Protect Your Social Security from Cyber Criminals

Posted on March 29, 2018 by James Lange in Current Events, Data Breach, Identity Theft, Social Security and tagged Fraud, Social Security, Social Security Fraud.

As many of you know, I am a strong proponent of waiting until age 70 to apply for Social Security, because I want both you and your surviving spouse to receive the highest benefit possible during your lifetimes. And one of the technical points about Social Security that I’ve never covered in detail in my books – because it’s only been in rare cases that I have recommended that my clients do it – involves applying for benefits retroactively. But in order to make you understand how your future Social Security benefits could be at risk from cyber criminals, I find myself in the strange position of having to give you a quick lesson on how retroactive benefits work.

Suppose that you could have applied for Social Security at your Full Retirement Age (FRA) of 66, but you took my advice and waited so that you can receive the highest benefit possible at age 70. When you turn 67, you go to your doctor for your annual physical. There, the doctor gives you some terrible news – you have six months to live! Now you’re cursing at me because you missed out on all of this Social Security money that you could have collected since you were 66 – or did you? Not necessarily. In certain instances, Social Security will allow you to apply for retirement benefits retroactively. If you qualify, Social Security will send you up to six months of retroactive benefits, paid as a lump sum.

A True Horror Story of a Social Security Fraud Victim

I won’t waste time telling you how you can qualify for retroactive benefits because it’s a complicated topic, and I will not recommend you do it because it will result in lower monthly benefits for the rest of your life. I am going to tell you something very important that you need to understand about retroactive benefits: if you are at least Full Retirement Age but are waiting until age 70 to file for Social Security so that you can earn Delayed Retirement Credits, your account may be compromised by cyber criminals who are trying to get their hands on any lump sum retroactive benefits to which you might be entitled, but have no intention of ever claiming. Here’s a real-life example of what I’m talking about:

I have a client who received an unexpected letter from the Social Security Administration. She and her husband had intended to hold off applying for benefits so that they could earn Delayed Retirement Credits. The letter they received, however, stated that Social Security had approved their request for a lump-sum retroactive benefit payment, which amounted to almost $12,000. Immediately my client and her husband went to their local Social Security office, and in the several hours spent there, discovered that the criminal(s) had called the office and pretended to be her husband. During the conversation, which was on a recorded line, the criminal simply said that he had changed his mind and wanted to apply for benefits retroactively! And the Social Security office complied with his request!

It Seems to Have Become Easier for Criminals

I found this situation to be so unbelievable that I called the Social Security office myself and asked how it could happen. What I learned might shock you. In order to access my client’s Social Security account, the criminals had to provide them with only the husband’s full name, date and place of birth, mother’s maiden name, and his current address and phone number. Personal information like this is widely available online through sites such as Facebook and Ancestry.com, not to mention what is available on the dark web thanks to the infamous Equifax hack in 2017.

My client spent hours at the Social Security office trying to put a hold on the “lump sum withdrawal,” and were assured that everything had been resolved. We thought that the criminals had been thwarted and everything was fine, but yesterday they received a 1099 from the Social Security Administration saying that they had received $12,000 in benefits that they needed to report on their tax return! So now we’re back to square one, and are still trying to get this mess sorted out. It’s bad enough that the IRS has been notified that they need to pay tax on money they never received, but now I’m wondering whether my client is still earning Delayed Retirement Credits after these criminals filed for benefits under his name!

How Can You Protect Yourself?

The bottom line is that you need to treat your Social Security account like a bank or investment account. Even though you might not think of it as being an asset, it is – because if a criminal manages to take control of it, the consequences could be costly and far-reaching. One way to protect yourself is to open an account with Social Security online, at this website: https://www.ssa.gov/myaccount/. Even if you do not plan to file for benefits in the near future, this action can prevent someone else from opening an account in your name without your knowledge. For your security you will be required to create a user name and password, and they’ll send a one-time security code to your email or phone.

Once you’ve established your account, you should check it periodically to make sure that information such as your name, address and phone number is correct. They also have a feature called “Block Electronic Access,” which prevents anyone (including you) from changing your personal information online or over the telephone. If you block access to your account and then change your mind, you have to ask Social Security to unblock it for you.
Years ago, the fear of Social Security theft was largely confined to the possibility of armed thugs waiting outside the bank for retirees who had just cashed their monthly checks. Unfortunately, criminals are constantly looking for ways to liberate you from your money, and their creativity can be surprising. Remember, protect yourself and your spouse by making sure that your benefits are safe – even if you don’t plan to apply in the near future!

