3 of my favorite low-tax places to retire

Retirement Panama Philippines 3 of my favorite low tax places to retire

September 12, 2014
Sovereign Valley Farm, Chile

If you’re thinking about retiring to Florida for the warm weather, lack of state income tax, and plentiful medical care facilities, you might want to reconsider.

A 68-year old Florida retiree recently filed a lawsuit against Orlando-based Florida Hospital after doctors there allegedly mixed up her lab results and told her she had terminal cancer.

The woman suffered in agony for months believing that she was going to die; then the hospital decided to treat her by removing part of her rectum.

It turned out she was perfectly healthy.

Now, accidents can happen anywhere. It’s an unfortunate part of the medical industry.

But the reality is that Florida has its obvious flaws. And it is by no means the only place in the world that has a claim to all the features of a top retirement destination.

The world is truly a big place, and there are a lot of options out there.

When you retire overseas your money can often go further, so a pension that might have you eating baked beans out of a tin can in the United States can buy you a gourmet dinner elsewhere.

You’ll enjoy a better quality of life in a country where medical costs aren’t at the outrageous levels that they are in the US.

With all that money you save you’ll be able to catch up on new experiences that you missed out on while you were working to support your family.

Here are three options across three continents that each offer their own benefits, but have at least one prominent feature in common—a favorable tax regime so that you get to keep more of what you receive in your golden years.

Philippines

The Philippines is one of the easiest places in the world to retire to.

Residency is incredibly easy to attain for retirees. If you’re over 35, a refundable bank deposit of just $20,000 – or in some cases even less – qualifies you residency in the Philippines.

If you’re over 50 and have a pension income of at least $800 a month, a bank deposit of as little as $10,000 will suffice.

Income you have remitted to the country from overseas, such as any pension income you may have, is free from tax.

English is widely spoken and almost universally understood, so you won’t have to struggle with a new language.

It doesn’t hurt that the Philippines is an incredibly beautiful place with a low cost of living that allows you to stretch your pension longer there and truly have an enjoyable time

Andorra

If you were hoping to spend your golden years reading the classics while sipping espresso in a Parisian café, Andorra may be your back door solution.

Andorra is not part of the EU, and officially not part of the borderless Schengen area, but having residency there gives you a low-tax backdoor option to having a de facto Europe-wide residency.

While there’s no official retirement residency program, you can become a “passive resident” of Andorra just as long as you’re not earning a living within Andorra.

Qualifying for Andorran residency comes with a steeper price tag; one option requires an investment of 400,000 euros in the country (about USD $520,000).

This amount can be applied towards the purchase of a home, however, and housing in Andorra is quite reasonably priced.

Andorra is one of my favorite destinations in Europe: clean, safe, and efficient. The food is high quality, the air is pristine, and if you love the outdoors, it’s a tough place to beat… especially if you live to ski.

Panama

Panama is increasingly becoming a place to be for retirees due to its yearlong sunny weather, affordable cost of living, inexpensive (yet high quality) medical care, and close proximity to north America.

It’s incredibly easy to gain residency in Panama, and you can technically “retire” on a pensionado visa at age 18.

Panama is also one of a handful of places where US retirees can have their social security funds directly deposited.

If you retire to Panama, you can actually have your monthly stipend sent directly to a local Panamanian bank account. And there’s absolutely no local tax levied on it whatsoever.

Don’t spend your retirement worrying about how you’re going to pay your bills, or making decisions about whether to buy food or medicine.

Consider taking advantage of lifestyle arbitrage opportunities that exist overseas and enjoy a better and more exciting retirement abroad.

from SOVEREIGN MAN http://ift.tt/YDRI4L
via IFTTT

Ronald Bailey Wonders If Artificial Intelligence Will Destroy Humanity

superintelligenceIn Frank Herbert’s Dune books, humanity
has long banned the creation of “thinking machines.” Ten thousand
years earlier, their ancestors destroyed all such computers in a
movement called the Butlerian Jihad, because they felt the machines
controlled them. Human computers called Mentats serve as a
substitute for the outlawed technology. The penalty for violating
the Orange Catholic Bible’s commandment “Thou shalt not
make a machine in the likeness of a human mind” was immediate
death. Should humanity sanction the creation of intelligent
machines? That’s the pressing issue at the heart of the Oxford
philosopher Nick Bostrom’s fascinating new book,
Superintelligence. In his review, Reason Science
Correspondent Ronald Bailey concludes that Bostrom makes a strong
case that working to ensure the survival of humanity after the
coming intelligence explosion is “the essential task of our
age.”

