Are Your Ready To Get Backdoored?

Hi Everyone,

Here in New York State, Governor Cuomo, signed a law that was suppose to cap taxes at a maximum of 2% each year for both property and school taxes. Of course there are municipalities and school boards that blatantly go over the tax cap, as per the written media. But today's blog isn't about what happens to the municipalities or school boards that go over the tax cap or even the ones that either stay at or below the tax cap. Today's blog is about a blatant taxing entity that is trying a new and more sinister method of raising taxes above the 2% tax cap; but still have their records reflect that they stayed at or below the maximum cap.

How is this possible? How can you raise taxes above 2% and have the "books" legally show that they didn't? That means that the taxing entities found a way around the tax cap. Well the Westchester county, city of Rye  school board is thinking about enacting a 3% tax on utility bills to pay for their increased education costs. Believe it or not, this tax would be applied to all electricity, natural gas and telephone services. What a backdoor kick in the butt to each and every taxpayer.

What is even more astonishing is that the city of Rye is not the first municipality or school board to do this. Other Westchester County municipalities that already have utility taxes are: White Plains, New Rochelle, Peekskill and Mount Vernon and in addition, Rockland County even has a county wide 4% tax. If utilities rates are taxed at a fixed rate of 3 or 4% which was approved by some board, that tax increase was not approved by a majority of the voters. So would that mean that voters would only be allowed to vote on the original up to 2% increase as required by law? It certainly seems to be that way. That would mean that the taxing entities couldn't care less about whether their budget votes passed or not. The taxing entity boards would then be able, when needed to make up the difference, to increase the utility taxes without it being voted on. Where will this end and at what cost to the taxpayers? This utility tax makes no sense and to top it off, it might bring the feeling of entitlement and consequently mismanagement. 

Now to pour a whole lot of salt on the wounds of these poor taxpayers, they would also not be able to deduct their utility taxes on their tax returns, which eventually could be a sizeable amount.

Hopefully these backdoor taxes will be repealed, sooner rather than later.

Til next week.

Peter

Stealing Legally

Hi Everyone,

I was reading the newspaper a few weeks ago and again I found an article that blew me away.  Highway robbery is a very mild analogy to what I found out. Pew Charitable Trusts did some new research and wrote a report regarding the nation's highest interest rates for payday loans. Keep in mind, that payday loans are used a lot by low income wage earners who desperately need a small loan, when unexpected expenses occur, i.e. car repair bills. So that is why I was blown away by the interest rates that are charged.

So if you were to guess how high you think these payday interest rates can get, what would be your guess? Hold onto to you hats. Somehow all of these rates are legal. The state with the highest rate is Idaho with a rate of 582%! Yes you read that correctly, 582%. South Dakota and Wisconsin are tied in second place with 574%. Then comes Nevada, 521%, Delaware, 517% and Utah, 474%. Some other states that have the lowest of the high interest rates are: Maine, 217%, Oregon, 156% and Colorado at 129%. Fifteen states either ban payday loans or cap interest rates at 36%. Without a limit on interest rates, competition among lenders does not tend to lower rates much, according to Pew's new research.

Now I understand that these loans are made without collateral, other then having a weekly paycheck, to people who most likely don't have anywhere near a good credit score. So the people who need these loans the most, due to their financial circumstances, will always pay the highest interest rates. I am not sure how many of these loans go unpaid, but rates up to 582% seems very unreasonably high, grossly unfair and seems to me to be a legal form of stealing from people and a bonanza to the lenders. But somehow the rates are legit and people continue to use these payday loans.

Til next week.

Peter

The New Wild, Wild West

Hi Everyone,

OK so maybe it isn't actually the wild west, but it definitely will be the wild, wild south. There is a change coming that I believe will not have the outcome that the politicians are expecting. Changes like this will be detrimental to the health and welfare of its citizens. What am I talking about? I am talking about how the state of Georgia has decided that it is a good thing for all licensed gun owners to be able to carry their firearms almost anywhere. Georgia Governor Nathan Deal, a Republican, signed the state's Safe Carry Protection Act. Where will they be able to carry their firearms as of July 1, 2014? How about bars, schools, churches and government buildings that don't have, no gun rules and non-secure areas in airports. The licensed gun owners would be able to carry their firearms without restrictions. The new law also allows school districts to decide whether they want their employees to carry a firearm.

Of course the NRA, (which touts a membership of 5 million, which is a very small minority of Americans), says that Georgia's new law, according to USA Today, is "the most comprehensive pro-gun reform legislation introduced in recent history."  The gun rights group GeorgiaCarry.org believes that the law will, "restore our right to carry and be allowed to protect ourselves anywhere we go," executive director Jerry Henry stated. Also remember that the NRA has fought any attempts to just tighten restrictions on acquiring a gun license.