Are you interested in learning more about Social Security maximization strategies? Visit our Social Security section of our website here for more information.

How Does the Tax Reform Affect Retirees?

Posted on December 28, 2017 by James Lange in Current Events, Economy, Government Programs, Income Tax, Tax Law and tagged Charitable Contributions, Medical Expenses, Miscellaneous Deductions, Mortgage Interest, Property Taxes, Retirees, tax reform.

How does the Tax Reform affect Retirees?

I was able to spend some time reading over the holiday, and of course much of my efforts were devoted to finding out how people were reacting to the new tax reform bill. In quick succession, I came across three articles published by three different media outlets. The first said that the tax reform would hurt poor people; the second insisted that the tax reform would hurt the middle class, and the third swore that the tax reform would hurt the rich. Many of our clients are retired, and they are asking “how will the tax reform affect me?” So I thought I would give you some ideas about how the tax reform might affect retirees.

One concern for retirees involves the changes made to the rules affecting Schedule A, Itemized Deductions. Will the tax reform affect you if you are retired, and you have been able to itemize? The short answer is that, depending on what and how much you deduct, the tax reform may affect you because some of the itemized deductions were reduced or even eliminated. Let’s look at specifics.

Tax Reform and Medical Expenses

Many retirees have high medical costs – and the good news is that medical expenses will still be deductible in 2017 assuming that they exceed a certain threshold. What makes this statement less than straightforward, though, is that there were two different thresholds when you did your taxes last year. Prior to the tax reform, individuals who were younger than age 65 had to have medical expenses that exceeded 10% of their adjusted gross income in order to be able to use the deduction.

If you or your spouse were 65 or older, though, the threshold was lower – only 7.5%. And whatever your age, you could only deduct the medical expenses that were in excess of your threshold. The bottom line for retirees? If you itemize, tax reform shouldn’t affect your medical deductions unless both you and your spouse are younger than 65 years old. The tax reform may actually benefit younger individuals who have high medical costs because, starting in 2017, everyone regardless of their age will have to meet a threshold of only 7.5% before they can deduct any medical expenses.

Tax Reform and Property Taxes

Many retirees could be affected by the changes in state and local tax (or, SALT) itemized deductions. Through 2017, you can deduct all of your state, local, real estate, sales and personal property taxes on Schedule A if you itemize. In 2018, those deductions will be capped at $10,000. How does this affect retirees? It depends. If you didn’t deduct these expenses because you used the standard deduction last year, this provision in the tax reform won’t affect you at all.

But if your income is high enough that it is subject to state and local tax, or if you own a home on which you pay high property taxes, any deduction that you might be able to take after the tax reform could be reduced. If this sounds like you, you will need to check the Schedule A on your prior year return to see exactly how much of the taxes you paid were deductible in the past. The tax reform could affect you negatively if you’ve been able to deduct more than $10,000 because, starting in 2018, your deduction will be limited to that amount.

Tax Reform and Mortgage Interest

Many retirees prefer to have the mortgages on their homes paid off before they leave the work force. If that’s you, the changes to the mortgage interest deduction rules, by themselves, shouldn’t affect you. Prior to the tax reform, married couples could deduct the interest they paid on mortgages that were less than $1,000,000. Under the tax reform, that mortgage limit is lowered to $750,000 – which means that individuals who have large mortgages may not be able to deduct as much of the interest as in the past. If you are retired, this change should not affect you unless you are planning to buy a new home in 2018 or later. If you do buy a new home and finance more than $750,000 (and you itemize) you will not be able to deduct as much as you would have prior to the tax reform.

Tax Reform and Miscellaneous Deductions

How about miscellaneous itemized deductions? The big ones for my clients are their investment account fees and, in some cases, employee business expenses, but includes smaller deductions such as tax preparation fees and safety deposit box fees. The new law temporarily repeals all of those, so if you itemize and have taken advantage of them in the past, the tax reform may hurt you in this area of your return.

Tax Reform and Charitable Contributions

What about charitable contributions? The tax reform will not affect charitable contributions at all. If you don’t itemize, your charitable contributions weren’t deductible in prior years and so nothing has changed for you. If you do qualify to itemize, contributions that you make to legitimate charities will still be deductible in 2018.