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1sBXEGx
via IFTTT

Finding the Right Rebels to Arm in Syria May Be Tricky

Although Rand Paul has
abandoned
the skepticism he recently expressed about the threat
posed by ISIS, the libertarian-leaning Kentucky senator continues
to argue that President Obama must obtain congressional approval
for his war against the terrorist group, and he continues to
question the wisdom of arming and training Syrian rebels. Yet

it looks like
the closest thing we will see to a congressional
declaration of war in this conflict is a vote to arm and train
Syrian rebels.

Here is what Paul had to say about that strategy at a
Q&A session
in Dallas on August 29:

What have we been doing in Syria for the last year? We’ve been
arming the Islamic rebels. Who do the Islamic rebels want to kill?
Christians, other minorities. And have they been doing it in Syria?
Yes, they’ve captured priests and bishops and killed them in Syria.
And who are some of these Islamic rebels? We say we only gave
[weapons] to the nice ones, the ones that say, “Please, sir, can I
have another shoulder-to-air missile or another anti-tank weapon?”
The ones that were nice, we called them moderates, but there was at
least one Republican senator [John McCain] who was over there
having his picture taken with the “moderate” rebels, [and it] turns
out some of them may have been part of ISIS….It’s difficult to
tell friend from foe….

When it came to my committee, I was one of only like two people
who voted no. Everybody, every Republican, every Democrat voted to
arm these rebels. But I told them…that some of these arms may
well be used against us at some point in time….They tell you,
“Oh, I love America. Just give me my Stinger missiles.”…It’s a
little hard to determine who is your friend and who’s not, and they
will lie, frankly, to get our weapons.

Even after declaring his support for Obama’s new war, Paul
continued to be wary of using Syrian rebels as proxies for American
troops. “Syria…has become a jihadist wonderland,” he wrote
in Time last week. “In Syria, Obama’s plan just
one year ago—and apparently Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s
desire—was to aid rebels against Assad, despite the fact that many
of these groups are al-Qaeda- and ISIS-affiliated. Until we
acknowledge that arming the Islamic rebels in Syria allowed ISIS a
safe haven, no amount of military might will extricate us from a
flawed foreign policy.”

As Robby Soave
noted
on Tuesday, some of those supposedlly moderate Syrian
rebels supported by the U.S. may have sold American journalist
Steven Sotloff to ISIS, which later beheaded him in a horrifying
video that probably did more than any other single factor to boost
support for the new war—the war in which we are relying on moderate
Syrian rebels to help defeat ISIS. A
story
in today’s New York Times provides further
reason to worry about Obama’s strategy of shoring up the right
rebels:

After more than three years of civil war, there are hundreds of
militias fighting President Bashar al-Assad—and one another. Among
them, even the more secular forces have turned to Islamists for
support and weapons over the years, and the remaining moderate
rebels often fight alongside extremists like the Nusra Front, Al
Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria.

“You are not going to find this neat, clean, secular rebel group
that respects human rights and that is waiting and ready because
they don’t exist,” said Aron Lund, a Syria analyst who edits the
Syria in Crisis blog for the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace….

Analysts who track the rebel movement say that the concept of
the Free Syrian Army as a unified force with an effective command
structure is a myth….

“There’s a lot of skepticism about this piece of the president’s
strategy,” said Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of
California, a member of the House Intelligence Committee. “The
so-called moderate rebels have often been very immoderate and
ineffective.”

Despite that supposed skepticism, Congress is about to bless
this dubious strategy, even as it shies away from authorizing the
war itself. “In a rare show of unity with President Obama,” the
Times reports,
“House Republican leaders will summon their fractious members back
to the Capitol a day early next week to push through legislation to
authorize the military to train Syrian rebels for the fight against
Islamist militants.”

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1qOb4yX
via IFTTT

Harsh Austerity Sends Italian, Spanish Debt To Record Highs

Damn you debt-reducing austerity-that-is-blamed-for-everything-that-is-wrong-with-Europe’s-triple-dip-recessionary-economy-when-it-is-the-corrupt-socialist-incompetent-politicians’-fault. Damn you to hell! Oh wait a minute:

  • Italy’s government debt rose to a record €2.169 trillion in July from €2.168 trillion in June, the Bank of Italy says in its public-finances supplement.
  • Spain total govt debt amounted to a record € 1.01 trillion in 2Q, up from € 995.9b in 1Q, Bank of Spain says; 2Q Total Govt Debt Rises to 98.9% of GDP From 97.4% in 1Q

With austerity like this, who needs to spend like a drunken sailor?

