Question:

I’m currently studying for an accounting degree.  Although having my degree in this field isn’t essential to be allowed to sit certification exams, it does redeem itself through excemptions from certain professional papers.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m not sure what is in the certificate programs and you can maybe "sit" for the exam but I think you need a college degree to become a CPA in most states, I’ve been looking into going back to school to get an accounting degree and ultimately get my CPA license.  However, I’ve noticed that many universities are offering accounting certificate programs which they say will allow you to sit for the CPA exam. My question is, is it better to pursue a degree, or is an accounting certification program adequate?  Do potential employers look more favorably on degrees? Thanks. Kirin

— Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Response:

I’ve been looking into going back to school to get an accounting degree and ultimately get my CPA license.  However, I’ve noticed that many universities are offering accounting certificate programs which they say will allow you to sit for the CPA exam. My question is, is it better to pursue a degree, or is an accounting certification program adequate?  Do potential employers look more favorably on degrees?

I would be interested in knowing what states offer a CPA license to a person with no degree. I thought the trend was toward more education – not less. Jim Hudspeth

Response:

My recollection is that you need a certain number of hours in accounting and business law in order to sit for the exam. Persons might already have a college degree but might need the specific coursework for the exam. I had to take additional courses after I got my degree in order to sit for the exam.  Those accounting certificate programs you mentioned sound like they would do that.  I think the value of those programs is that  the coursework should allow you to sit for the exam rather than getting a "certificate". Do you already have a degree? Since I think you need a college degree for the CPA, you might consider an accounting degree with the right number of hours in accounting and business law in order to sit for the exam if you do not already have a degree. But if you have a degree already, as long as you take the hours needed for the CPA exam (maybe with that accounting certificate program) and then get a CPA, I would think the value of another degree would be limited, even if it is an accounting degree. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I’m currently studying for an accounting degree.  Although having my degree in this field isn’t essential to be allowed to sit certification exams, it does redeem itself through excemptions from certain professional papers. I’m not sure what is in the certificate programs and you can maybe "sit" for the exam but I think you need a college degree to become a CPA in most states, I’ve been looking into going back to school to get an accounting degree and ultimately get my CPA license.  However, I’ve noticed that many universities are offering accounting certificate programs which they say will allow you to sit for the CPA exam. My question is, is it better to pursue a degree, or is an accounting certification program adequate?  Do potential employers look more favorably on degrees? Thanks. Kirin

Response:

As an employer, I look first at a degree and then for the CPA.  If you’re going to spend the time in school and going to class, you might as well have a degree to go with it. I can also tell you from personal experience that while you can make it without a CPA for a long time, eventually you will start running into a glass ceiling and reduced opportunities by not having a CPA. KC

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m currently studying for an accounting degree.  Although having my degree in this field isn’t essential to be allowed to sit certification exams, it does redeem itself through excemptions from certain professional papers. I’m not sure what is in the certificate programs and you can maybe "sit" for the exam but I think you need a college degree to become a CPA in most states, I’ve been looking into going back to school to get an accounting degree and ultimately get my CPA license.  However, I’ve noticed that many universities are offering accounting certificate programs which they say will allow you to sit for the CPA exam. My question is, is it better to pursue a degree, or is an accounting certification program adequate?  Do potential employers look more favorably on degrees? Thanks. Kirin — Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Response:

Wow that was a lot of excellent information.  I am glad you posted this reply.  You may have just saved me a year or two of school by me going this route.  I myself already have a college degree and am only interested in the CPA certificate. Greg

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Kirin, do you already have a college degree ? What is it in ? Accounting certificate programs have been started up at several schools around the country. I believe most of them are people who already have a college degree in another field and who are looking for a career change into the field of accounting. You don’t have to major in accounting to sit for the CPA exam. You could major in just about anything. But you MUST have a certain amount of courses in accounting to sit for the CPA exam. A certificate program, that is set up to satisfy the CPA requirements, will give you coursework that you need to sit for the CPA exam. What certificate programs basically are ( and they are a good idea ), is a course of study that provides all the ACCOUNTING courses that a normal accounting major would have to take LESS everything else that an accounting degree normally includes. For someone going back to school to go into accounting for the purpose of becoming a CPA ( assuming of course the person already has a college degree in something else ), a certificate makes the most sense. And since becoming a CPA means you need 150 credit hours, adding the credits from a certificate program to a college degree already earned should put the person over the 150 credit mark. And completing a certificate program will take a lot less time than a 4-year degree. A lot less hassle too. I believe most accounting certificate programs also don’t make students take useless classes that will never be used in an accounting career. Calculus being one of them. I know of a school that makes every single business major ( 4 year degree programs ) take calculus as a requirement for graduation. Never mind the fact that an accountant will NEVER use what is taught in a calculus class. I even talked to one of the accounting professors at this school once and questioned him as to WHY accounting majors must take and pass a calculus class. He told me straight out that students would NEVER use it in an accounting job. " So why then are they required to take it " I asked him. " Because we like our students to have a good mathematical background " he told me. On closer inspection though, I figured out why ALL business majors in the school were forced to take a calculus class. This college had a very big and bloated math department made up of many professors. Calculus was made a requirement for business majors to help justify the need for this math department and give these professors something to do. Lots of college DEGREE programs are actually set up that way. Not so much for the benefit of what the student NEEDS to know, but for the benefit of the faculty. So if you already have a college degree in something else, then just go for the accounting certificate. Don’t worry about going back and getting an accounting degree. Once you have all the accounting courses you need for the CPA exam, you are then just as good as an accounting degree holder. And if an employer doesn’t realize this, they are not worth working for. So, I’d vote for the certificate. One last piece of advice. Can you link us to the actual accounting certificate program that you’re considering. I’d like to check it over. And don’t be afraid to take a few other courses from the college that you think will be helpful to you even if these courses aren’t required by your particular certificate program. An introductory finance course would be a course to take. If they offer business writing you might want to check that out as well. And if there are accounting courses offered by the college that are NOT required by your accounting certificate program, you might want to take those anyway. For instance, what should you do if corporate income tax, non-profit accounting, or advanced federal income tax courses are NOT require by your certificate program but they are still offered by the college ? My advice is to take them anyway. And if you are lucky enough to be at a college that offers a course where students get to work with accounting programs like QUICKBOOKS, and PEACHTREE, then take that course whether it’s required by your certificate program or not. That course will be very useful to you. I hope this advice was useful to you. I’ve been looking into going back to school to get an accounting degree and ultimately get my CPA license.  However, I’ve noticed that many universities are offering accounting certificate programs which they say will allow you to sit for the CPA exam. My question is, is it better to pursue a degree, or is an accounting certification program adequate?  Do potential employers look more favorably on degrees? Thanks. Kirin