This leads me to my big finale! My theme throughout this post has been, “assuming that you qualify to itemize”. Even if you were able to itemize in the past, you may not need to itemize after the tax reform because the standard deduction (or, the amount that the government gives to everybody with no strings attached) has almost doubled. In 2017, the standard deduction for married couples filing jointly is $12,700 but in 2018 it will be $24,000. So even if you fall into one of the categories where you believe the tax reform might initially hurt you – for example, if you have a significant amount of investment account fees that are no longer deductible – it might be a moot point if the government is going to just give you more than what you would have gotten by itemizing anyway.

Confusing? You bet! So please bear with us during tax season as we try to sort this out!

Stop back soon!

-Jim

Learn how Jim Nabors saved $4.8 Million by marrying his husband.

Jim Nabors Saved $4.8 Million in Taxes By Marrying His Husband

Posted on December 8, 2017 by James Lange in Current Events, Estate Planning, Estate Tax, Income Tax and tagged estate plan, Estate Planning, Jim Nabors, Same-Sex Couples, Same-Sex Marriage, Taxes, Washington State.

How Jim Nabors saved $4.8 Million in taxes by marrying his husband. Courtesy of PayTaxesLater.com

Jim Nabors: Actor, Singer, and Comedian

On November 30, 2017, Jim Nabors, perhaps most famous for his role as Gomer Pyle, died at the age of 87. Jim is survived by his husband Stan Cadwallader, whom he married in 2013. Their marriage came one month after same-sex marriages became legal in Washington State.

It is quite eye-opening to look at the tax consequences of their decision to get married; Mr. Nabors died with a $13M estate. The terms of his will are not public, but for the sake of argument let’s assume he left his estate to his husband. Because of the marriage, no Federal or Hawaiian estate or inheritance taxes are due at death because of the unlimited marital deduction.

Smart Estate Planning

If Jim and Stan had remained unmarried partners the payout to the Government would have been astronomical. A $3,000,000 payment in federal estate taxes alone is bad enough. A payment of over $1,800,000 in Hawaiian inheritance taxes would add a total of $4,800,000 in total taxes. These numbers don’t include the income taxes that will be saved because of the longer “stretch” a spouse receives on an inherited IRA or retirement plan.

The moral of the story is that for many life-long partners, gay or straight: Get Married for the Money. Obviously the decision to marry hinges on more than whether marriage is a financially strategic move. But if you are simply avoiding the formalities, it might make sense to think about the long-term tax consequences on your financial security—for both you and your partner. Marriage is usually a big plus for purposes of Social Security, especially if one partner has a much stronger earnings record than the other partner.

More Information Is Always Available

For more information visit www.paytaxeslater.com.To schedule an appointment with Jim Lange, please call his office at 412-521-2732. You can always contact Jim at jim@paytaxeslater.com.

James Lange, CPA/Attorney of Lange Financial Group, LLC, is the author of several books on retirement and estate planning, including Live Gay, Retire Rich. His books on retirement strategies have been endorsed by Charles Schwab, Larry King, Jane Bryant Quinn, Ed Slott, and many more. He hosts a weekly financial show on KQV News Radio in Pittsburgh. PA.

Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017: Ten Huge Take-Aways

Posted on November 3, 2017 by James Lange in Current Events, Economy, Home Buyer, Income Tax, Market News, Tax Law and tagged Current Events, Jobs Act, Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017, Tax Cuts, Tax Law.

Ten Huge Take-Aways from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by Jim Lange

Ten Huge Take-Aways from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017

by James Lange, CPA/Attorney

The first thing to consider about the proposed Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is that it is just a proposed tax bill. It is possible it will face stiff resistance in the Senate and possibly get no votes from the Republicans. Jeff Flake, John McCain, Bob Corker, and Lisa Murkowski might be on that list of Republican “no” votes. So, like health care it is possible, and even likely, that nothing will happen this year and maybe not in the foreseeable future.

Depending on your personal circumstances, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 could be good or bad for your family. Critical factors like how many children you have, whether you live in a high-tax state and itemize your deductions or take the standard deduction, whether you own a home or are looking to buy one could sway you from benefiting from these changes or suffering from them.