Source: Bloomberg




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1oCIiMM Tyler Durden

Panic On The Streets Of London … Can Scotland Ever Be The Same Again?

There is now less than one week of campaigning remaining before the Scottish Independence Referendum, which takes place next Thursday, September 18. 

The pro-union ‘no’ vote campaign is back in the lead this week after the latest opinion poll from pollsters YouGov put them at 52%, marginally ahead of the pro-independence ‘yes’ campaign.

The referendum question being asked is simply “Should Scotland be an independent country?”

After being ahead significantly since the outset of the independence campaign, the pro-union side was abruptly shocked last weekend when the pro-independence side took the lead based on an opinion poll result, also from YouGov, released on Saturday, September 6. 

This forced the pro-union campaign into panic mode this week with the UK witnessing an unprecedented coordinated campaign between all the main political parties. who are pro-union, and a number of major UK companies to try to convince the Scottish electorate to stay in the United Kingdom.

Scotland’s financial sector became one of the main battlegrounds this week, with many Scottish headquartered banks and financial services companies first threatening to relocate their headquarters to London and then actually announcing that they will move south if the referendum outcome results in a ‘yes’ majority. 

The HQ move threats and announcements appeared to be part of an orchestrated corporate campaign run by the UK’s Treasury department and the Treasury did not deny this.

According to the banks, they are seeking to move because an independent Scotland would create too much economic, regulatory and financial risk and uncertainty for their headquarters to remain there.

Amongst the banks, two of the UK’s biggest banking institutions, the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), and Lloyd’s led the charge. Crucially, since the RBS and Lloyds were both bailed out by the UK government during the financial crisis, the UK government is now a significant shareholder in both institutions, owning a whopping 80% of the RBS and 25% of Lloyds. 

RBS has been headquartered in Scotland since 1727 and employs 35,000 north of the border. Lloyds owns various institutions including Bank of Scotland (not to be confused with the Royal Bank of Scotland), Halifax and Scottish Widows, the pensions and life insurance group.

Scotland’s third biggest bank, Clydesdale, owned by the National Australia Bank (NAB) said it also planned to relocate its HQ to London, again citing the uncertainty that a yes result would generate. Other banks such as the TSB and Tesco Bank also followed suit and said they too would move.

Many of the banks’ and asset managers’ share prices had been hit on the London Stock Exchange this week due to the pro-independence movement’s lead including the share prices of RBS, Lloyds, Aberdeen Asset  Management and Standard Life.

Financial services giant Standard Life joined in, saying that it would relocate large parts of its operations such as pensions and investments out of Scotland if the country voted for independence. Dutch asset manager and insurer Aegon said it too would move operations to London.

Other industry leaders also sided with the pro-union alignment with the CEO of the UK’s largest oil company British Petroleum (BP) saying that the company and the economy was “best served by maintaining the existing capacity and integrity of the United Kingdom”.

Scottish first minister and pro-independence leader Alex Salmond said that the corporate announcements had been orchestrated by the prime minister’s office in Downing Street in London, and that Treasury had been ‘caught red-handed in a campaign of scaremongering”.

According to the FT, a Treasury official admitted that “Danny Alexander and George Osborne have been making calls.” George Osborne is the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Danny Alexander is his assistant at the Treasury. The calls to RBS would have been quite easy to make given the government’s 80% shareholding. Likewise with Lloyds.

As RBS and Lloyds are already essentially run from London, the HQ move announcements do appear to have been more politically motivated than anything. HM Treasury does appear to have been bullying and pulling strings behind the scenes. On one hand it says plans by companies to move were ‘understandable’, while on the other hand it has been making phone calls encouraging companies to move.

Elsewhere, Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, became involved in the debate which is slightly surprising given that the Bank of England is supposedly neutral of political interference. Carney said this week that a currency union between Scotland and the rest of the UK  is incompatible with an independent Scotland. 

Media mogul Rupert Murdoch chimed in, hinting that he was on the side of pro-independence, most likely because of his current coolness towards the Westminster leaders,  while financier George Soros weighed in on the pro-union side.