This new, lack of common sense law even removes a restriction that prevented those convicted of certain misdemeanors from getting a gun permit. In addition, this law will unbelievably deny police the ability to detain a person, "for the sole purpose of investigating whether such a person has a weapons carry license." Which means if you can't be stopped by police to check to see if one has a carry license, why get a carry license in the first place? Finally, this idiotic law establishes an absolute defense for the legal use of deadly force of a violent attack.

You've got to be kidding!!! What is happening with this country? If you listen to and believe what the NRA says, "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Well this is the hypothetical scenario I could and probably would see happening after 7/1. Of all the places guns should never be mixed with is bars, where alcohol is served. So there are 2 guys drinking at a bar when an argument ensues. One pulls out his gun and shoots at the other, but misses him. Someone behind the intended target gets shot and the injured person returns fire, but because he was shot, misses his intended target and shoots another innocent bystander and so on and so forth. Then the headlines would read, 10 killed and many more hurt in drunken shooting melee at some bar. Come on, we all know someone that if they drink too much, they take on a different persona and could and would do something stupid. Now suppose that person carried a firearm. Would they be able to restrain themselves? Remember that since the police can't detain someone to check if they have a carry license, why even get a carry license?

Can anyone tell me why this law is a good idea? This law will fail like Florida's, Stand your ground law is failing now. I don't see people feeling safer with this law, but rather more unsafe and afraid with the potential of innocent people getting injured or killed in places where guns were never allowed previously. More guns in public places means more shootings. This law should really be called, the guns everywhere law.

Once again, politicians don't have or won't use any common sense in passing another asinine law. Now it seems that this law will only die after one to many real people die. Go figure! Remind me not to visit Georgia any time soon.

Til next week.

Peter

2 fer, part deux

Hi Everyone,

For only the second time, I am giving you all 2 quickies today. Every once in a while I find a quote that someone said and to me, makes so much sense that I have to share it.

#1) This is from William Graham Sumner, (1840-1910). "All history is only one long story to this effect: men have struggled for power over their fellow men in order that they might win the joys of the earth at the expense of others and might shift the burdens of life from their own shoulders upon those of others." This certainly seems true even today.

#2) In today's Sunday paper, there is an article in the Money section about the price of beef. The bottom line is that this country is facing the highest beef prices in 3 decades. This is true with both consumers and restaurant owners. Additionally, it doesn't matter which cut of beef you want, London Broil, T-Bone, Prime Rib, Rib Eye, Hamburger meat, etc., etc. all the prices have risen.

The news media has been talking about a beef shortage since last year when a terrible drought forced many cattle ranchers to sell off their herds prematurely, before they would be normally ready. There were no grasslands and the cost of hay was too expensive to feed their herds. So I figured that, that was the reason for the sharp increases in beef prices we are seeing now. But, oh boy was I wrong! Another part of this equation and is just as equally important, is the growing export demand from countries such as China and Japan. Now that part of the equation was never mentioned in other news outlets. Seems that there is quandary with our US owned cattle ranchers. Keep the price increases to a lesser amount by not selling so much overseas or continue selling overseas and keep the price increases to the max. With 25% price increases so far, how high will the price of beef go?

Unfortunately, as we have seen so many times before, when a food price increases, we never return to the price prior to the increases. A great example is the cost of Orange Juice. Some years ago, there were frosts in Florida, that heavily damaged the citrus crops. OJ prices immediately shot up and the price never returned to pre-frost prices. AND, in a recent study, Americans now drink 40% less OJ then they did 10 or 20 years ago and the price just keep rising. What happened to Economics 101, supply and demand?

So what does this all mean? We obviously can't control Mother Nature in regards to droughts and frosts etc. But the amount of beef sold overseas can and should be controlled, especially in the event of a severe drought like what is currently happening out west. Common sense is never on the front burner with these kind of issues, but greed is, which is unfortunate for all of us.

Til next week.

Peter

Money to Burn?!

Hi Everyone,

If anyone has had a job where traveling and/or overnight stays were a part of the job, your reimbursement was based on one very important factor. You had to submit your receipts in order to get reimbursed. If you lost or didn't keep your receipts, you were out of luck and didn't get reimbursed. During all my years in the corporate world, I never heard of a company that reimbursed employees without any receipts. No receipts, no payment period!

So I just read about how our New York State lawmakers get reimbursed for their out of pocket expenses when they have to travel to Albany. Our state elected politicians collect a $172.00 a day, per diem. That money is suppose to cover their hotel and meals for each and every day they are in the Capitol. The per diem is for lawmakers who come from outside of the Capitol. The lawmakers can and do also claim mileage expenses and train tickets for additional reimbursements. Recently, I was quite shocked when I read a newspaper article that our NYS lawmakers are not required to submit any receipts or documentation, what so ever, in order to receive their per diem payments. What?!