Response:

I’m glad I could be of assistance, Paul. Good luck – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Wow that was a lot of excellent information.  I am glad you posted this reply.  You may have just saved me a year or two of school by me going this route.  I myself already have a college degree and am only interested in the CPA certificate. Greg Kirin, do you already have a college degree ? What is it in ? Accounting certificate programs have been started up at several schools around the country. I believe most of them are people who already have a college degree in another field and who are looking for a career change into the field of accounting. You don’t have to major in accounting to sit for the CPA exam. You could major in just about anything. But you MUST have a certain amount of courses in accounting to sit for the CPA exam. A certificate program, that is set up to satisfy the CPA requirements, will give you coursework that you need to sit for the CPA exam. What certificate programs basically are ( and they are a good idea ), is a course of study that provides all the ACCOUNTING courses that a normal accounting major would have to take LESS everything else that an accounting degree normally includes. For someone going back to school to go into accounting for the purpose of becoming a CPA ( assuming of course the person already has a college degree in something else ), a certificate makes the most sense. And since becoming a CPA means you need 150 credit hours, adding the credits from a certificate program to a college degree already earned should put the person over the 150 credit mark. And completing a certificate program will take a lot less time than a 4-year degree. A lot less hassle too. I believe most accounting certificate programs also don’t make students take useless classes that will never be used in an accounting career. Calculus being one of them. I know of a school that makes every single business major ( 4 year degree programs ) take calculus as a requirement for graduation. Never mind the fact that an accountant will NEVER use what is taught in a calculus class. I even talked to one of the accounting professors at this school once and questioned him as to WHY accounting majors must take and pass a calculus class. He told me straight out that students would NEVER use it in an accounting job. " So why then are they required to take it " I asked him. " Because we like our students to have a good mathematical background " he told me. On closer inspection though, I figured out why ALL business majors in the school were forced to take a calculus class. This college had a very big and bloated math department made up of many professors. Calculus was made a requirement for business majors to help justify the need for this math department and give these professors something to do. Lots of college DEGREE programs are actually set up that way. Not so much for the benefit of what the student NEEDS to know, but for the benefit of the faculty. So if you already have a college degree in something else, then just go for the accounting certificate. Don’t worry about going back and getting an accounting degree. Once you have all the accounting courses you need for the CPA exam, you are then just as good as an accounting degree holder. And if an employer doesn’t realize this, they are not worth working for. So, I’d vote for the certificate. One last piece of advice. Can you link us to the actual accounting certificate program that you’re considering. I’d like to check it over. And don’t be afraid to take a few other courses from the college that you think will be helpful to you even if these courses aren’t required by your particular certificate program. An introductory finance course would be a course to take. If they offer business writing you might want to check that out as well. And if there are accounting courses offered by the college that are NOT required by your accounting certificate program, you might want to take those anyway. For instance, what should you do if corporate income tax, non-profit accounting, or advanced federal income tax courses are NOT require by your certificate program but they are still offered by the college ? My advice is to take them anyway. And if you are lucky enough to be at a college that offers a course where students get to work with accounting programs like QUICKBOOKS, and PEACHTREE, then take that course whether it’s required by your certificate program or not. That course will be very useful to you. I hope this advice was useful to you. I’ve been looking into going back to school to get an accounting degree and ultimately get my CPA license.  However, I’ve noticed that many universities are offering accounting certificate programs which they say will allow you to sit for the CPA exam. My question is, is it better to pursue a degree, or is an accounting certification program adequate?  Do potential employers look more favorably on degrees? Thanks. Kirin

