SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: i-node who wrote (760942)1/2/2014 5:04:03 PM
From: combjelly  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1574638
 
She works for NerdWallet?

Didn't know...



To: i-node who wrote (760942)1/2/2014 6:07:05 PM
From: Wharf Rat  Respond to of 1574638
 
NerdWallet estimates for 2013:

  • 56M Americans under age 65 will have trouble paying medical bills
    – Over 35M American adults (ages 19-64) will be contacted by collections agencies for unpaid medical bills
    – Nearly 17M American adults (ages 19-64) will receive a lower credit rating on account of their high medical bills
    – Over 15M American adults (ages 19-64) will use up all their savings to pay medical bills
    – Over 11M American adults (ages 19-64) will take on credit card debt to pay off their hospital bills
    – Nearly 10M American adults (ages 19-64) will be unable to pay for basic necessities like rent, food, and heat due to their medical bills
  • Over 16M children live in households struggling with medical bills
  • Despite having year-round insurance coverage, 10M insured Americans ages 19-64 will face bills they are unable to pay
  • 1.7M Americans live in households that will declare bankruptcy due to their inability to pay their medical bills
    – Three states will account for over one-quarter of those living in medical-related bankruptcy: California (248,002), Illinois (113,524), and Florida (99,780)
  • To save costs, over 25M adults (ages 19-64) will not take their prescription drugs as indicated, including skipping doses, taking less medicine than prescribed or delaying a refill
nerdwallet.com



To: i-node who wrote (760942)1/2/2014 10:50:46 PM
From: TimF1 Recommendation

Recommended By
i-node

  Respond to of 1574638
 
More Weird Metrics for Elizabeth Warren
Megan McArdle Jul 23 2010, 5:57 PM ET

Todd Zywicki wrote this a few years back; it's typical of the problems with the Two Income Trap:
In fact, using their own numbers, it is evident that they have overlooked the most important contributor to the purported household budget crunch -- taxes.Ms. Warren and Ms. Tyagi compare two middle-class families: an average family in the 1970s versus the 2000s (all dollar values are inflation-adjusted). The typical 1970s family is headed by a working father and a stay-at-home mother with two children. The father's income is $38,700, out of which came $5,310 in mortgage payments, $5,140 a year on car expenses, $1,030 on health insurance, and income taxes "which claim 24% of [the father's] income," leaving $17,834, or about $1,500 per month in "discretionary income" for all other expenses, such as food, clothing, utilities and savings.

The typical 2000s family has two working parents and a higher income of $67,800, an increase of 75% over the 1970s family. But their expenses have also risen: The mortgage payment increases to $9,000, the additional car raises the family obligation to $8,000, and more expensive health insurance premiums cost $1,650. A new expense of full-time daycare so the mother can work is estimated at $9,670. Mother's income bumps the family into a higher tax bracket, so that "the government takes 33% of the family's money." In the end, despite the dramatic increase in family income, the family is left with $17,045 in "discretionary income," less than the earlier generation.

The authors present no explanation for why they present only the tax data in their two examples as percentages instead of dollars. Nor do they ever present the actual dollar value for taxes anywhere in the book. So to conduct an "apples to apples" comparison of all expenses, I converted the tax obligations in the example from percentages to actual dollars.

In fact, for the typical 1970s family, paying 24% of its income in taxes works out to be $9,288. And for the 2000s family, paying 33% of its income is $22,374.

Although income only rose 75%, and expenditures for the mortgage, car and health insurance rose by even less than that, the tax bill increased by $13,086 -- a whopping 140% increase. The percentage of family income dedicated to health insurance, mortgage and automobiles actually declined between the two periods.
Does it matter if we have a regulator who can use data consistently? A lot of commenters seem angry that I would suggest it might. As for me, I don't know which is worse: the notion that Elizabeth Warren understood what she was doing, or the notion that she didn't.

theatlantic.com