There is much to lose for the City of London’s financial sector due to the economic uncertainty and sterling currency risk of an independent Scotland and the loss of financial power, international standing and resources that a smaller UK would represent.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) also became involved this week warning that “the main immediate effect is likely to be uncertainty over the transition to a potentially new and different monetary, financial and fiscal framework in Scotland.”

The pound sterling has fallen and risen this week based on the prevailing sentiment expressed in the various independence polls. Sterling strengthened today following the latest poll but had touched an 11 month low earlier this week against the dollar.

In terms of sterling, the gold price has not really moved significantly over the last month, remaining in a £20 trading range between £780 and £760, although the price did fall from the £780 range on Monday down to £760 today, slightly more than the US dollar denominated price move in gold, but in  in general sentiment to the weakness in the US dollar gold price.

Scotland’s bid for independence has also crystallised nationalist aspirations in other countries, most notably in Catalonia which is on the brink of its own unofficial referendum to try to break away from Spain. Yesterday was National Catalan Day and millions protested across the region most notably in  Barcelona.

There has been much speculation this week about how the UK’s gold reserves would be affected if an independence result emerges. The UK Treasury said that all Treasury reserve assets would be up for negotiation. Since this is a very general statement it does not provide much clarity as to whether an independent Scotland would be able to take any of the UK ‘s gold reserves, but this did stop various media outlets from appearing to think that Scotland would get its share of the UK gold

At this stage it is best to adopt a wait and see attitude since there are too many unknowns for any factual conclusions to be reached on the future of the UK, let alone future UK fiscal plans.

Whatever the outcome of next week’s independence referendum in Scotland, it has illustrated that the UK is a economic entity which is in some parts held together by groupings that do not have the same outlook. The closeness of the results for the two campaigns suggests that if the pro-union campaign wins, they will still have to address the concerns of the large Scottish independence movement, and calls for a future referendum on the subject may not go away. 

Economic uncertainty in the UK will remain in the near term and it is hard to see the UK economic landscape ever being quite the same again after the heated campaigning on both sides of the independence issue.

MARKET UPDATE
Today’s AM fix was USD 1,237.25, EUR 957.11 and GBP 760.87 per ounce.
Yesterday’s AM fix was USD 1,247.00, EUR 964.20  and GBP 767.53 per ounce.

Gold fell $7.90 or 0.63% to $1,242.10 per ounce and silver slipped $0.27 or 1.42% to $18.71 per ounce yesterday. For the week, gold is down 2.27% while silver is 2.56% lower. 


Gold in US Dollars – 2 Years (Thomson Reuters)

The gold price closed New York trading yesterday at $1,240.10 and fell to a January low of $1,232 in Hong Kong overnight. Gold in Singapore recovered to test the $1,240 level but was turned back at $1,240 prior to going in to London trading where gold is flat.

Palladium fell 2.24% today to $829, and is down 6.53% for the week on profit taking after reaching a multi-year high the previous week. Platinum is trading at $1,364 and is down 0.94% since yesterday and down 2.98% on the week.

FOMC ‘Jawboning’ Next Wednesday
A dilemma awaits the US Fed governors at the two day FOMC meeting next week (16-17 Sept) and at the end of meeting press conference, the FOMC members will have to decide whether to amend their interest rate forward guidance language which currently states that Fed funds rates will be kept near zero for a ‘considerable period’.


Gold in Sterling – 2 Years (Thomson Reuters)

Although there are now a number of Fed governors on the hawkish side, such as the Philadelphia and Cleveland governors, will this be enough to sway a consensus towards amending the language, and would the phrase just be dropped or would there be conditionality added such as interest rates will remain as is until unemployment or inflation data justifies adjusting the current outlook?

There is a market expectation that some sort of fine tuning of the language will occur next week. The Fed will probably subtly amend the language while trying to keep their options open. If this happens it would cause a short term dollar rally since the market would then expect interest rates to rise at an earlier stage in 2015 than previously expected. And rising interest rates mean higher nominal returns for dollar denominated assets. In this scenario, the gold price would come under pressure due to a stronger dollar.

With the recent non-farm payrolls growth data coming out as weak, can the indebted US consumer and economy absorb an interest rate increase? When interest rates begin to rise its usually part of a rising trend, not just a one off rate rise. Are the Fed prepared to follow through with a change of course at this early stage? These are just some of the questions that may be answered by the FOMC press conference next Wednesday.