Response:

Hi there, Kirin. You have degrees in Political Science and English Literature and now are looking into business-type education such as an accounting certificate or an MBA ? You sound like a versatile and well-rounded person. Lots of people I’ve known who are schooled in the humanities often either have no interest in business or have little ability in business-related subjects. And lots of business-types seem to be just the opposite. So good for you in this regard. Your degrees in Political Science and English literature, while not the most marketable degrees in the world, may still end up providing some value to you even after you get some business training. The ability to read and write properly is a valuable one in any profession. I’m sure that you did plenty of reading and writing when you studied Poly Sci and English lit. And of course, working for the government is no longer seen as such a bad thing in today’s economy, with so many layoffs, and so little job security. And individual with a good understanding of both politics and business can be a real asset in any job, but especially a government job. Why did you dislike law school, if you don’t mind me asking ? And how do you like doing temp work ? In today’s economy, it seems that temp jobs are becoming more popular each day. I took a look last evening at the accounting certificate programs that are offered by the schools you mentioned. One of the schools ( SF state I think ), has an Internal Auditor certificate but I didn’t see a general accounting certificate at that school. Another bit of advice I’ll give you is on getting accounting experience and hopefully an eventual job. It’s very important that you do not simply work towards the accounting certificate and then go look for an accounting job somewhere. That doesn’t work too well. One of the great misconceptions about modern accounting programs is that their graduates are trained so that they can go right into a job situation and be instantly useful to an employer. But most accounting programs spend most of their time teaching accounting THEORY, while spending very little time letting students develop PRACTICAL ACCOUNTING SKILLS that will be useful to them the first day on a job. In one sense, there is nothing wrong with focusing heavily on accounting theory, since that will form an important foundation of knowledge for the student. But most EMPLOYERS these days are interested in someone who can come right in and begin adding value and contributing from DAY ONE in an accounting job. You should set up your mindset to realize that there are a number of employers out there who are going to expect you to hit the ground running from the first day on the job. And this isn’t just true of the accounting field. It’s true of many fields in today’s job market. My advice to you is to do multiple accounting internships before seeking that first real accounting job. And unlike many other fields, quite a few accounting internships are paying ones. Years ago, there were more companies that tried to hire the " right person " ( not just academic background but character, personality, etc ), and then would invest in this person by seeing to it that they got good training and were given jobs and tasks with increasing responsibility as time went on. In other words, many more businesses years ago made the effort at " developing " a new hire. Today, things are different. Businesses still want a new employee trained and developed. It’s just that they expect that employee to be trained and developed when they START the job. Of course, there are exceptions to this rule. But most businesses want an employee who is going to add value right away. So I can’t emphasize enough how important it is to get some accounting experience under your belt before you apply for that first real accounting job. In addition to internships, another good way I see of getting this experience is by doing something similar to a woman who posts here sometimes. This woman works for an individual accountant while she is still going to school to finish her accounting education. This woman has told us she has found an accountant who is more than understanding of her limited experience that she has and who is allowing her to not only work with him, but learn practical skills with him as she goes along. In other words, this accountant is a MENTOR to her, and her experience that she described here sounds very similar to a kind of APPRENTICESHIP. An APPRENTICESHIP, in most simplified terms, is where an inexperienced person who wants to get into a field works alongside a master craftsman for a period of time. I strongly believe that this is truly the best way to learn a job. Yet, the apprenticeship-style of learning is not very common any more in American education. So in addition to the internship way of getting experience, if you can find an individual accountant that you can work under, and who is understanding of your limited level of accounting background ( however " limited " your accounting coursework is by that time ), then jump at the opportunity to work with someone like this. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Mike, Many thanks for your thorough reply. I do have a degree in Political Science and English Literature.  I went to law school after I graduated, but hated it and decided to drop out.  Since that time, I briefly worked as a law clerk, writing legal briefs, found my way into marketing during the dot com boom, and now find myself working temp jobs.  Initially, I planned on getting into an MBA program, but am instead looking into entering an accounting certificate program and then, perhaps, get an MBA. The certificate programs I’ve been looking into are at San Diego State and San Francisco State.  I don’t have a link right now, but will try to get one up. Thanks again for your valuable input. Kirin Kirin, do you already have a college degree ? What is it in ? Accounting certificate programs have been started up at several schools around the country. I believe most of them are people who already have a college degree in another field and who are looking for a career change into the field of accounting. You don’t have to major in accounting to sit for the CPA exam. You could major in just about anything. But you MUST have a certain amount of courses in accounting to sit for the CPA exam. A certificate program, that is set up to satisfy the CPA requirements, will give you coursework that you need to sit for the CPA exam. What certificate programs basically are ( and they are a good idea ), is a course of study that provides all the ACCOUNTING courses that a normal accounting major would have to take LESS everything else that an accounting degree normally includes. For someone going back to school to go into accounting for the purpose of becoming a CPA ( assuming of course the person already has a college degree in something else ), a certificate makes the most sense. And since becoming a CPA means you need 150 credit hours, adding the credits from a certificate program to a college degree already earned should put the person over the 150 credit mark. And completing a certificate program will take a lot less time than a 4-year degree. A lot less hassle too. I believe most accounting certificate programs also don’t make students take useless classes that will never be used in an accounting career. Calculus being one of them. I know of a school that makes every single business major ( 4 year degree programs ) take calculus as a requirement for graduation. Never mind the fact that an accountant will NEVER use what is taught in a calculus class. I even talked to one of the accounting professors at this school once and questioned him as to WHY accounting majors must take and pass a calculus class. He told me straight out that students would NEVER use it in an accounting job. " So why then are they required to take it " I asked him. " Because we like our students to have a good mathematical background " he told me. On closer inspection though, I figured out why ALL business majors in the school were forced to take a calculus class. This college had a very big and bloated math department made up of many professors. Calculus was made a requirement for business majors to help justify the need for this math department and give these professors something to do. Lots of college DEGREE programs are actually set up that way. Not so much for the benefit of what the student NEEDS to know, but for the benefit of the faculty. So if you already have a college degree in something else, then just go for the accounting certificate. Don’t worry about going back and getting an accounting degree. Once you have all the accounting courses you need for the CPA exam, you are then just as good as an accounting degree holder. And if an employer doesn’t realize this, they are not worth working for. So, I’d vote for the certificate. One last piece of advice. Can you link us to the actual accounting certificate program that you’re considering. I’d like to check it over. And don’t be afraid to take a few other courses from the college that you think will be helpful to you even if these courses aren’t required by your particular certificate program. An introductory finance course would be a course to take. If they offer business writing you might want to check that out as well. And if there are accounting courses offered