In fact, there are so many variables to consider that it is difficult to make a blanket statement that the proposal will offer you tax relief. Corporate America is a clear winner. Reducing the corporate tax rate from 35 to 20 percent, Speaker Paul Ryan argues, will create more jobs and drive up wages. But critics, even Republican critics, say it is not a given that companies will pass their savings on to workers vs. shareholders through higher dividends.

However, the bill as it stands now is far from becoming law. Ultimately, the Senate will introduce more changes and what we will end up with and whether it will pass are still great unknowns. But, going forward it will still be helpful to understand some of the main provisions the bill advances so you can begin to assess the impact on you and your family.

Champions and underdogs in the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act of 2017:

This doesn’t appear to be an overall tax-cut for the middle class, as promised. What we see in this bill is a tax cut for some, and a tax hike for others. As usual, it all depends on how much you make, how you earn your living, where you live, the mortgage on your home, your property taxes, student loans, etc. The Tax Policy Center commented that the bill wasn’t really tax reform but rather it was more of a complicated tax cut. We have compared differences for different hypothetical clients and the results were less dramatic than we thought. In one case, the elimination of the alternative minimum tax was helpful, but the dis-allowance of state and local income taxes netted out to a tax increase for one client.
The bill reduces the number of tax brackets from seven to four. Currently the brackets are 10-15-20-28-33-35-39.6%. Under the new provisions there will be a zero bracket (in the form of an enhanced standard deduction according to the bill), and from there the brackets will be 12-25-35-36.9%. Here is how they break down:

2017 Single Filer	2017 Married Filing Jointly	2017 Head of Household
$0- $9,325 – 10%	$0-18,650 – 10%	$0- $13,350 – 10%
$9,326- $37,950 – 15%	$18,651- $75,900 – 15%	$13,351- $50,800 – 15%
$37,951- $91,900 – 25%	$75,901- $153,100 – 25%	$50,801- $131,200 – 25%
$91,901- $191,650 – 28%	$153,101- $233,350 – 28%	$131,201- $212,500 – 28%
$191,651- $416,700 – 33%	$233,351- $416,700 – 33%	$212,501- $416,700 – 33%
$416,701-$418,400 – 35%	$416,701- $470,700 – 35%	$416,701- $444,550 – 35%
$418,401 + – 39.6%	$470,701+ – 39.6%	$444,551 + – 39.6%

Proposed Single Filer	Proposed Married Filing Jointly	Proposed Head of Household
$0-$44,999 – 12%	$0-$89,999 – 12%	$0-$67,499 – 12%
$45,000-$199,999 – 25%	$90,000-$259,999 – 25%	$67,500-$229,999 – 25%
$200,000-$499,999 – 35%	$260,000-$999,999 – 35%	$230,000-$499,999 – 35%
$500,000+ – 39.6%	$1,000,000+ – 39.6%	$500,000+ – 39.6%

Additionally, the bill would eliminate the alternative minimum tax (AMT), a second tax calculation for people earning about $130,000 which reduces the impact of many tax breaks.

The bill doubles the current standard deduction, giving $12,000 to single filers, $24,000 for married filing jointly, and $18,000 for heads of household.

But before you get too excited about a larger deduction, they’ve decided to repeal the personal exemption—currently $4,050 per person—and the deductions for state and local taxes. So, it isn’t as much of a break as you think it is.

They are taking away one of our favorite, and edgiest strategies. No more recharacterization of Roth IRAs. If you’ve heard me talk about Roth IRAs, you’ve probably heard me mention recharacterization. The ability to recharacterize, basically undo the Roth conversion, adds enormous flexibility in our Roth IRA conversion planning. This will mean that the days of do-it-yourself Roth IRA conversion calculations will be highly risky. Having a professional you can trust, who knows the system in and out, and who has the experience to get it right will become incredibly important.

Taxpayers with a net worth of $10 million or more (and their children) have a reason to cheer as the plan almost doubles the current federal estate tax exemption from $5,490,000 to $10,000,000 per individual, with spouses exempt from any limits. The Joint Committee on Taxation has commented that this provision, while being a boon for business owners and wealthier Americans will reduce the federal revenue by around $172 billion over 2018-2027. Oh, yeah…and after 2023, the estate tax will be repealed all together. Compensating for that loss of revenue is a huge stumbling block for the proposed tax reform. Though hard to confirm, rumor has it that originally they were going to eliminate the estate tax entirely but put this provision in to secure the support of Alaska.

