Daily Archives: 18 March 2013

YGTBSM

Posted on by
1

And these guys are serious.

Recall that Cyprus is as bankrupt as Greece.  In order to bail out Cyprus (we’ve been over the legitimacy of bailouts elsewhere), the European Central Bank, European Commission, and the IMF have demanded a one-time tax on deposits: 9.9% on deposits over €100,000 ($131,000) and 6.75% on smaller deposits.

Nothing underhanded about any of this, either.  Uh, uh.  Because depositors, including many of the 3,500 British soldiers stationed in Cyprus, are complicit in the incompetence of the banks’ management.  Yeah.  That’s it.  We’ll go with that.

Finance Minister Michalis Serris already has taken steps to block depositors from taking their money out ahead of the tax:

We have taken immediate measures so that electronic transfers cannot take effect before banks reopen on Tuesday [today is a holiday in Cyprus.]

Chump change was recovered by depositors over the weekend via Cyprus’ cash machines, but the machines’ money stocks were limited and not replenished as they ran out.  Willy Sutton couldn’t have done it better.

A planned weekend vote by the Cypriot Parliament to pass this thing, however, was been postponed until today amid…concerns…that the Parliament may have more integrity than Serris and block the “agreement” with the ECB, the EC, and the IMF.

This is supposed to raise €5.8 billion ($7.6 billion).  Think about this, though.  Are the interest rates or investment rates of return that the Cypriot banks are paying on those deposits more or less than those taxes?  You get three guesses, and the first two don’t count.  For how long will those depositors leave their remaining money in those banks?  Again, three guesses, and the first two don’t count.

This is what happens when the wrong folks are left in charge of OPM.

Update: Cyprus’ legislative vote has been delayed until Tuesday afternoon.

Update again: Today (Tuesday) the Greek Parliament rejected any “tax” on private deposits by a vote of 36 “No,” 19 abstentions, and 0 “Aye.”

Gun Control, Progressive Style

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Chuck Schumer (D, NY) has jammed into a gun control bill making its way through the Senate an amendment that adds Draconian Federal government control over our individual right to keep and bear arms.  Schumer first Dragoons the states.  Section 102 of the gun control bill, with his amendment, is aptly titled:

SEC. 102. PENALTIES FOR STATES THAT DO NOT MAKE DATA ELECTRONICALLY AVAILABLE TO THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM.

Under this section, the US Attorney General is allowed to withhold up to 4% of Federal funding for state and local law enforcement agencies in any state that respects its citizens’ privacy vis-à-vis the Federal government by refusing to provide its state’s data to the NISC.  After a five-year “grace” period from implementation of the Senate’s legislation, the US Attorney General is required to withhold 5% of that funding.

Charles Cooke, writing for National Review Online, provides a description of other parts of the Schumer Amendment.  On the matter of “transfers” of firearms between household members, Cooke summarizes thusly:

If, for example, a gun owner leaves his home for more than seven days—leaving his firearms with his roommate, or gay partner, or landlord—he’ll be committing a felony that carries a five-year prison term.  And while married couples are exempted from falling afoul of that provision, the family exemptions apply only to recorded “gifts” and not to “temporary transfers.”

Don’t take that business trip of eight days without incurring the hassle  of taking all of your firearms with you (or the jail term in New York, if you do).  If you leave them behind, you and your spouse will become Schumer-felons on the eighth day.  Unless you formally “gifted” those weapons to your spouse, using the attendant paperwork to effect the transfer, before you left.  After which, your spouse better not leave for more than seven days without exercising one of those same options.

Cooke understates the problem of “transfers” of firearms between friends, though.  Cooke summarizes thusly:

[I]t would be illegal to lend a gun to a friend so that he can go shooting.  Want to give your pistol to your neighbor so he can pop down to the range for a few hours but don’t have time to go with him?  Sorry, better make sure you look good in orange.

But Schumer’s amendment says, in SEC. 202. FIREARMS TRANSFERS, paragraph (2)(D), that the transfer must occur at the firing range.  The owner still has to take the time to accompany the friend to the range and effect the “transfer” there.

Moreover, Schumer’s amendment requires that regulations be written to require a paper record be created for every transfer:

(ii) shall include a provision requiring a record of transaction of any transfer that occurred between an unlicensed transferor and unlicensed transferee….

Want to lend your piece to your friend for his use at the firing range?  Go with him to the range to make the weapon loan, and then fill out a ream of Federal paperwork concerning that loan.  Every time.

Welcome to Progressivism.

Schumer’s amendments can be viewed here and here.

Obamacare…Gifts

Posted on by
Reply

Welcome to ObamaWorld.  Health insurance premiums—which President Barack Obama has been promising for the last three years will be going down, courtesy of his Obamacare—are about to jump up.  High.  The AP is reporting that we can look forward to 20%-100% premium jumps beginning in just nine months—next January.  Here’s what some of those increases will look like, with my editorial comments interspersed.

  • Changes to how insurers set premiums according to age and gender could cause some premiums to rise as much as 50 percent, according to America’s Health Insurance Plans.  NOTE: this is because Obamacare drives insurers steadily away from market-oriented, risk-based premiums.  Age and gender drive differing risks for a given insured malady.  As the AP went on:
  • The law will prohibit insurers from setting different rates based on gender—something they currently do because women generally use more health care.  That means premiums for some men could rise, while they fall for women.  NOTE: this is a redistribution, and a subsidy of one group (here, women) by another.
  • Young people who currently have low-cost coverage may see some of the biggest hikes.  NOTE: or they may start out with no coverage at all, because they don’t need it.
  • In many states, insurers charge a 60-year-old customer $5 in premiums for every $1 they collect from a 24-year-old.  The logic behind that is that older people use health care more and generate more expensive claims than younger customers, so insurers need to collect more to help pay their bills.  …  But the overhaul will narrow that ratio to 3-to-1.  That alone could cause the premium for a 24-year-old who pays $1,200 annually to jump to $1,800, according to AHIP. Meanwhile, the 60-year-old who currently pays $6,000 will see a 10 percent drop in price.  NOTE: This is naked wealth redistribution and a subsidy.  Only this time, the victim has no wealth to redistribute—the 24-year-old is only just starting out.
  • Prices also may change depending on a person’s current coverage.  Many policies on the individual market (coverage not sold through employers) exclude maternity coverage, but that will be considered an essential health benefit under the overhaul.  That could mean higher prices for some.
  • Vikki Swanson, 49, of Newport Beach, CA, resents that the added benefit may lead to higher costs for her.  “I had a hysterectomy, I have no need for maternity coverage, but I have to now pay for it.  I have to pay not only my own premium but I have to subsidize everybody else[.]”  NOTE: Yeah….
  • A new tax on premiums could raise prices as much as 2.3% in 2014 and more in subsequent years, according to a study commissioned by AHIP.  Policyholders with plans that end in 2014 probably have already seen an impact from this.  NOTE: this tax on the top-line revenues of medical equipment manufacturers will suppress development and/or production of items ranging from pacemakers to suits that let paraplegics walk again.
  • Requirements that insurance plans in many cases cover more health care or pay a greater share of a patient’s bill than they do now also could add to premiums, depending on the extent of a person’s current coverage, according AHIP.  NOTE: because insurance companieswelfare agencies aren’t allowed to charge for elective items like contraceptives, they’ll have to recoup these losses from other areas.

Once again, coverage under Obamacare isn’t health insurance, it’s privately funded, Federally mandated health welfare.