… read more »

Response:

Four year degree?  Some of them require a masters degree, these days!

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m not sure what is in the certificate programs and you can maybe "sit" for the exam but I think you need a college degree to become a CPA in most states, I’ve been looking into going back to school to get an accounting degree and ultimately get my CPA license.  However, I’ve noticed that many universities are offering accounting certificate programs which they say will allow you to sit for the CPA exam. My question is, is it better to pursue a degree, or is an accounting certification program adequate?  Do potential employers look more favorably on degrees? Thanks. Kirin

Response:

Mike, Many thanks for your thorough reply. I do have a degree in Political Science and English Literature.  I went to law school after I graduated, but hated it and decided to drop out.  Since that time, I briefly worked as a law clerk, writing legal briefs, found my way into marketing during the dot com boom, and now find myself working temp jobs.  Initially, I planned on getting into an MBA program, but am instead looking into entering an accounting certificate program and then, perhaps, get an MBA. The certificate programs I’ve been looking into are at San Diego State and San Francisco State.  I don’t have a link right now, but will try to get one up. Thanks again for your valuable input. Kirin – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Kirin, do you already have a college degree ? What is it in ? Accounting certificate programs have been started up at several schools around the country. I believe most of them are people who already have a college degree in another field and who are looking for a career change into the field of accounting. You don’t have to major in accounting to sit for the CPA exam. You could major in just about anything. But you MUST have a certain amount of courses in accounting to sit for the CPA exam. A certificate program, that is set up to satisfy the CPA requirements, will give you coursework that you need to sit for the CPA exam. What certificate programs basically are ( and they are a good idea ), is a course of study that provides all the ACCOUNTING courses that a normal accounting major would have to take LESS everything else that an accounting degree normally includes. For someone going back to school to go into accounting for the purpose of becoming a CPA ( assuming of course the person already has a college degree in something else ), a certificate makes the most sense. And since becoming a CPA means you need 150 credit hours, adding the credits from a certificate program to a college degree already earned should put the person over the 150 credit mark. And completing a certificate program will take a lot less time than a 4-year degree. A lot less hassle too. I believe most accounting certificate programs also don’t make students take useless classes that will never be used in an accounting career. Calculus being one of them. I know of a school that makes every single business major ( 4 year degree programs ) take calculus as a requirement for graduation. Never mind the fact that an accountant will NEVER use what is taught in a calculus class. I even talked to one of the accounting professors at this school once and questioned him as to WHY accounting majors must take and pass a calculus class. He told me straight out that students would NEVER use it in an accounting job. " So why then are they required to take it " I asked him. " Because we like our students to have a good mathematical background " he told me. On closer inspection though, I figured out why ALL business majors in the school were forced to take a calculus class. This college had a very big and bloated math department made up of many professors. Calculus was made a requirement for business majors to help justify the need for this math department and give these professors something to do. Lots of college DEGREE programs are actually set up that way. Not so much for the benefit of what the student NEEDS to know, but for the benefit of the faculty. So if you already have a college degree in something else, then just go for the accounting certificate. Don’t worry about going back and getting an accounting degree. Once you have all the accounting courses you need for the CPA exam, you are then just as good as an accounting degree holder. And if an employer doesn’t realize this, they are not worth working for. So, I’d vote for the certificate. One last piece of advice. Can you link us to the actual accounting certificate program that you’re considering. I’d like to check it over. And don’t be afraid to take a few other courses from the college that you think will be helpful to you even if these courses aren’t required by your particular certificate program. An introductory finance course would be a course to take. If they offer business writing you might want to check that out as well. And if there are accounting courses offered by the college that are NOT required by your accounting certificate program, you might want to take those anyway. For instance, what should you do if corporate income tax, non-profit accounting, or advanced federal income tax courses are NOT require by your certificate program but they are still offered by the college ? My advice is to take them anyway. And if you are lucky enough to be at a college that offers a course where students get to work with accounting programs like QUICKBOOKS, and PEACHTREE, then take that course whether it’s required by your certificate program or not. That course will be very useful to you. I hope this advice was useful to you.   I’ve been looking into going back to school to get an accounting degree and ultimately get my CPA license.  However, I’ve noticed that many universities are offering accounting certificate programs which they say will allow you to sit for the CPA exam. My question is, is it better to pursue a degree, or is an accounting certification program adequate?  Do potential employers look more favorably on degrees? Thanks. Kirin