While the bill does simplify many areas, it also complicates many areas. It is not a major tax simplification. I do not fear that our CPA firm will lose business because clients will find it so easy to complete their tax returns.

While corporations and businesses will see a reduced corporate tax rate—from 35% to 20% – it will come with a price¾a much more involved and complicated filing process. New anti-abuse rules, complicated multi-national corporation rules, new tax treatments on interest, and changes in international income rules will make navigating your business tax return much more difficult. Shareholders of pass through entities, like Subchapter S corporations will get a big break, but the complications for claiming that break are considerable.

The Act is silent on the Death of the Stretch IRA. We still aren’t sure if and when this will happen. It is very possible that they are holding it in reserve to for future negotiations pertaining to reducing the deficit. The tax cuts in this bill will massively reduce federal revenue. We’re talking in the trillions of dollars here. To get any version of this to pass, it is very likely that the GOP will have to come up with ways to offset some of the deficit. Killing the ability to stretch IRAs and retirement plans for generations is one way to do that.

Even the Republican’s admit that this bill will increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion dollars over the next ten years, and that is a huge issue. Critics on both sides see increasing the deficit as unacceptable. Further, the Tax Policy Center and other tax policy commentators on both sides of the aisle think that this estimate is too low or too high, and many do not believe that this bill will provide the economic growth or tax-relief promised to the middle class.

If you want to read an excellent 82-page summary of the bill, check out The Fiscal Times online:

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2017/11/02/Read-House-GOPs-Tax-Bill-or-Summary-Key-Points

If you are looking for more of a brief overview summary, these are excellent resources:

https://taxfoundation.org/details-tax-cuts-jobs-act/

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/house-gop-tax-bill-mostly-business-tax-cut-will-create-new-winners-and-losers

As I mentioned above, this bill is simply the first iteration of what the final bill might look like, and it isn’t clear that anything in it is going to become law. But it bears some scrutiny since some of the main points are likely to provoke debates. We will continue to watch as the process evolves. We might even have to interrupt our series on Lange’s Cascading Beneficiary Plan once again! If that happens, I hope you will bear with us. But unless there is major news, we will see you next week as we continue exploring the advantages of the LCBP

Disclaimer: Please note that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 removed the ability for taxpayers to do any “recharacterizations” of Roth IRA conversions after 12/31/2017. The material below was created and published prior the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.

The Aftermath of Brexit

Posted on July 6, 2016 by James Lange in Investing, Market News, The Lange Money Hour and tagged brexit, IRA, Retirement Planning, Roth IRA, Roth IRA Conversions.

The Aftermath of Brexit

Pros and Cons: What Options Do Individual Investors Have?

What should you do about your own retirement plan in the aftermath of Brexit? Find out why now could be a great time to do a Roth conversion!

On June 23, 2016, a majority of British citizens voted to leave the 28-member European Union – an action referred to as the “Brexit”. The following day, Americans awoke to learn that global stock markets had not reacted well to the news. Our major domestic indices followed suit, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average declining more than 600 points in one day. Trillions of dollars in wealth were estimated to have been wiped out overnight, and more is likely to follow as the world adjusts to the news.

Prior to the historic Brexit vote, I watched with interest as the pollsters interviewed people on the streets and then confidently predicted that Britons would vote to stay in the union. The British pound made gains, and even the lethargic US stock markets seemed cheered at the news. Life, it seemed, would be good as long as the union remained intact. Investors throughout the world thought that the good citizens of Great Britain would never upset the apple cart, and placed their bets accordingly. And guess what? They bet wrong!

Time will tell, but I suspect that much of this market chaos is happening because the investors who relied on the pollsters got caught with their pants down. Plans were made and fund managers structured their portfolios assuming that the citizens of Great Britain would vote to stay – and they didn’t. Now these investors find themselves having to scramble to put their Plan B – assuming they even have one – in place. What does their mistake mean for you?

If you’re clients of ours, you know that we have always advocated using a balanced approach to money management. And we never advocate making changes to your portfolio based solely on what the market is doing. However, for many of you, now would be a great time for you to take that trip to London that you’ve always wanted to do. The US dollar strengthened on the news of the Brexit, and will stretch much further now than it would have a week ago. Or, consider establishing Roth IRAs or college tuition accounts for your grandchildren. If they have ten or more years to wait out a market recovery, you can fund those accounts with equities purchased at prices much lower than they were last week at this time.