What world do our lawmakers live in? Like so many other ways, our state lawmakers work by a whole other different set of rules which private sector companies would never, ever consider or even implement for that matter. Not having to submit receipts or even documentation leads to misuse and even fraud. Consequently, there is no way to verify what the lawmakers actual expenses are. If our lawmakers had just one ounce of common sense, they would change the rules so that they would have to submit their expenses for an actual dollar for dollar reimbursement. I am not sure how much money could and would be saved if receipts were required, but I bet there would be a substantial savings to the overtaxed NYS residents. For the politicians who make extra money by actually using less than the $172.00 per diem, unfortunately, I don't see them trying to change the rules that would take away their ill gotten gains anytime soon.

If you agree with me, and you live in NYS, you should contact your state representative and tell them to end this absurd and deceitful practice. We've had enough of this kind of wasteful spending. I just don't get why politicians think they are entitled to more money then they actually spend while in Albany.

Til next week.

Peter 

Say It Ain't So!

Hi Everyone,

Sometimes I get into a mood for searching weird things on the web. I like reading papers from other countries. Seems that we are more alike than not. Especially when it comes to common sense or the lack thereof. A few weeks ago, while perusing the web, an article in the Daily Mail, a British newspaper, caught my eye and then some...

The paper reported that a local new start-up manufacturer had made and sold more than 10,000 bras. Now these weren't just any ordinary bras. They were, what the company said, were high tech made bras!? Not long after women started wearing them, a few surprising problems became quite evident. The problems were unique and unprecedented stated the Daily Mail. But what was even more surprising, was the fact that the problems didn't affect the wearers what so ever. The problems affected the general public at large. What???

Apparently the support wire in these new fangled bras had been made out of a kind of copper wire that was originally and specifically designed for the sole use in very special home alarm systems. So get this... when the copper wire came in contact with nylon and body heat, it produced static electricity. The static electricity then interfered with any cell phone, tablet etc., etc., near the wearer of the bra. Then the unthinkable happened, anyone with a pace maker in close proximity to the wearer of the bra, but not the wearer, reported problems with their pace makers. The Chief Engineer of British TeleCom, Lirpa Sloof, stated that she had never heard of such a problem and that they are looking into all of the reported occurrences and will report on their findings.

Now I can't necessarily fault the company for the weird coincidences that produced the problems. Who could have foreseen such problems occurring by making bras? So who can I fault? Well, all I can say is.. April Fools!!! No such thing ever happened. What did happen was I came upon a web site called, The Museum of Hoaxes and their top 100 April Fool's. This one is #17. Oh and by the way, the phony engineer's name is April Fools spelled backwards.

Til next week.

Peter

Lost!?

Hi Everyone,

Who knew that Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 with 239 passengers and crew could mimic the ABC TV show Lost. Almost each and every day, for the past week, the search perimeter for the missing 777 jet has increased to the point where now it includes a lot more land areas north of the Indian Ocean. When I first learned of the missing plane, I questioned why the search perimeter did not originally include the full distance  the plane could fly with the amount of fuel it departed with, since there was no report or any evidence of the plane crashing.

As the investigation progressed, it is apparent that the person who was flying the plane, manually turned off the plane's transponder, which sends signals and data to whatever ground flight controllers can receive it. The person flying the plane knew exactly when to turn off the transponder, before Vietnam ground controllers would receive the plane's signals. But turning off the transponder didn't stop the plane from automatically emitting an hourly ping to the closest satellite that could receive the signal. That is how investigators were able to determine that shorty after the transponder stopped sending its signal, the plane made an almost 180 degree turn and flew back over Malaysia. Why didn't Malaysia flight controllers pick up the plane on its radar while it was flying over? After flying over Malaysia, the plane then made a few more turns before eventually heading north over the Indian Ocean. The last ping received was almost 7 hours after the transponder was turned off. But, today's blog isn't about the screw ups with the initial and continuing search efforts for the plane.

Today's blog is about just one thing, flight 370's and at least all other Boeing plane's transponders. I would like to know what idiot(s) came up with the idea and what imbecile(s) approved the idea, that plane transponders could and should be allowed to be able to be shut off by someone in the cockpit? What good does it serve by shutting it off? Of course the answer is, it does nothing good, only bad. Turning off the transponder made the plane virtually invisible, except for the hourly pings. Whoever shut it off, knew that no one could then track its whereabouts. Common sense was certainly not on any ones radar when they allowed that option available to cockpits. I mean really, what the hell were they thinking? Obviously, in hindsight, it is a terrible idea and now a plane is missing and this is 2014, not 1914. The only solution to stopping this from ever happening again, is to disconnect that option ASAP!

I certainly don't know any more info than anyone else on what exactly happened with Flight 370. But since there have been no reports of a plane crashing, or any debris found so far, here are my guesstimates as to what may have happened. 1) Maybe one of the pilots, or someone else on board, commandeered the plane to fly it to some remote landing strip to steal the plane or its cargo or take hostages. Or, 2) maybe the plane crashed on some remote, uncharted island and now the Lost TV show becomes reality. Of course I am only guessing, but no one would be guessing if that transponder had not been allowed to be turned off.

Til next week.

Peter