Response:

I’ve been looking into going back to school to get an accounting degree and ultimately get my CPA license.  However, I’ve noticed that many universities are offering accounting certificate programs which they say will allow you to sit for the CPA exam. My question is, is it better to pursue a degree, or is an accounting certification program adequate?  Do potential employers look more favorably on degrees? Thanks. Kirin

Response:

I’m not sure what is in the certificate programs and you can maybe "sit" for the exam but I think you need a college degree to become a CPA in most states, – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’ve been looking into going back to school to get an accounting degree and ultimately get my CPA license.  However, I’ve noticed that many universities are offering accounting certificate programs which they say will allow you to sit for the CPA exam. My question is, is it better to pursue a degree, or is an accounting certification program adequate?  Do potential employers look more favorably on degrees? Thanks. Kirin

Response:

Kirin, do you already have a college degree ? What is it in ? Accounting certificate programs have been started up at several schools around the country. I believe most of them are people who already have a college degree in another field and who are looking for a career change into the field of accounting. You don’t have to major in accounting to sit for the CPA exam. You could major in just about anything. But you MUST have a certain amount of courses in accounting to sit for the CPA exam. A certificate program, that is set up to satisfy the CPA requirements, will give you coursework that you need to sit for the CPA exam. What certificate programs basically are ( and they are a good idea ), is a course of study that provides all the ACCOUNTING courses that a normal accounting major would have to take LESS everything else that an accounting degree normally includes. For someone going back to school to go into accounting for the purpose of becoming a CPA ( assuming of course the person already has a college degree in something else ), a certificate makes the most sense. And since becoming a CPA means you need 150 credit hours, adding the credits from a certificate program to a college degree already earned should put the person over the 150 credit mark. And completing a certificate program will take a lot less time than a 4-year degree. A lot less hassle too. I believe most accounting certificate programs also don’t make students take useless classes that will never be used in an accounting career. Calculus being one of them. I know of a school that makes every single business major ( 4 year degree programs ) take calculus as a requirement for graduation. Never mind the fact that an accountant will NEVER use what is taught in a calculus class. I even talked to one of the accounting professors at this school once and questioned him as to WHY accounting majors must take and pass a calculus class. He told me straight out that students would NEVER use it in an accounting job. " So why then are they required to take it " I asked him. " Because we like our students to have a good mathematical background " he told me. On closer inspection though, I figured out why ALL business majors in the school were forced to take a calculus class. This college had a very big and bloated math department made up of many professors. Calculus was made a requirement for business majors to help justify the need for this math department and give these professors something to do. Lots of college DEGREE programs are actually set up that way. Not so much for the benefit of what the student NEEDS to know, but for the benefit of the faculty. So if you already have a college degree in something else, then just go for the accounting certificate. Don’t worry about going back and getting an accounting degree. Once you have all the accounting courses you need for the CPA exam, you are then just as good as an accounting degree holder. And if an employer doesn’t realize this, they are not worth working for. So, I’d vote for the certificate. One last piece of advice. Can you link us to the actual accounting certificate program that you’re considering. I’d like to check it over. And don’t be afraid to take a few other courses from the college that you think will be helpful to you even if these courses aren’t required by your particular certificate program. An introductory finance course would be a course to take. If they offer business writing you might want to check that out as well. And if there are accounting courses offered by the college that are NOT required by your accounting certificate program, you might want to take those anyway. For instance, what should you do if corporate income tax, non-profit accounting, or advanced federal income tax courses are NOT require by your certificate program but they are still offered by the college ? My advice is to take them anyway. And if you are lucky enough to be at a college that offers a course where students get to work with accounting programs like QUICKBOOKS, and PEACHTREE, then take that course whether it’s required by your certificate program or not. That course will be very useful to you. I hope this advice was useful to you.   – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’ve been looking into going back to school to get an accounting degree and ultimately get my CPA license.  However, I’ve noticed that many universities are offering accounting certificate programs which they say will allow you to sit for the CPA exam. My question is, is it better to pursue a degree, or is an accounting certification program adequate?  Do potential employers look more favorably on degrees? Thanks. Kirin

Response:

Question:

I am an Australian student of Accounting, Corporate Finance, and Politics and had the good fortune to spend some time studying at UC Berkeley recently. I was, quite frankly, amazed at many policies (both public and financial institutional) in the US, including the continued presence of a ‘double taxation’ system on dividends.