What should you do about your own retirement plan in the aftermath of Brexit? If you hold any global funds in your IRA, now could be a great time to do a Roth conversion. By converting when the market value of the fund is low, you pay less in federal income tax than you would when the fund value is high. And if the market continues to drop even further, you can always recharacterize your conversion. I’ll be talking about some of these points on my next radio show on 1410 KQV. You can call in and ask questions during the live broadcast on Wednesday, July 6^th, from 7:00 – 800 p.m., or catch the rebroadcast on Sunday, July 10^th at 9:00 a.m. You can also read more about Roth conversions by clicking this link on my website: https://www.paytaxeslater.com/roth_ira/

Please call our office soon if you have been thinking about doing a Roth conversion, and we will run the numbers to see if it makes sense for you. And if you do go to London, send me a postcard!

Jim

Save

(7/16/2014) Tonight’s Radio Show: The View of Pittsburgh from the Mayor’s Office

Posted on July 15, 2014 by James Lange in Economy, Tax Law, The Lange Money Hour and tagged James Lange, KQV, Mayor Peduto, Pittsburgh City Council, The Lange Money Hour, Western Pennsylvania.

The View of Pittsburgh from the Mayor’s Office

Join us tonight at 7:05 pm on KQV 1410 AM. Program also streams live at www.kqv.com. Encore presentations air EVERY SUNDAY at 9:05 am.

Tune in KQV 1410 AM tonight at 7:05 p.m. as The Lange Money Hour welcomes a very special guest, Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto.

After serving three terms on City Council representing the East End, he was elected Pittsburgh’s 60th mayor last November capturing 84 percent of the vote. Inaugurated on January 6th, he has just completed his first six months in office.

A self-described progressive Democrat, Mayor Peduto has been a consistent voice for fiscal discipline in Pittsburgh. As a councilman, he was the only city politician to call for Act 47 state protection; a controversial step in addressing decades of financial mismanagement that left Pittsburgh with the highest debt ratio and the lowest pension funding in the nation. Despite some improvement in the fiscal situation, he feels the city needs to remain under financial oversight to take care of its long-term problems such as pensions, debt, and need for capital improvements. After only six months in office, Mayor Peduto has already taken active positions on a broad range of issues from same-sex marriage, achieving sustainable revenue by establishing relationships with major non-profits, and technology and efficiency, to dedicated bike lanes and supporting ride-sharing services like Lyft and Uber.

These are just a few of the subjects on tonight’s agenda, and listeners, since our show will be live, you can join the conversation by calling KQV at 412-333-9385 after 7:05 p.m. You can also email questions in advance of the show by clicking here.

If you can’t tune in tonight, KQV will rebroadcast the show this Sunday, July 20th at 9:05 a.m. The audio will also be archived on our web site at www.paytaxeslater.com/radioshow.php, along with a written transcript.

Finally, please join us on Wednesday, August 6th at 7:05 p.m., when we’ll welcome another financial industry giant, Dr. Roger Ibbotson, to the next edition of The Lange Money Hour.

www.paytaxeslater.com 800 387-1129 or 412 521-2732 admin@paytaxeslater.com

Obamacare

Posted on December 28, 2013 by James Lange in Economy.

“Obamacare” is the most ambitious shake-up of America’s health care system since the 1960s. There are an estimated 55 million, or 1 in 7, people in the United States without health insurance. Starting January 1, 2014, these people will be required to buy insurance or pay a fine. Those who cannot afford it will receive subsidies; part of a big expansion of coverage to the sick and the poor.

The success or failure of this program in the coming months will be influenced by people signing up for health care exchanges, the types of plans they select, and their actual health experience. Democrats believe “Obamacare” can move the country toward universal coverage while keeping costs down. However, Republicans argue that you cannot extend health insurance coverage to 55 million additional people while simultaneously improving the quality of care and lowering costs. They view it as unaffordable, socialized medicine.

