Where Are My Keys?

Who knew?! Colorado Pot tax revenues waaay under projections..

It's always been the easy argument for legal drugs: "Legalize, regulate, and tax.  The Government will make a fortune!"

As is typically the case, what is intended, and what is reality are not the same:

Colorado's tax collections from recreational marijuana sales in the past fiscal year came in more than 60 percent below early predictions, and now a state lawmaker says it may be time to reconsider the tax formula.

State Rep. Dan Pabon, who is leading a special legislative committee on marijuana revenue, said the medical-marijuana system also may come under scrutiny.

"There's some real impact that the medical marijuana market is having on the recreational marijuana market," said Pabon, D-Denver. "I think it's worth looking at the taxation on the recreational side but also looking at the rules and regulations on the medical side."

...

When Colorado voters approved special taxes on recreational marijuana in November, the official fiscal analysis estimated the taxes would bring in a combined $33.5 million through that fiscal year, which ended this summer. Budgeters for Gov. John Hickenlooper had similarly optimistic projections.

But the actual number came in at just more than $12 million.

A market study for the Colorado Department of Revenue says the lower-taxed medical-marijuana market, which continues to outpace the recreational market in sales, is to blame.

Rather than pulling consumers out of the medical-marijuana market, the recreational market largely has feasted on tourists and people who previously bought pot on the black market.

The problem lies with how it is taxed.  "Medical" pot is taxed at a much lower rate than "Retail" dope.  It's not too difficult to get a note from your doctor for weed, so smart smokers are going the medicinal route.

Big deal, WAMK.  So tax revenues are down.  What difference does it make?  Well, when the Governor puts tax revenue numbers at $98 million this year from pot, there may be a healthy shortfall.  Considering voters were told to expect around $70 million in tax revenue when it was put on the ballot, it may have been a better idea to underpromise, and overdeliver this year.

Hopefully, the tax revenues catch up to projections.  If it's legal, we may as well get every penny we can from it.

Go for it, California!

You shouldn't stop at only $.o15 per mile, go big, and show the rest of us how awesome you are! 

The California Legislature is looking at a voluntary program that would tax motorists for every mile they drive.

KCAL9’s Bobby Kaple reports that Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, introduced a bill to test out the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tax because the state’s gas tax was no longer bringing in the revenue it used to due to people driving more fuel efficient vehicles.

The program is modeled after ones in Oregon and Washington.

“We want to do as Washington and Oregon have done in a much bigger state with much longer commutes…to make sure that we find out whether it would work, whether the public would like it or not,” DeSaulnier said.

It’s unknown how much the tax would be, but Oregon currently charges its volunteers 1.5 cents per mile.

“All of those things would be determined. We would let the agency determine that because this would be a voluntary program,” DeSaulnier said.

Southland commuters were not thrilled about the idea of a VMT tax.

“I bought a hybrid…one, because of my drive. I’m very opposed. I drive to Brentwood every day from Burbank, and I am already paying more than I should be,” Carmen Smith said.

“So if we go on vacation and I drive up to Mammoth, that’s 600 miles. We’re being taxed on vacations?” Kim Robinson said.

It shouldn't be voluntary, either.  Make it mandatory, and have residents send in photos of their odometers at the beginning of each month, and just to be safe, have their milage recorded when you get your emissions done.  Get every penny you "deserve" from taxpayers, Golden State!

2 1/2 times more Denverites signed up for Medicaid, than for private insurance..

Disgusting and unsustainable:

In Denver, 2½ times as many people enrolled in the taxpayer-funded Medicaid program from October through the first quarter of 2014 as those who signed up for private insurance through the state exchange, state figures show.

And in Colorado and nationwide, Medicaid enrollments outpace private insurance registrants.

Colorado ranked 11th in the nation of states with the highest percentage of Medicaid enrollments compared with private insurance subscribers through marketplaces as of the end of February, a Denver Post analysis of federal numbers shows.

State Sen. Kent Lambert, a Colorado Springs Republican who serves on the Joint Budget Committee, said the Medicaid figures show that the Affordable Care Act was more about expanding government-funded health care than getting more people covered by private health insurance.