We usually don’t have many taxes on imputed income in the US.  The government has only rarely taxed income when there was no cash flow to pay the tax.   Back when the individual tax rates topped out at 91% federal, it would have been quite a problem to pay tax on imputed income with no cash. How do other countries deal with this problem? Al

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I think corporate taxation is basically stupid, but a lot of people seem to just love the dickens out of it.  I am sure quite a few of them lurk around here. Agreed. Ideological bias is a poor substitute for reasoned analysis. This is partly why I was surprised at US policy. Having been raised, academically speaking, on a diet of American academic economists whose work has greatly influenced Australian policy reform for the last 2 decades, I was shocked that the impact of these thinkers seems greater in Australia than it does in the US. The basis of the U.S. economic model and the leftist bent of our academics are two entirely different things.  The Chicago School is very unpopular among our elite school economic departments.

The "basis of the US economic model" seems to be increasingly determined by lawyers and lobbyists, not economists (of any bent). As for the unpopularity of the Chicago School amongst elite school economics departments, I took only one economics course at Berkeley and locked horns with the (left-leaning) professor on many occasions! It does surprise me, though, that free market principles are not promulgated by other elite schools, especially those not in the public system? Perhaps if more of them examined the economic outcomes Australia is obtaining (largely) through implementing market-based reforms, they would be less hostile? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – As for investment opportunities, I agree with Susan. There are opportunities there if one searches hard enough (BTW: Ford’s new Hybrid Escape I think Toyota and / or Honda has been trying to hawk such a vehicle for the last year.  AIR, it has been a resounding thud in the marketplace. Perhaps rising prices at the pump may spur consumer demand for a vehicle that obtains some 70-80mpg and rising environmental concerns may also attract interest in ‘zero-emission’ vehicles? AIR, California was looking to implement tough new emissions standards, incorporating SUVs into the regulatory net. CA seems like an awfully big vehicle market, so it seems unlikely that the big manufacturers will be making cars with one set of specs for CA and one for the rest of the country? Also, perhaps a domestic producer will succeed where Japanese producers have failed? CA is a one party state in the process of committing economic suicide. The economy is big enough that the decomposition will probably be felt world wide.  As far as the Zero movement, there has been some backing off.  I assume the only reason the legislature leaned toward it was to extort some money from various parties.

It may also relate to the (temporary) relegation of environmental issues on the international political agenda? Global warming isn’t going away, though, so investment in (non-oil) energy technologies looks a reasonably safe bet for future growth opportunities. Here is the story from the non main line press:  This is the year all the marxists hiding out in the California "education" system get whacked in favor of higher incomes for prison guards.  Guess which set of union didn’t pony up the necessary campaign contributions.

There weren’t too many Marxists at the Haas School of Business, but I take your general point! California, world’s fifth, sixth, or seventh largest economy, runs its own little double and triple taxation schemes.  The politicians thought the people who were paying most of the taxes were following along like sheep.  Turns out they weren’t, they were leaving California in droves. The plan now is to increase the trickle down taxes and increase the soak on the lower income earners. I am sure some will find this all entertaining.

There is certainly much economic irrationality in CA, but it is also an amazingly cosmopolitan and innovative place (especially the SF Bay area). I wonder if some of those people whom you state are leaving in droves are doing so because of the tech downturn? In any event, it would be good to find a way to introduce a little more economic sanity there without destroying the tolerant, multicultural and creative culture: that culture makes for the projection of a tremendously positive image of the US to her Pacific neighbours. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – peculiar phenomenon of the American investor: an unwillingness to diversify portfolios globally Not true.  Americans are very diversified through mutual funds. Actually, it’s a well accepted phenomenon in international finance. It’s called the ‘home-bias’ and is present everywhere, to varying degrees. The bias is actually *greater* with American investors than many other nationalities (including Australians). For example, US equities comprise less than 50% of global equities (and shrinking), yet Americans have some 90% of their equity funds in domestic equity vehicles. I thought it was clear.  American equities are considered the safest to place your investment capital in.  That is why foreign investment in the U.S. is so high.

What, precisely, has been "safe" about US equities during the past 3 years?! I guess they have ‘only’ fallen 40%, compared with German equities down 60%, but that seems far too easy a test for ’safety’! That same foreign investment of which you speak is contracting at the moment precisely because investors are applying the Newtonian logic to US investments (‘what goes up…’) and looking increasingly nervous about the *enormous* CAD the US has built up. Those that wised-up to the overvalued greenback have, in the last year, seen US dollar returns of around 30% on many foreign investments (including Australian government bonds). It is likely that American insularity has largely contributed to the overinvestment in US assets. That citizens of foreign countries are more aware of the US market than Americans are of foreign markets is partly testament to the success of American culture in projecting itself across the globe – Hollywood has encouraged ‘foreigners’ to put the US under the microscope for years, whilst encouraging Americans to be culturally introspective. This is the result of past success but does not neccessarily make for a successful future. Professional investors are more aware of this phenomenon than are moms & pops in suburban America. Indeed, the ‘home-bias’ has now virtually disappeared amongst US *institutional* investors as professional money managers understand the logic of portfolio diversification. It is not controversial, it is logical. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – IMHO, part of the reason for the rising greenback of the last several years is the faster erosion of the ‘home-bias’ in non-US countries compared with the US. More money flowing in than out puts upward pressure on the currency and equity markets alike. This is unlikely to be a sustainable trend, as we are witnessing at present. BTW, most of the foreign centered funds have not been outstanding buys. Global portfolio diversification is a long-run strategic issue, not a short-run tactical issue. In any event, as a counter-example, the last 3 years have seen equity returns on US stocks of -40%, whilst the same period has seen returns on Australian stocks of +11%. It is a curious phenomenon that Australian investors have a greater *dollar* investment in listed US firms than US investors have in Australian listed firms. That is in absolute (not relative) terms, a fact which amazes in light of the fact that the US has more than 10 times the population and an equity market more than 10 times the size of that in Australia! I think that is an indication of how safe Australians consider the U.S. to invest in.