One of the biggest problems with America’s system is that insurers have long charged extremely high rates to the sick, or refused to cover them at all in many circumstances. Starting in January, this practice will be banned. Since insurers would soon go bankrupt if they sold only cheap plans to sick patients needing expensive treatment, “Obamacare” pushes the young and fit to buy insurance, too. This will give insurers revenue from cheap, healthy patients to offset the cost of insuring sick ones.

The cost of insurance will vary significantly and requires insurers to cover a minimum set of services. In most states, the simplest plans will become more comprehensive. Because there are many variables, “Obamacare” will have dramatically different effects from place to place and person to person. The law will raise health costs for some and lower them for others. For example, a 27 year old will pay $130 a month for a basic plan in Kansas, compared with $286 in Wyoming (see chart.) (Source: The Economist, October 5, 2013)

Overhauling America’s $2.7 trillion health sector is no easy task. America spends 18% of GDP on healthcare. The people of Britain, Norway, and Sweden, to name a few, spend half as much but actually live longer. Health spending is growing faster than wages, and is set to hit 20% of GDP by 2022, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The CBO states health costs remain the biggest long-term threat to America’s finances.

Public support is fragile—only 39% of Americans support “Obamacare”, while 51% disapprove, according to a recent poll by the New York Times and CBS. However, 56% would rather try to make the law work than stop it by stripping it of cash. Whether we eventually judge “Obamacare” a success or a catastrophe, only time will tell. (Source: The Economist, October 5, 2013)

Government Shutdown a Concern for Investors, but No Need to Panic

Posted on October 1, 2013 by James Lange in Economy, Index Investing, Market News.

A partial government shutdown began today, leaving plenty of federal employees out of work and unpaid. National Parks are closed, FAA safety inspectors are out of work, NASA is all but closed, even The Smithsonian Museums are shut down. Many Americans worry during this time how the shutdown will effect them, their taxes, and the economy as a whole. @MacroScope Reuters tweeted an interesting chart this morning on the performance of the S&P 500 prior to, during, and after the previous government shutdowns.

While we could be facing a bumpy time during the shutdown and immediately after, it looks alike in most cases the S&P 500 didn’t fair so badly in shutdown situations. The shutdown is going to be an aggrevation, but there is no need to start panicking about investments. Contact your advisor before making any hasty buying/selling decisions during this time. An over-reaction could end up costing you!

3 Myths About Social Security

Posted on June 20, 2011 by James Lange in 401(k), 403(b), Economy, Social Security and tagged Social, Social Security.

Myth #1: By the time I retire, Social Security will be broke.

If you believe this, you are not alone. More and more Americans have become convinced that the Social Security system won’t be there when they need it. In an AARP survey released last year, only 35 percent of adults said they were very or somewhat confident about Social Security’s future.

It’s true that Social Security’s finances need work, because over the long term there will not be enough money to fully cover promised benefits. But radical changes aren’t needed. In 2010 a number of different proposals were put forward that, taken in combination, would put the program back on firm financial ground for the future, including changes such as raising the amount of wages subject to the payroll tax (now capped at $106,800) and benefit changes based on longer life expectancy.

Myth #2: The Social Security Trust Fund Assets are Worthless.

Any surplus payroll taxes not used for current benefits are used to purchase special-issue, interest-paying Treasury bonds. In other words, the surplus in the Social Security trust fund has been loaned to the federal government for its general use — the reserve of $2.6 trillion is not a heap of cash sitting in a vault. These bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the federal government, just as they are for other Treasury bondholders. However, Treasury will soon need to pay back these bonds. This will put pressure on the federal budget, according to Social Security’s board of trustees. Even without any changes, Social Security can continue paying full benefits through 2037. After that, the revenue from payroll taxes will still cover about 75 percent of promised benefits.

Myth #3: I Could Invest Better on My Own.

Maybe you could, and maybe you couldn’t. But the point of Social Security isn’t to maximize the return on the payroll taxes you’ve contributed. Social Security is designed to be the one guaranteed part of your retirement income that can’t be outlived or lost in the stock market. It’s a secure base of income throughout your working life and retirement. And for many, it’s a lifeline. Social Security provides the majority of income for at least half of Americans over age 65; it is 90 percent or more of income for 43 percent of singles and 22 percent of married couples. You can, and should, invest in a retirement fund like a 401(k) or an individual retirement account. Maybe you’ll enjoy strong returns and avoid the market turmoil we have seen during the past decade. If not, you’ll still have Social Security to fall back on.