"It's a huge burden on taxpayers," Lambert said. "Colorado made a decision, the governor made a decision under Democratic leadership to expand the criteria for Medicaid to a much larger population, and the federal government also expanded Medicaid."

So we forced lots of folks onto a taxpayer-funded program, that is already overburdened.  Obviously that means taxes will have to go up, to meet the new demands.

Nice program, Mr. President.

Even those that were willing to pay for their own coverage, were surprised to learn they get it for free:

Denver resident Patrick Jones tried to sign up for private health insurance through the state exchange after quitting his job to return to get more work training, but he said he was directed to Medicaid.

"I was shocked," said the 27-year-old who left an Internet marketing job to learn programming through an online course. "I was ready to pay for insurance, and I was shocked when I was told you are going to receive Medicaid."

But Jones is happy because he gets insurance coverage with no monthly premium at least until he starts a new job and gets employer coverage or makes too much to qualify for Medicaid.

 

New Obamacare tax is delaying some tax returns..

Can't file your return until the forms (and the calculations) are ready.  Turbo Tax doesn't want to expose itself to audits and refilings, so they wait:

Some TurboTax customers are mad at Intuit, maker of the popular tax-prep software, because they've finished their returns but are unable to file. Their anger is misplaced. They should blame the Internal Revenue Service, along with the 111th Congress and President Obama for enacting and signing the tax increase with which TurboTax can't yet comply. (They could also blame George W. Bush if they're in a jocose frame of mind.)

At issue is ObamaCare's new 3.8% "net investment income tax." It took effect Jan. 1, 2013, so that taxpayers are encountering it just now as they prepare their returns for last year. In effect, it applies the Medicare payroll tax to interest, dividends and capital gains.

But it doesn't apply to all such income. If your modified adjusted gross income is under $200,000 (or $250,000 for a married couple), you don't pay the tax at all. Further, if your modified AGI is above the threshold but your noninvestment income is below it, the tax is applied on the difference between your total income and the threshold.

If that's hard to follow, here's an example: Suppose you're an unmarried taxpayer with a modified AGI of $210,000 and investment income of $20,000. Your net investment income is $10,000, the portion of your investment income above the total income threshold of $200,000. Your net investment income tax is 3.8% of this sum, or $380.

If you owe net investment income, you have to complete a single-page Form 8960 to calculate your modified AGI and the tax. But the form's brevity belies the new tax's complexity, as tax expert Tony Nitti wrote in a Forbes.com piece last month:

When we saw that this new, complex area of the law would ultimately be computed on a one-page form, we anticipated that the meat of the computation would be done off-form in worksheets provided by the instructions. And that's exactly what happened. But that shifts the onus back to us as tax advisors to make sure our inputs are correct, which means we must understand the nuances of the final regulations.

Nitti wrote that Jan. 7, the day after the IRS released its instructions for Form 8960. But those instructions are not final; they include a cover sheet that warns: "DRAFT--NOT FOR FILING." Taxpayers, tax advisers and tax-prep software developers are still awaiting the final instructions.

Hence the TurboTax users' frustration. "Form 8960 was realeased [sic] by the IRS on 1/24/14 but Turbo Tax keeps delaying it's [sic] release every week, for another week!" a user complained last week on Intuit's TurboTax AnswerXchange online forum. "I'm calling BS on this as they have had access to the draft form for months! When is TT actually going to make this form available and stop extending the dates? And why should we keep waiting for this form when other providers already have it available?"

Actually, Intuit has incorporated the form into its software. But for the moment, it won't allow users to complete a return that includes an 8960. An AnswerXchange moderator answers the query by explaining that in response to complaints from users--some of whom have switched to other tax-prep software to get the job done--"we will enable the filing of Form 8960 late on Feb. 26 (or possibly early the next morning) based on draft instructions."

But the moderator warns: "If you make the decision to file now, you may need to amend your return if the final instructions produce a tax liability different than the liability computed using draft instructions. You assume responsibility for checking for product updates to determine if the final instructions require an amended return and for paying any additional tax and interest."

But WAMK, I'm not one of those Super Rich that have an AGI over $200k.  Big deal!  If you think the $200k threshold won't be dropping year over year, I've got some lovely land to sell you in Florida.

As unemployment stays high, more people receive benefits, and Obamacare continues to not live up to expectations, more money will have to be thrown at it.  That money will come from those that have jobs, and the pool will be made wider to get as much as possible.

