I hate doing my taxes. Boring. And, the amount of money taken by Uncle Sam is always a downer. And the mountains of paperwork, 1099, W-2, 140, Schedule A,B,D,E... X,Y,Z. Aargh!
For years I have been doing them with an Excel spreadsheet. But this year I gave up, I bought Turbotax, and got on with it. I have to say, Turbotax reduces the pain enough to justify the program's cost. It comes in four levels. Lowest and cheapest level only does fairly simple returns. I had to buy level 3 ($90) before the program would handle the capital gains you get when you sell some stock. The interface is pretty user friendly, like 100% better than anything you find in those IRS instruction sheets. The program offers to download your 1099 forms from your stock broker, but for this feature to work you have to have "opened" a web window, complete with username and password into your stock account. I never did that, fearing hackers would get in and steal everything I own. So I had to type in all the numbers from the 1099s. But that's not too bad, I touch type, once it's down, you are golden.
Turbotax urges your strongly to efile. I don't, 'cause when you efile, your return can go right into the IRS computers, and if you screwed up, those computers will be on your case for more money quicktime. If IRS has to hand key your return into their computers, or even just run it thru an optical scanner, they may not bother if your return looks reasonable.
Don't ask Turbotax to "print" your return. When I did so, it printed out 44 pages of return and then fell into a loop printing page after page of pure gibberish. Instead ask Turbotax to make a pdf file of your return. Then print it out using Adobe.
Turbotax understands all the obscure extra forms that you can file to get little tax breaks here and there. It did a couple of forms I'd never seen before and saved me bits and pieces of money.
Saturday, April 5, 2014
Why Nations Fail by Daron Acemoglu & James Robinson
The title is intriguing. Does this book reveal the secrets of national economic success? Point out things that lead to national poverty? Read on.
It is an infuriating read. Glittering generalities, vague language. Few real examples. Some of the few examples given are plain wrong. Other examples are taken from obscure times and places unfamiliar to all but a few specialists. The authors settle down to condemning "extractive policies" and praising "inclusive policies" without either defining these ideas or giving many examples. They do tell us how the Spanish Conquistadors stuck it to the conquered Indians, but that is about it for examples. They speak disparagingly about Jared Diamond's theory but it is clear that they don't understand what Diamond was saying. They claim the English Civil War was a turning point that set England upon the course to the industrial revolution. But they don't discuss the sides, the issues, the winners, the losers, the connection with the industrial revolution, or the outcome.
The thesis of the book is that national wealth or poverty is determined by government policy, but things break down there. "Inclusive policies" adopted by governments lead to wealth, extractive policies lead to poverty. Which sounds like " The gostalk distims the doshes" to me. The best examples given are the two Korea's, and an obscure town on the US-Mexican border. With the same history, geography, natural resources, ethnicity, North Korea lives in poverty whereas South Korea is one of the richest nations on earth. The only difference between North and South is the government. The border splits Nogales in two, the town on the US side is healthier, wealthier, and better served than the town on the Mexican side. All of which is well known and obvious, but no details are given. What specifically makes the successful ones successful.
One of the authors, Robinson, is a Harvard professor, the other ,Acemoglu, is an MIT professor. I don't expect much of Harvard professors, but I am disappointed that an MIT faculty member would put his name to such an unsatisfactory piece of writing.
It is an infuriating read. Glittering generalities, vague language. Few real examples. Some of the few examples given are plain wrong. Other examples are taken from obscure times and places unfamiliar to all but a few specialists. The authors settle down to condemning "extractive policies" and praising "inclusive policies" without either defining these ideas or giving many examples. They do tell us how the Spanish Conquistadors stuck it to the conquered Indians, but that is about it for examples. They speak disparagingly about Jared Diamond's theory but it is clear that they don't understand what Diamond was saying. They claim the English Civil War was a turning point that set England upon the course to the industrial revolution. But they don't discuss the sides, the issues, the winners, the losers, the connection with the industrial revolution, or the outcome.