In our view, the Fed will probably adjust the ‘considerable period’ language at the FOMC meeting next week by adding conditionality to the language linked to an improvement of economic performance such as unemployment data.

If this occurs, the US dollar could have a short term rally on the back of the FOMC announcement since this is not yet fully priced in to the US dollar. This then is a real risk for gold because the gold price would most likely come under pressure as the US dollar strengthens.

Any US dollar rally would in our view be short-lived, since the Fed is not fully committed to increasing rates and is to an extent just engaged in the management of perceptions.

Therefore, any dollar rally would probably fizzle out shortly after it had begun. The fundamental reasons to own allocated and segregated gold remain intact.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1qskO2s GoldCore

Where ISIS Makes Its Money

President Obama’s 4-pronged strategy to ‘degrade and destroy’ ISIS includes a ‘financial attack’ (according to the Treasury) as they recognize, as The Daily Signal notes, one major hurdle in the way of the ‘strategy’ is the brutal organization’s control of oil fields in Iraq and Syria; which ISIS uses that oil wealth to help finance its terror operations. Here’s how they do it…

 

 

As The Daily Signal’s Kelsey Harkness ( @kelseyjharkness ) notes,

According to the Iraq Energy Institute, an independent, nonprofit policy organization focused on Iraq’s energy sector, the army of radical Islamists controls production of 30,000 barrels of oil a day in Iraq and 50,000 barrels in Syria.

 

By selling the oil on the black market at a discounted price of $40 per barrel (compared to about $93 per barrel in the free market), ISIS takes in $3.2 million a day.

 

James Phillips, veteran expert in Middle Eastern affairs at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal that the revenue gives ISIS a “solid economic base that sustains its continued expansion.”

 

The oil revenue, which amounts to nearly $100 million each month, allows ISIS to fund its military and terrorist attacks — and to attract more recruits from around the world, including America.

 

To be successful in counterterrorism efforts, Phillips said,  the U.S. and its allies must “push the Islamic State out of the oil fields it has captured and disrupt its ability to smuggle the oil to foreign markets.”

Here’s how Phillips said the ISIS oil operation works:

ISIS sells oil to consumers in territory it controls, roughly the size of Maryland, inside Syria and Iraq. The terrorist group also sells oil to a network of smugglers that developed in the 1990s during Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s rule; that network smuggled oil out of Iraq into Turkey to avoid sanctions imposed by the United Nations.

ISIS also reportedly sells oil, through middlemen, to the Assad regime in Syria that is trying to quell rebellion there. When it comes to making a fast buck, the Middle East has no shortage of “strange bedfellows” willing to do business with each other.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1AGHyfd Tyler Durden

Will the US Need Troops on the Ground Against ISIS After All?

SoldiersIn his
speech announcing a stepped up campaign
against
ISIS/ISIL/Islamic State/the bloodthirsty loons running around in
Iraq and Syria, President Obama reassured listeners that the United
States’ efforts’ “will not involve American combat troops fighting
on foreign soil.” That’s a reassuring note for a public that, after
more than a decade of war, has become
remarkably less bellicose
than its political figures. The war
fatigue holds true even with increased nervousness over ISIS’
gains; Americans favor action, but they
prefer airstrikes over troops on the ground
. But crowd-pleasing
as restricting military action to death from the sky may be,
national security experts don’t see that as an especially effective
strategy. In fact,
several of them told the Washington Times
that such a
limited approach is doomed from the start.

Maybe the pithiest comment comes from Larry C.
Johnson
, a former CIA analyst who served in the State
Department’s Office of Counterterrorism under the first President
Bush. “What a waste of time,” Johnson told the Times. “We
have not learned a thing in 80 years. [The Islamic State] is an
army. The air power is not going to get the job done. Until you put
troops in and kill these guys, they’re going to continue. They
adjust to tactics. They meld into [the] civilian population.”

President Obama did say his plan incolved a commitment to
“support Iraqi and Kurdish forces.” But those would be the same
Iraqi troops who
abandoned bases and equipment
in fear of approaching ISIS
forces. The Kurds have a better record—but they’re
just about holding their own
against ISIS with western support.
Are they and whatever Syrian factions the U.S. favors with military
assistance really going to “degrade and ultimately destroy,” in
Obama’s words, a “terrorist group” that’s looking increasingly like

the army
of a sandy competitor to North Korea for the title of
shittiest country on Earth?