In other words, you're next.

Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes?

We never said 7 million, that was some lousy Government agency (who's word we've always held as Gospel, by the way):

 

 

This thing is a massive failure.  The only way it can be defended is with lies. 

At a time when enrollments should be ramping up (after all, the Big Cheese at HHS just told us how awesome the website is now), enrollment is actually below projections:

The Department of Health and Human Services on Tuesday declared a "significant milestone" for President Obama's health care law by claiming that 4 million Americans had now signed up for coverage. But a closer examination of the numbers suggests that the pace of sign-ups is slowing.

In a similar blog post on Jan. 24, Marilyn Tavenner, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, praised the "milestone" of 3 million sign-ups. That represented a gain of 800,000 individuals since the end of December, when HHS had put the number at 2.2 million.

But the Tuesday claim of 4 million sign-ups represents a smaller 700,000 gain from the 3.3 million total the administration reported as of Feb. 1.

Those paying attention also recognize that the definition of an enrollee is somewhat broad, and neglects to point out how many signed up only because they lost their old coverage:

The HHS numbers include only those who have selected a plan through one of the exchanges, rather than the number who have paid -- which is typically how insurers measure enrollment. As a gauge, last week California reported that 20 percent of those who signed up in the state as of Jan. 31 hadn't paid first month's premiums.

Additionally, HHS does not reveal how many of those signing up for insurance through the exchanges were previously covered. Millions of Americans received insurance cancellation letters last fall, as insurers were forced to discontinue policies that didn't live up to Obamacare's guidelines.

Consider that for a second.  Obamacare needs 7 million uninsured people to sign up, to kep the boat afloat.  They can't even muster half of that by cancelling people's plans, forcing them to become "members".

Failure at every turn with this crew.  If only the American Voter had been warned.

You know what would help fraud like this go away?

Budgets.  When you don't have oversight, and it is apparent no one cares, why wouldn't you spend like a drunken sailor?

One federal employee leased a $53,000 take-home car with taxpayer money in apparent defiance of federal regulations and regularly billed the government for service at shops such as BMW of Fairfax.

Others charged the government monthly for family members’ cell phones and high-end TV packages and Internet at home — and even at second homes.

Managers freely made out checks to employees without requiring documentation of how it would be spent, giving $1,316 directly to one who said she was reimbursing herself for furniture she bought for a “home office” and using convenience checks to give workers bonuses.

Government employees used federal purchase cards to order items such as a $560 Bose stereo and $1,490 for two high-definition televisions that could not be located.

All of these examples happened at the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, an obscure runaway government agency where the median annual salary is $120,000.

That amount far exceeds the national median household income but it wasn't enough for many FMCS employees, many of whom routinely charged nearly every conceivable expense to government credit cards known as “purchase cards,” according to bank records reviewed by the Washington Examiner.

Even the bank didn’t know where much of the money went, because it was paid using checks with an “illegible payee.”

Disgusting waste of taxpayer money, and this is just one agency.  What is the true cost throughout the entire Government?

You remember what Nancy Pelosi said a few weeks ago, right?

 

Obamacare gets ANOTHER delay..

Usually not a good sign when your signature legislation gets its THIRD exemption from implementation:

First, there was the delay of Obamacare’s Medicare cuts until after the election. Then there was the delay of the law’s employer mandate. Then there was the announcement, buried in the Federal Register, that the administration would delay enforcement of a number of key eligibility requirements for the law’s health insurance subsidies, relying on the “honor system” instead. Now comes word that another costly provision of the health law—its caps on out-of-pocket insurance costs—will be delayed for one more year.

According to the Congressional Research Service, as of November 2011, the Obama administration had missed as many as one-third of the deadlines, specified by law, under the Affordable Care Act. Here are the details on the latest one.

Obamacare contains a blizzard of mandates and regulations that will make health insurance more costly. One of the most significant is its caps on out-of-pocket insurance costs, such as co-pays and deductibles. Section 2707(b) of the Public Health Service Act, as added by Obamacare, requires that “a group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may not establish lifetime limits on the dollar value of benefits for the any participant or beneficiary.” Annual limits on cost-sharing are specified by Section 1302(c) of the Affordable Care Act; in addition, starting in 2014, deductibles are limited to $2,000 per year for individual plans, and $4,000 per year for family plans.