The thesis of the book is that national wealth or poverty is determined by government policy, but things break down there. "Inclusive policies" adopted by governments lead to wealth, extractive policies lead to poverty. Which sounds like " The gostalk distims the doshes" to me. The best examples given are the two Korea's, and an obscure town on the US-Mexican border. With the same history, geography, natural resources, ethnicity, North Korea lives in poverty whereas South Korea is one of the richest nations on earth. The only difference between North and South is the government. The border splits Nogales in two, the town on the US side is healthier, wealthier, and better served than the town on the Mexican side. All of which is well known and obvious, but no details are given. What specifically makes the successful ones successful.
One of the authors, Robinson, is a Harvard professor, the other ,Acemoglu, is an MIT professor. I don't expect much of Harvard professors, but I am disappointed that an MIT faculty member would put his name to such an unsatisfactory piece of writing.
Friday, April 4, 2014
Ivan Lopez?
How does a man get a Russian Christian name and a Spanish surname? The newsies haven't looked into this at all.
Thursday, April 3, 2014
Jeanne Shaheen casts 96 votes so far this year
That's about one vote a day. Actually the Senate has this quaint custom of requiring two votes on every issue. First they vote to take a vote, and then they vote on the issue. So less business than you might think got transacted. So what did our democratic senator vote for?
Top vote getter, with 55 voters, was nominations. Judges mostly but some administration appointees like Janet Yellen for the Federal Reserve chairman. The rest of 'em were just middle weight judges for all over the country. The constitution does require the "advise and consent" of the Senate for judicial appointments, but I never expected anything like that number of judges.
Next , there are the 9 votes cast to extend unemployment benefits beyond two years. Used to be, un employment only lasted a few weeks to tide you over til you found a new job. Now it runs for two years, and Jeanne voted 9 times to make it even longer.
Then there a 8 votes for the "doc fix". Some years ago, Congress voted a sizable cut in medicaid/medicare rates. The doctors all screamed. Rather than repeal the cuts for good, Congress votes a postponement of them, every year. Nothing is ever really final in Washington.
Then we come to 8 votes for mystery bills. The website said "No short title submitted for this bill". So it could be anything. The Senate should never pass a mystery bill. If we don't even have a title, it could be anything, and is probably harmful. Jeanne voted for these concealed time bombs 8 times.
And now we get to flood insurance. Private companies refuse to write flood insurance because it's a loser. Everyone knows which land will get flooded and which won't. Homeowners liable to getting flooded buy flood insurance. Homeowners on higher ground don't. All flood insurance policies have to pay off after the flood happens. In response to the cries of owners of waterfront property, and realtors, and mortgage lenders, Congess passed a federal flood insurance plan years ago. You can buy flood insurance from the feds, the premiums aren't cheap, but the coverage is first rate. And Uncle Sam looses barrels of money after every flood. It got so bad, that the Biggert-Waters reform act was passed in 2012 to try and limit taxpayer losses.Since nothing is ever final in Washington, the flood insurance lobby keeps bringing up bills to repeal Biggert-Waters. Jeanne Shaheen voted for Biggert- Water repeal 4 times.
And we have 4 votes in favor of assorted waivers to Obamacare. Three votes in favor of reforms that are supposed to do something about sexual assault in the armed forces. 2 votes in favor of the farm bill, and a single vote each for Ukraine aid, raise the federal debt limit, and to kill parts of the Budget Control Act.
So. We have 55 votes for democratic judge nominees, 27 votes that give taxpayer money away, 8 mystery votes, 6 miscellaneous votes.
Scott Brown is looking better and better,
Top vote getter, with 55 voters, was nominations. Judges mostly but some administration appointees like Janet Yellen for the Federal Reserve chairman. The rest of 'em were just middle weight judges for all over the country. The constitution does require the "advise and consent" of the Senate for judicial appointments, but I never expected anything like that number of judges.
Next , there are the 9 votes cast to extend unemployment benefits beyond two years. Used to be, un employment only lasted a few weeks to tide you over til you found a new job. Now it runs for two years, and Jeanne voted 9 times to make it even longer.
Then there a 8 votes for the "doc fix". Some years ago, Congress voted a sizable cut in medicaid/medicare rates. The doctors all screamed. Rather than repeal the cuts for good, Congress votes a postponement of them, every year. Nothing is ever really final in Washington.