No, it’s an indication that more Australians understand the benefits of portfolio diversification. This does not mean that the US is not a good place to invest, but you ought not fall into the (nationalistic) trap of assuming that everything about the US is ‘world’s best practice’ as it is not. As an example, consider Chapter 11 laws: moribund companies are not liquidated to extract whatever value remains, but are rather left to the lawyers and (inept) entrenched management to pick over the carcass. The bones are then ‘reorganised’ and sent back into the market, where most of them subsequently fail again, prompting the liquidation they ought to have experienced in the first place. Of course, this avoids the political ramifications of an ‘unexpected’ corporate failure and keeps Ch11 lawyers well fed! Personally, I do not presently consider Australia a safe place to invest money.  Obviously there are many more Americans who agree with me.

Australia is a lower risk investment than is the US. The market beta here is *consistently* less than 1 and the regulatory risks are *greater* in the US at present. Most listed companies have long histories of profitability in relatively less volatile markets (Cf. the dot bombs, most of which had and will never experience a profitable year). Again, I do not want to make nationalist arguments specifically promoting Australia as an investment destination. What I do want to highlight is the investment opportunities that exist outside the US and the parochial nature of many US investors who refuse to explore such opportunities. If ’safety’ is your primary concern, you ought to be globally diversified, as standard deviations of returns are lower for any given expected return scenario. By *not* investing in Australia (and other foreign markets) your risk is *higher*, not lower. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Essentially, compared to the U.S., investment in most other countries sucks.  A.L. has noted the huge amount of capital that has flowed out of Switzerland to the U.S. because…….  Swiss investors think putting money in the

… read more »

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Sorry to interrupt your conversation, but I thought you might be interested in another viewpoint. I am an Australian student of Accounting, Corporate Finance, and Politics and had the good fortune to spend some time studying at UC Berkeley recently. I was, quite frankly, amazed at many policies (both public and financial institutional) in the US, including the continued presence of a ‘double taxation’ system on dividends. You might want to (try) start a separate thread on that issue. I thought that was what this thread was originally about (the politics of removal of double taxation on dividends)?

Sorry, I thought it was one of the usual attacks on improvement stemming a deep desire to maintain the status quo. I think corporate taxation is basically stupid, but a lot of people seem to just love the dickens out of it.  I am sure quite a few of them lurk around here. Agreed. Ideological bias is a poor substitute for reasoned analysis. This is partly why I was surprised at US policy. Having been raised, academically speaking, on a diet of American academic economists whose work has greatly influenced Australian policy reform for the last 2 decades, I was shocked that the impact of these thinkers seems greater in Australia than it does in the US.

The basis of the U.S. economic model and the leftist bent of our academics are two entirely different things.  The Chicago School is very unpopular among our elite school economic departments. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – As for investment opportunities, I agree with Susan. There are opportunities there if one searches hard enough (BTW: Ford’s new Hybrid Escape I think Toyota and / or Honda has been trying to hawk such a vehicle for the last year.  AIR, it has been a resounding thud in the marketplace. Perhaps rising prices at the pump may spur consumer demand for a vehicle that obtains some 70-80mpg and rising environmental concerns may also attract interest in ‘zero-emission’ vehicles? AIR, California was looking to implement tough new emissions standards, incorporating SUVs into the regulatory net. CA seems like an awfully big vehicle market, so it seems unlikely that the big manufacturers will be making cars with one set of specs for CA and one for the rest of the country? Also, perhaps a domestic producer will succeed where Japanese producers have failed?

CA is a one party state in the process of committing economic suicide. The economy is big enough that the decomposition will probably be felt world wide.  As far as the Zero movement, there has been some backing off.  I assume the only reason the legislature leaned toward it was to extort some money from various parties. Here is the story from the non main line press:  This is the year all the marxists hiding out in the California "education" system get whacked in favor of higher incomes for prison guards.  Guess which set of union didn’t pony up the necessary campaign contributions. California, world’s fifth, sixth, or seventh largest economy, runs its own little double and triple taxation schemes.  The politicians thought the people who were paying most of the taxes were following along like sheep.  Turns out they weren’t, they were leaving California in droves. The plan now is to increase the trickle down taxes and increase the soak on the lower income earners. I am sure some will find this all entertaining. peculiar phenomenon of the American investor: an unwillingness to diversify portfolios globally Not true.  Americans are very diversified through mutual funds. Actually, it’s a well accepted phenomenon in international finance. It’s called the ‘home-bias’ and is present everywhere, to varying degrees. The bias is actually *greater* with American investors than many other nationalities (including Australians). For example, US equities comprise less than 50% of global equities (and shrinking), yet Americans have some 90% of their equity funds in domestic equity vehicles.

