quite a while. In their narrow, color-sensitive minds there are threats and risks. There will be some idiots who will hatch ill-concieved plots against him. What they don’t realize is that doing so will have the opposite effect of what they intend. I believe that we should allow the President to prove himself. We might be even more surprised by his abilities.

You know, the more I think about the bailouts, the more put out I become with both the government, the businesses that are receiving them and the American people.  There is no doubt that the issues are complex. The web of interactions is mind boggling and, like a house of cards, one wrong move could bring the whole house down. But it seems to me we still haven’t gotten our minds right on a few things.

Banks, despite coming to the government, hat in hand, to ask for a handout, are defiantly giving already too wealthy executives even more bonuses, raises and such.  Even at a time when they are laying off their own workers. Now, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the executives were at the helm when the ship started going down. How can you justify giving bonuses to people who nearly destroyed your company? The answer often given is that it is necessary to give the bonuses to prevent them from leaving. Ya think?

Let’s look at this. Where are they going to go? Banks are laying, not hiring. More importantly, might we be better off if the did leave? Maybe we’d get someone in their place that can actually run a business without running it into the ground. Sorry. You get no points from me on this one, given that I’m having to do without so you can get your damn tax-supported bonus.

Banks are doing everything they can to screw their customers over and get whatever money they have left. there was an interesting article in the Atlanta Journal today about a man whose American Express credit limit was reduced because of where he shopped. Excuse me? Because some one else is a bad risk, that makes me one, too? The new laws that were approved Thursday would help, except they are implemented too late. There is no reason in the world why those regs could not be implemented on January 1, except that the credit card lobby would be unhappy. And we know they elected all those idiots to Congress.

At the same time they are arbitrarily raising interest rates and dropping credit limits, all without proper notice, all in the name of limiting their risks, they are still sending out invitations to get still more credit to people, even those whose credit rating doesn’t warrant it. I’ll write a separate piece on the use of credit, but for now, let it be known that if you’re using credit for anything other than your house and short term unexpected bills, you’re a damn fool.

Then we’ve got the auto mess.

The UAW keeps arguing that the auto bailout is being done on the back of the workers. Ummm… UAW? Maybe you ought to rethink that one. I work for a living, too. I pay taxes — the taxes your company will be getting to keep your ass working. I have to give up stuff in order to pay my bills. I have to give up stuff to pay my taxes, which will undoubtedly go up after all this mess is over. You have a job because of the bail out. I suggest you shut up, take the money and keep working. The alternative is to throw out the bailout, let your company go out of business and then see how the worker fares. If it’s a choice between taking a pay cut and keeping my job, or keeping my pay for a job that disappeared, I’ll go for door number one.

As I’ve listened to the candidates talk about all the things they’re going to do for us, the people (when they aren’t talking about how bad the other is), I’m sitting here completing my elections for insurance for next year. And wading through all the gobbledygook that passes for “explanations” of my choices, I finally figured out exactly what the next president should do for us with respect to health care: clarify the problem.

I know, there are a ton of problems with the current system: people who are uninsured and uninsurable, people dropped by their insurance companies for pre-existing conditions or excessive claims, children whose lives start out behind the curve because of the lack of adequate healthcare that leads to diminished academic performance that leads to a limited future, and so on. I know all about those things. But What I realized is that a large part of the problem is that the policies and the rules supporting those policies were written by lawyers in a way that is intentionally indecipherable by the average joe. The result? Nobody knows exactly what is covered and what isn’t. And there’s no way to directly compare plans.

Here’s what I propose. All insurance companies must provide the same coverage. Period. No fancy titles, no confusing terms. No waffling on what gets covered. If the insurance companies don’t want to provide coverage for a specific condition, spell that out. Everything else is covered. No questions, no squabbles. I wonder how much we’ll save just from avoiding legal fees?

But wait, I can hear you saying. Why would someone choose one company over another if everybody is offering the same coverage? Price. But here’s where it gets interesting. The better managed a company is – that is, the less they spend on frivolous things like corporate retreats and stupid advertising and so on — the better their bottom line will be. That lets them lower their prices which, in turn, will draw more people into their fold which will, in turn, spread the risk over a broader base, lowering their total risk. That’s the whole idea behind insurance in the first place – to spread the risk.

And what about expensive experimental treatments, should they be covered? Well, that would be up to the insurance company. If they state that experimental treatments are not covered they can still choose to cover them if the evidence suggests that the treatment may be effective. But they aren’t required to cover it. Sorry, folks, not everybody can get everything they want in life. If you want to spend your money to support an experimental treatment that might benefit you, fine, otherwise I don’t want my dime used for it. And, if a company does choose to cover an experimental treatment for one person, they should not be automatically required to cover everyone. The decision should be a case-by-case basis.

So how will new treatments be supported? The insurance companies should be required to pay into a treatment development fund that provides financial support for new treatments. This way, new treatments can be developed and tested without overtaxing an individual company. The burden, and the eventual benefits, are spread over the industry.

I’m not leaving the consumer off the hook. The average Joe has a responsibility here, too. Let’s suppose that Joe has coronary artery bypass surgery. Prior to the surgery he smoked, drank , was sedentary and ate lots of unhealthy food. Following the surgery, he is helped to quit smoking, is taught how to exercise and why it’s important and taught how to eat more healthily. If he does those things and still develops additional problems requiring additional bypass surgeries, insurance should pay for them. If he refuses to do those things he has directly contributed to the problem and insurance should not be held accountable. The diabetic who refused to adhere to a diabetic diet should not expect to be covered for the consequences of uncontrolled diabetes. Diabetes is manageable, if the diabetic is willing to comply. This approach would encourage everyone to live a healthier life and provide consequences if they don’t. I call that personal accountability.

Would these changes really make a difference? I don’t have a clue. But it seems to me the system is broken now, so whatever we do has to be an improvement.

Wow! I was reading through my entries this evening and didn’t realize how many of them addressed issues of politics and the economy. Of course, both of these topics are heavily on the minds of all Americans (and, indeed, the world). But I’m not, by nature, particularly a political person. As a rule, I tend to think that if you are seeking a political office then you probably shouldn’t be allowed to hold one. After all, who is so arrogant as to believe that they have the answers to so many of the nation’s questions. Moreover, it just seems to me that if you’re seeking such power it is because you crave power and probably not so much that you really want to do good in the world. So I was extremely surprised at the number of political entries I’d made. I promise not to do it anymore. The purpose of this blog was to chronical my educational experiences and my my career in nursing. I think I’ll stick to those domains.