For that matter, does anybody remember former Defence Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld
conceding in 2003
that officials underestimated the size of the
job in Iraq at that time, even as we raised ground forces
committed there to 150,000 troops?

That’s not to say that the United States should commit
to putting large numbers of combat troops in the Middle East.
Again. But it does mean that American presidents probably should
give more thought to the size of the checks they’ll need to write
to cover the promises they make.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1m0nkf5
via IFTTT

Obama’s ISIS War Already Hits Home: DHS Tells Retailers to Spy on You

Right about the time President Barack Obama
made to the nation his
declaration of war
in Iraq and Syria against the terrorist
organization ISIS, Homeland Security Department (DHS) Secretary Jeh
Johnson quietly announced that he’s expanding the “See Something,
Say Something” campaign by enlisting retailers to make sure you’re
with us, not against us, in this fight.

Johnson delivered some remarks at the Council of Foreign
Relations in New York on September 10. He recalled that the
September 11, 2001 attacks gave birth to his department, and

boasted
how much its grown since—”240,000 employees, 22
components and a total budget authority of about $60 billion”—but
apparently that’s not enough.

He listed the DHS’s five-point plan to slog through the
ever-hazier war on terror and the last one is “to address the
home-grown terrorist who may be lurking in our midst” by “sending a
private sector advisory identifying for retail businesses a long
list of materials that could be used as explosive precursors, and
the types of suspicious behavior that a retailer should look for
from someone who buys a lot of these materials.” He
refused
to say exactly what’s on his list.

This new policy is alarming and problematic, first
of all, because the FBI, the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and
Johnson himself (repeatedly)
have all
acknowledged
that ISIS
poses no credible threat
to the U.S. homeland.

Johnson assures he’s just looking for “explosive precursors” in
people’s shopping lists, but as TechDirt‘s Tim Cushing

points out
, “that could be nearly anything.” Cushing predicts
that this could be used to justify an even greater invasion of
privacy: “Because retail outlets don’t share customer purchase data
with each other, this may result in the DHS attempting to justify
the requisition of data from multiple retailers using credit/debit
card numbers as a starting point.”

This
worst-first thinking
, that someone buying a pressure
cooker or bags fertilizer must be a domestic terrorist, promotes a
climate of constant fear that degrades our own society, not
ISIS. 

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1qscL5U
via IFTTT

Possibly Corrupt LA District Superintendent Looks for Evidence School Board Is Also Corrupt

iPadThe Los Angeles Times continues to
document the rapidly deteriorating relationship between Los Angeles
Unified Schools Superintendent John Deasy and the district’s board
of education. Deasy, who masterminded the now doomed
give-every-kid-an-iPad plan, has come under fire for how certain
vendors landed their contracts. The district’s inspector general is
investigating whether Deasy and his top deputy helped Apple and
curriculum company Pearson win the bidding war to provide the iPads
and instructional materials.

Deasy wants to show that the allegations are ridiculous—by
demonstrating that members of the school board have relationships
with Apple and Pearson that are just as sketchy.
From the LA Times
:

In a bold challenge to his bosses, L.A. Unified Supt. John Deasy
has filed a public records request seeking emails and other
documents involving school board members and nearly two dozen
companies including those at the center of the controversial iPad
project. …

At one level, Deasy’s focus on the Board of Education does not
seem surprising, said Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh
Institute of Politics at USC.

 “It’s not as if they were going on long camping trips
together before this happened,” he said, referring to tensions
between Deasy and some board members. “Deasy obviously feels he’s
been unfairly attacked for communications he believes are
completely appropriate. This looks like his effort to find out if
the pots are calling the kettle black.”

While these government-corporate relationships might look bad
for all involved, there is no evidence yet that anything unethical
happened.

Even so, the iPad plan was a
failure in its own right
—even if the process that spawned it
was entirely proper.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1pXfoq5
via IFTTT

How the Government Deceives us on Inflation, as Rents and Housing Costs Soar

Wolf Richter   www.wolfstreet.com   http://ift.tt/Wz5XCn

It’s hard these days to worry about inflation amidst a maelstrom of voices claiming that there isn’t enough inflation to begin with, and that the world will end if prices stop rising even for a moment. Whatever inflation we may encounter in daily life, whether for healthcare, tuition, beef, gas, or cars, we’re told not to worry about it because the higher prices are either annulled by an elegant scheme called hedonic regression, or they’re only temporary, or the amounts are too small to impact the overall budget.

