Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (223653)	10/5/2009 7:14:31 PM
From: Secret_Agent_Man	Respond to of 306849

thanks

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (223653)	10/5/2009 7:16:44 PM
From: saveslivesbyday	Respond to of 306849

"Will Lack of Social Security COLA Increase Some Public Sector Medicare Part B Premiums? Here's an article my dad sent me from California. I'm not sure who to believe: Recent declines in consumer prices and low expected inflation during the next few years is expected to translate into no COLAs in Social Security benefits until 2013. Because of the way the Medicare Part B premium is funded, it is expected that approximately one quarter of all Medicare beneficiaries will have to pay a higher Medicare Part B premium than they would otherwise. Furthermore, as a percentage of the current premium, the increases will be significant.??The reason for the increase is because most Medicare enrollees have their Part B premium withheld from their monthly Social Security benefit, and for those individuals, a “hold-harmless” provision guarantees that a benefit check will not decrease as a result of an increase in the Part B premium. That is, the dollar increase in the Part B premium for a year is compared to the dollar increase in the Social Security monthly benefit, and if the dollar increase in the premium is larger than the dollar increase in the Social Security benefit, then the increase in the Part B premium paid by the beneficiary is limited to the dollar increase in the Social Security benefit. ??Thus, when there is no increase in the Social Security benefit to offset the Medicare Part B premium increase, then the hold-harmless means that these Social Security recipients are not required to pay the Medicare Part B increase.??But this is not true for everyone. For example new enrollees in Part B (because they did not have the premium withheld from their Social Security benefit in the prior year), will not be covered by the hold-harmless. Higher-income enrollees who are subject to an income-related premium, as well as individuals who do not have the Part B premium withheld from their Social Security benefit (nearly all of whom have their premiums paid by Medicaid) will also not receive the protection.??And what about public employees who are not covered by Social Security? It would appear that they are also going to fall into this group who will not receive the protection from the hold-harmless provision. ??According to the “Director’s Blog” of Douglas W. Elmendorf, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), because almost three-quarters of Part B enrollees will be subject to the hold-harmless provision, the increase in Medicare Part B premium revenue needed to draw matching contributions sufficient to cover the growth in annual spending and maintain the contingency reserve will have to be collected from the one-quarter of enrollees who are not eligible for the protection of the hold-harmless provision. “As a result, the current-law increase in the monthly Part B premium for those individuals will be nearly four times the increase that would be required if no enrollees were subject to the hold-harmless provision,” Mr. Elmendorf estimates.??CBO estimates that the hold-harmless provision, in conjunction with the zero COLAs projected for Social Security benefits, will result in the monthly Part B premium for beneficiaries not subject to the hold-harmless provision increasing to $119 in 2010, $123 in 2011, and $128 in 2012. “Without the hold-harmless provision, CBO estimates that the monthly premium would be $103 in 2010 and would grow to about $109 in 2012, so the interaction of the hold-harmless provision and projected zero COLAs for Social Security will add significantly to the increases called for under current law,” Mr. Elmendorf says. There is no effect on Part D premiums because there is no hold-harmless provision in Part D." Ed Derman, Deputy Chief Executive Officer California State Teachers’ Retirement System ederman@calstrs.com\| www.CalSTRS.com 916-414-1100 (NEW)

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (223653)	10/7/2009 7:21:41 PM
From: SouthFloridaGuy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

CR, I appreciate your blog and the work you do. This pertains to the Jim the Realtor video: I have a question: you currently believe that the government has pushed forward demand because of the tax credit...indeed, there is evidence that is the case, but it doesn't necessarily square with the fact that we are seeing housing activity increase across the board. It also doesn't square with Jim's own statements that many of the buyers are all cash, essentially well qualified, and at all points of the price spectrum. I can tell you that I have gone to contract on a house in NY and I do not qualify for the tax credit due to income. Indeed, at really any house above $650k (precise amount partly depends on the property tax regime), I find it hard to envision someone qualifying for the tax credit with 20% down and the required income. Yes, for the very, very high end things are just sitting and transacted sales are pushing down the comps. However, now that we have a floor on the lower end, it's actually not too difficult to extrapolate based on historical ratios where the high end should fall to. The high end will see its bottom sometime in the Spring. Clearly, the low end and high end can't cross, although the market is so f*cked up right now, you can actually buy houses in top tier areas at a historically low premium to middle of the road areas due to the financing situation. In my business, we call that "Arbitrage"...