Then we come to 8 votes for mystery bills. The website said "No short title submitted for this bill". So it could be anything. The Senate should never pass a mystery bill. If we don't even have a title, it could be anything, and is probably harmful. Jeanne voted for these concealed time bombs 8 times.
And now we get to flood insurance. Private companies refuse to write flood insurance because it's a loser. Everyone knows which land will get flooded and which won't. Homeowners liable to getting flooded buy flood insurance. Homeowners on higher ground don't. All flood insurance policies have to pay off after the flood happens. In response to the cries of owners of waterfront property, and realtors, and mortgage lenders, Congess passed a federal flood insurance plan years ago. You can buy flood insurance from the feds, the premiums aren't cheap, but the coverage is first rate. And Uncle Sam looses barrels of money after every flood. It got so bad, that the Biggert-Waters reform act was passed in 2012 to try and limit taxpayer losses.Since nothing is ever final in Washington, the flood insurance lobby keeps bringing up bills to repeal Biggert-Waters. Jeanne Shaheen voted for Biggert- Water repeal 4 times.
And we have 4 votes in favor of assorted waivers to Obamacare. Three votes in favor of reforms that are supposed to do something about sexual assault in the armed forces. 2 votes in favor of the farm bill, and a single vote each for Ukraine aid, raise the federal debt limit, and to kill parts of the Budget Control Act.
So. We have 55 votes for democratic judge nominees, 27 votes that give taxpayer money away, 8 mystery votes, 6 miscellaneous votes.
Scott Brown is looking better and better,
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
CIA pleads its Behghazi case
They are on TV as I write this. They had a CIA guy name of Morell (a good name in mushrooms) in front of a Congressional committee. Morell was acting CIA director at the time. He had a group of (unnamed) DC based CIA pundits (analysts he called them) gin up a report on Bengasi, day after it happened. He says the analysts never talked to the White House, no pressure was ever placed on them, and they came up with the "It was a protest that got out of hand" story. Some hour later, a report from the CIA station chief on the ground in Benghasi came in, the station chief called it a terrorist attack. Morell claims he passed the station chief's report on the the analyists, and the analysts stuck with their story. So Morrell decided to go with the DC based chairborne warriors rather than the field officer on the scene. And that's how Susan Rice went on the talk shows that Sunday and peddled the "demonstration that got out of hand" story to the country.
Good work Morell. Anyone knows that first hand reports from a responsible man on the scene are more dependable than vaporings from DC pundits.
Good work Morell. Anyone knows that first hand reports from a responsible man on the scene are more dependable than vaporings from DC pundits.
What's wrong with making political contributions?
I dunno. But Harry Reid thinks it is unAmerican for the Koch brothers to contribute money in support of their political beliefs. Far as I am concerned, putting money behind your political beliefs is a commendable act of good citizenship.. Especially when I agree with some of those beliefs. There are plenty of left wing rich guys giving money to Democrats (the name George Soros comes to mind ).
America is a two party country. Supporting either party is a public good.
America is a two party country. Supporting either party is a public good.
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
It's acceptable even if it doesn't meet spec.
This from Mary Barra, new GM CEO to a Congressional committee investigating the GM ignition switch failures.
In all my career in engineering, I never heard anyone ever say anything like that. The rule anywhere I ever worked was simple, if it doesn't meet spec, back it goes and we don't pay for it. That's what incoming inspection is about.
To hear the CEO of GM, a long time engineer there, say that GM would accept parts that don't meet spec means that GM doesn't believe in written quality standards. Apparently GM will ship anything, whether it is any good or not.
Talk about a dysfunctional corporate culture.
Mulally at Ford would never say anything like that.
My next car won't be from GM.
In all my career in engineering, I never heard anyone ever say anything like that. The rule anywhere I ever worked was simple, if it doesn't meet spec, back it goes and we don't pay for it. That's what incoming inspection is about.
To hear the CEO of GM, a long time engineer there, say that GM would accept parts that don't meet spec means that GM doesn't believe in written quality standards. Apparently GM will ship anything, whether it is any good or not.
Talk about a dysfunctional corporate culture.
Mulally at Ford would never say anything like that.
My next car won't be from GM.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)