There’s no such thing as a free lunch. If you ban lifetime limits, and mandate lower deductibles, and cap out-of-pocket costs, premiums have to go up to reflect these changes. And unlike a lot of the “rate shock” problems we’ve been discussing, these limits apply not only to individually-purchased health insurance, but also to employer-sponsored coverage. (Self-insured employers are exempted.)

These mandates have already had drastic effects on a number of colleges and universities, which offer inexpensive, defined-cap plans to their healthy, youthful students. Premiums at Lenoir-Rhyne University in Hickory, N.C., for example, rose from $245 per student in 2011-2012 to between $2,507 in 2012-2013. The University of Puget Sound paid $165 per student in 2011-2012; their rates rose to between $1,500 and $2,000 for 2012-2013. Other schools have been forced to drop coverage because they could no longer afford it.

According to the law, the limits on out-of-pocket costs for 2014 were $6,350 for individual policies and $12,700 for family ones. But in February, the Department of Labor published a little-noticed rule delaying the cap until 2015. The delay was described yesterday by Robert Pear in the New York Times.

Notes Pear, “Under the [one-year delay], many group health plans will be able to maintain separate out-of-pocket limits for benefits in 2014. As a result, a consumer may be required to pay $6,350 for doctors’ services and hospital care, and an additional $6,350 for prescription drugs under a plan administered by a pharmacy benefit manager.”

The bottom line is, the legislation that was rammed through Congress is full of landmines, causing delays (which are likely illegal to grant in the first place).  Should we really be surprised by this latest revelation?

Oof.

Lefty has to scratch a sizable check to the Tax Man:

According to Forbes, Mickelson has been subjected to the United Kingdom’s 45 percent tax rate for those who make more than £150,000 a year. In addition, the magazine reports, he will be taxed on a portion of the endorsement income he earned during his time in Scotland.

While Mickelson can take a foreign tax credit to avoid being taxed again by the U.S. government, he still has to pay self-employment taxes, the new Medicare surtax, and hand over 13.3 percent of his wages to the state of California, which does not have a foreign tax credit, Forbes reported.

Forbes estimates he will take home $842,700, which, of course, does not include any of his tax-deductible travel expenses and the additional 10 percent he owes to his caddy.

Having fun on the beaches of Southern California is pretty much illegal now..

The sign speaks volumes, now wealthy residents have gotten their way, and bonfires are soon to follow:

Ultra-wealthy Southern California residents have just won a victory in the battle to impose their social preferences on the poor. The neo-puritan landowners of Newport Beach, worried about their “asthma and allergies,” have convinced air-quality regulators to make it impossibly hard for the public to use the beach fire-pits that have lined California’s coast for half a century. Sixty fire pits in Newport will be removed, and local officials can now ban them entirely if they decide “that the fires are causing a nuisance.” The WSJ reports:

The governing board of the South Coast Air Quality Management District voted Friday to amend rules for 765 fire rings on the beaches of Los Angeles and Orange counties. […]

The new rules require that fire pits be located at least 700 feet from the nearest residence, or spaced 50 to 100 feet apart, depending on the total number of pits at a given beach. Fires aren’t allowed on days where the air-quality forecast calls for high levels of particulate matter. […]

Residents who have adamantly opposed any bans on the pits were upset with the ruling. Republican Assemblyman Travis Allen of Huntington Beach, who sponsored a state resolution to protect the fire-ring tradition, said the board “overstepped its bounds…to appease a small group of wealthy landowners at the expense of all Californians.”

This is what actual class warfare looks like: rich citizens winning legal battles to regulate and restrict the freedom of the lower classes to enjoy their beach communities.

Ironic that I can take my "service dog" on the plane, but not to the beach.  Will some brave soul in the golden State sue to allow their "anxiety dog" to lounge on the beach with them?

Not that it will matter to our friends on the Left, but..

Here are five myths about the IRS scandal.

The five myths/talking points are:

1. It was a few rogue agents in Cincy
2. Targeting stopped in 2012
3. Liberal groups were also targeted
4. No political motivations
5. The case is "solved"