Category Archives: markets

Another Reason

Posted on by
Reply

…to push for lowered State tax rates, empirically observed.

There are signs home buyers in metropolitan New York are pausing to consider the effects of proposed federal tax law changes, setting the stage for a possible chill in the market, brokers say.

The changes, in versions of bills in both the House and the Senate, likely would increase the cost of home ownership and reduce after-tax discretionary income for many mostly affluent home buyers in New York and other states with high state and local income and property taxes, brokers and analysts say.

This isn’t entirely true, though.  The reduced deductibility of mortgage interest will lead to lowered house prices (and through that, downward pressure on rents, even in rent-controlled New York City) through two pathways.  One is reduced demand for house ownership.  The other is through a lesser interest deduction being factored into a house’s price—this one will impact primarily, the high-end houses bought with jumbo mortgages, contra those brokers and analysts.

Or a high-tax State can do nothing and suffer the consequences.

One couple, who looked for homes in the area last year, is coming down to see a house on an island off Miami Beach listed for $22.5 million over the summer, Mr [Jeff, a Miami broker] Miller said.

“People I have been working with were on the fence,” he said. “Now they want to move [to Florida]. The new tax bill was the nudge they needed to push them over.”

These are exactly the high-income, high-asset folks whose pockets high-tax States like New York want to pick.

Death Panels?

Posted on by
Reply

The Affordable Care Act required Medicare to penalize hospitals with high numbers of heart failure patients who returned for treatment shortly after discharge. New research shows that penalty was associated with fewer readmissions, but also higher rates of death among that patient group.

Because sometimes readmission is necessary for quality care—whether that readmission was driven by later complications, by too-soon original discharge in the Medicare (which is to say Government) pressure to hold down costs first, or by some other factor—but that Government pressure to push the patient out the door also pushes against the patient’s return.  Even when necessary.

Here are a couple of numbers from a study soon to be published in JAMA Cardiology:

One in five heart failure patients returned to the hospital within 30 days before the ACA passed. That dropped to 18.4% after the penalties. Mortality rates increased from 7.2% before the ACA to 8.6% after the penalties….

In other words, an 8% drop in readmissions is associated with a 19% rise in death rates for heart patients.  That’s not a favorable trade-off.

There is a legitimate interest in improving the quality of care for all patients, including those for whose care us taxpayers are paying, but readmission rate is not an accurate measure of that quality.  Readmission rate can only measure…readmission rate.  That metric addresses neither the reasons for readmission nor the reasons for the prior discharge.

Government pressure to hold down readmissions doesn’t quite amount to death panels, but the outcomes seem dismayingly similar.  To be clear, the results of the study do not establish a causal relationship, for heart patients, between the lowered readmission rate and the higher death rate.  However, the magnitude of the apparent association between the two desperately wants further investigation.

Tax Havens

Posted on by
Reply

Christian Reierman, writing for Spiegel Online, thinks tax havens are bad.

He began with the usual false premise, itself as usual unspoken: that Government is owed the money earned by private citizens or their privately owned enterprises, or that Government is somehow otherwise entitled to it.  His proximate vehicle is the Paradise Papers and their exposure of how widespread is the use of tax havens—entirely legal tax havens, mind you—by international businesses.

The German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung leaked a vasty number of documents—the so-called Paradise Papers—that exposed

how the rich and super-rich, international stars and companies try to avoid paying taxes in their home countries. It is a game for the wealthy.

The horror—people with money try to protect their wealth from grasping governments.  This time, they’re trying to protect the gains of the businesses they run:

The players are usually multinational corporations seeking to shrink their tax bill using convoluted structures. Tech-giant Apple once again stands accused of skullduggery, as does sporting-goods producer Nike. The accomplices are also largely the same. The deals in question invariably involve tax havens such as the Bermuda Islands, British dependencies such as the Isle of Man or Jersey, and European member states like the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Ireland.

Notice that: nothing here is illegal.  No skullduggery is present.  These business owners just are supposed to voluntarily give up what governments demand, simply because governments demand it on that false theory that the businesses’ prosperity belongs first to Government.

Here’s the game given away; here’s Reierman’s telltale question:

[W]hy are EU member states still allowed to cheat their partners within the bloc out of tax revenues?