But when it comes to housing, which now accounts for 33.6% of what Americans spend [What’s Draining American Wallets? Interactive Chart], none of these excuses fly. Because inflation in housing has been red-hot.

Actually, it hasn’t been red-hot, the way the Bureau of Labor Statistics measures it. Its Consumer Price Index contains two housing components: “Owners’ equivalent rent of primary residence” (OER) and “Rent of primary residence” (Rent). They purport to measure the cost of “shelter,” which is the “consumption item” that a home provides and is thus included in the CPI. The cost of the home itself and any improvements to the home are considered an “investment,” not consumption, and therefore not part of the CPI.

Owners’ equivalent rent accounts for 23.83% of the CPI and rent for 5.93%, for a combined weight in the CPI of about 30%. It is by far the largest and most important component.

Inflation in these two categories was contained, as they say at the Fed. In July, owners’ equivalent rent rose 2.7% and rent rose a minuscule 1.0%.

And in reality?

Home prices rose 8.2% over the 12 months through June 2014 and 12% for the prior 12-month period, according to the Case Shiller 20-City Index. A far cry from the government-sanctioned owners’ equivalent increase of 2.7%.

And rents? They rose on average 6.3% in August from a year earlier, according to Trulia, with double-digit gains in five of the 25 largest rental markets: in Sacramento, rents soared 14.9%. In San Francisco, where the median rent for a 2-bedroom apartment is now $3,500, they jumped 14.5%. That $3,000 apartment a year ago would now cost an additional $435 a month, or an additional $5,220 a year! No inflation, no problem. In Oakland, rents jumped 14.4%; in Denver, 13.1%; in Miami 11.3%. In the 25 largest rental markets, rents soared on average 10%.

How can our trusty government be so far off the mark?

The data are obtained by survey. For “owners’ equivalent rent,” owners are asked what they think they would have to pay if they were renting the home. Hence a measure of implicit rent. For the “rent” component, renters are asked what they’re currently paying in rent. Even if they’ve lived in a rent-controlled apartment for 20 years and pay a ludicrously low rent, it becomes part of the statistics, and not the rent that a new renter would have to pay.

Surveys are easy to manipulate, in numerous subtle ways, and that’s why they’re used to determine shelter costs. The BLS could instead use market rents, which is a common measure of actual rents negotiated between renters and landlords at the signing of the lease. Each time a new lease is signed, it impacts market rent. But that would, like Trulia’s measure, indicate just how fast rents are rising. So, no way.

How large is the deceit? Over time, it adds up. From 2011 to 2014, market rent rose by 12.1% while owners’ equivalent rent inched up only 4.7%. OER understated actual rent inflation that people felt in their bank accounts by 61% in a little over three years.

Housing accounts for 30% of CPI, and understating inflation in housing will cut overall CPI by a big chunk. Actual inflation in housing costs is still there, but you can’t see it in the official numbers, on the government principle that hidden inflation is the best inflation.

It eats up your bank deposits and your wages and the value of your Treasuries and everything else you own. It pushes you into higher tax brackets though tax brackets are indexed to CPI – the hidden bracket creep.

Any government or corporate programs, pensions, and benefits that are indexed to CPI will gradually become less costly to the government or the corporation, and less valuable to you. The savings to them over time are huge. And best of all, understating inflation overstates “real” economic growth as measured by inflation-adjusted GDP. It’s the perfect solution for economies that are mired down.

Consumers, workers, and taxpayers are getting shafted without knowing about it. And the Fed doesn’t use CPI as inflation gauge for its purposes. It uses PCE, which understates inflation even more (chart). And so it can carry on its scorched-earth monetary policy while loudly proclaiming that inflation is below “target.” Hidden inflation is simply perfect.

Nevertheless, the Fed has embarked on a rate-hike cacophony. But ebullient markets are in no mood to listen and are pricing in “a later liftoff date” for the federal funds rate and a slower pace of tightening than FOMC participants themselves, the Fed finds. And it frets that the disconnect could cause financial instability. Read…   To Avert Sudden Market Collapse, the Fed Tries to Spook Utterly Unspookable Markets




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1qKehiE testosteronepit