There’s no cheating going on, of course.  It isn’t Government’s money.  And there’s nothing wrong with nations competing with each other for businesses and the employment that businesses bring–including competing on tax rates.  Full stop.

As always, the right answer is not to hold back the rich, to punish the successful with high taxes, or to cap the ability of individuals to be successful by restricting them to the performance of the weaker.  The right answer is to lower taxes all around and thereby leave more money in the pockets of the earners—including the poor.  The right answer also includes restricting government spending, which crowds out private spending by artificially increasing overall demand; which increases prices with its non-economic, inflated demand; which devalues the money left in the hands of the earner—particularly harming the poor.

The right answer begins with the clear recognition and admission of whose money is involved here.

Obamacare Subsidies

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that under Obamacare, health coverage plan providers are required to subsidize low-income Americans (who, under Obamacare, are required to buy the plans regardless of need for the plans on offer or ability to pay the vig for them) for their costs in buying those health coverage plans.  Recall further that the Obama administration paid those plan providers monies to reimburse them for those government-mandated subsidy payouts.  Recall also that Congress never appropriated any funds for the purpose of making those payments to the plan providers.  Finally, recall that a DC District court ruled those payments to the health plan providers illegal—because Congress had not appropriated any funds for the purpose.  Then the Trump administration ceased those payments to the health plan providers.

Oh, the hoo-rah from the Left.  Eighteen Progressive-Democrat-led States sued in Federal court (in San Francisco, California, after judge-shopping to find a suitably malleable court), centering their beef on how stopping the payments would set the Obamacare markets a-roil.  Never mind, now, how cynically irrelevant that plaint is to the actual case before the courts, which is whether the payments are legal, not whether they’re convenient.

Federal judge Vince Chhabria, of the Northern District of California, headquarted in San Fran, wound up ruling against the 18 States.  He also wrote,

And although you wouldn’t know it from reading the states’ papers in this lawsuit, the truth is that most state regulators have devised responses that give millions of lower-income people better health coverage options than they would otherwise have had

And he

cited an October press release by California’s health care marketplace, which said the premiums of nearly four of five consumers will stay the same or decrease after surcharges tied to the lost subsidies are factored in. The judge said dozens of other states also have accounted for the end of the subsidies.

And

One last point on the issue of confusion.  If the states are so concerned that people will be scared away from the exchanges by the thought of higher premiums, perhaps they should stop yelling about higher premiums. With open enrollment just days away, perhaps the states should focus instead on communicating the message that they have devised a response to the CSR payment termination that will prevent harm to the large majority of people while in fact allowing millions of lower-income people to get a better deal on health insurance in 2018.

Oops.  Just another bit of disingenuousity on the part of Progressive-Democrats as they try to keep honest Americans trapped in the Progressive-Democrat welfare cage.

Judge Chhabria’s ruling can be read here.

Health Plan Providers Are Concerned

Posted on by
Reply

These providers, which surprisingly The Wall Street Journal misapprehends as insurers, are bracing for a drop in enrollment in the ongoing health plan provision program “turmoil.”  There’s this key passage in the article at the link:

[M]any firms say they expect to lose consumers who will bear the full brunt of the rate increases—those who aren’t eligible for the health law’s premium subsidies, which help enrollees with annual incomes of less than around $48,000.

Yet it’s the “health law” that exploded health plan costs—premiums and deductibles, especially—by mandating coverage for things citizens don’t need or don’t want and by mandating that many of those coverages be provided at no cost to the plan purchaser.  This has led to a burial of many of those costs into the charges made rather than listing them openly as separate line items on the charge sheet and a parallel creation of the claimed need for the subsidies.

Those costs put a premium on getting rid of Obamacare and replacing it with a private economy program of market oriented, actual health insurance policies sold by private companies not fettered by Federal government diktats.

That, in turn, requires three self-important Republican Senators to get with the program.  Senators John McCain (AZ), Lisa Murkowski (AK), and Susan Collins (ME), especially, need to hear about our dismay with their reticence—and on a national scale.  These worthies are responsible to their State constituencies, to be sure, but the US Senate is a national body; these Senators also have a national constituency to whom they’re responsible, for all that the rest of us don’t vote for them.