I thought it was clear.  American equities are considered the safest to place your investment capital in.  That is why foreign investment in the U.S. is so high. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – IMHO, part of the reason for the rising greenback of the last several years is the faster erosion of the ‘home-bias’ in non-US countries compared with the US. More money flowing in than out puts upward pressure on the currency and equity markets alike. This is unlikely to be a sustainable trend, as we are witnessing at present. BTW, most of the foreign centered funds have not been outstanding buys. Global portfolio diversification is a long-run strategic issue, not a short-run tactical issue. In any event, as a counter-example, the last 3 years have seen equity returns on US stocks of -40%, whilst the same period has seen returns on Australian stocks of +11%. It is a curious phenomenon that Australian investors have a greater *dollar* investment in listed US firms than US investors have in Australian listed firms. That is in absolute (not relative) terms, a fact which amazes in light of the fact that the US has more than 10 times the population and an equity market more than 10 times the size of that in Australia!

I think that is an indication of how safe Australians consider the U.S. to invest in. Personally, I do not presently consider Australia a safe place to invest money.  Obviously there are many more Americans who agree with me. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Essentially, compared to the U.S., investment in most other countries sucks.  A.L. has noted the huge amount of capital that has flowed out of Switzerland to the U.S. because…….  Swiss investors think putting money in the U.S. will have a better return that sinking it into europe. I am certainly not trying to run a nationalist argument here. I believe in the merits of the flexibility and dynamism of the US economy over the continued rigidities in the European markets (including especially the dangerous experiment that is the Euro). This, however, has little to do with the logic of international diversification. Returns are meaningless without examining their counterpart: risk. Also, valuation issues suggest that one can pay too much for any asset, even one likely to grow faster than the other. That funds are flowing in the other direction across the pond of late is evidence of this. of the last couple of years). Australian firms continue to enjoy solid profit growth I don’t know about Australia, I’ve always heard it was Socialist with a big S, and the government insisted in keeping its hand into everything. I’ve never found that attractive, long term.  Others may want to put in their capital. Your knowledge of Australia is partly correct…if one were looking back some 25-75 years. Recent history, the present and the future are all working against your analysis though, my friend.

Unfortunately, I tend to look at England as a model for all the old commonwealth countries.  A little bit of Thatcher and free market and thank you mam but we want the reds back.  I haven’t seen anything that would make me think the Australians people would pull the same stunt. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – As I intimated in my original post, I was quite surprised at many US policies as we have, in Australia, implemented many of the policies suggested by economic theories promulgated by US economists (especially those of the Chicago School). It has been an arduous journey, with many detractors and plenty of fights ahead, but the results of reform to date speak for themselves: * GDP growth consistently exceeds that in the US, both in absolute and per capita terms * Productivity growth is also consistently higher than that in the US * Real wages have grown in all income deciles over the last 20 years * Social and income mobility is higher than ever (meritocracy) * Unemployment continues to fall to levels similar to those in the US * Public finances are amongst the strongest in the world. Government debt has reduced almost to nothing. Moody’s rates Australian government debt AAA, the highest rating available. Despite the current global economic slowdown, government finance remains sound (little or no deficits). * Trade protectionism has been all but abolished (Cf. the US Farm Bill and steel tariffs!). Those businesses that have survived are consequently of world standard. * Privatisation of many (most?) large government assets and ongoing economically rational and pro-business policies have seen the Australian stock market leapfrog a number of countries in terms of market capitalization. The Australian equity market is now the 8th largest in the world and rapidly approaching the size of the Dutch bourse. This ‘leapfrogging’ has included countries with substantially larger economic and population bases, such as Italy. * Corporate governance is arguably even better here than it is in the US. Accounting standards are driven by principles, rather than by legalism and political horse-trading (e.g. Enron would not have happened here as Fastow’s ‘raptors’ would have been consolidated with the Enron accounts under an economic, rather than legal, entity consolidation requirement). Again, I do not wish to make nationalistic arguments. What has happened in one country in the past is of little consequence for the global future. What is important is the logic of portfolio theory and the wisdom of global thinking. If the US seems too crowded an investment space, look outside the US.

No problem. Capital is dear, and my resources are limited.  I can’t make it again, things have changed and the same … read more »

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Sorry to interrupt your conversation, but I thought you might be interested in another viewpoint. I am an Australian student of Accounting, Corporate Finance, and Politics and had the good fortune to spend some time studying at UC Berkeley recently. I was, quite frankly, amazed at many policies (both public and financial institutional) in the US, including the continued presence of a ‘double taxation’ system on dividends. Double taxation of dividends was ended in Australia some 15 years ago. Students of corporate finance learn about ‘classical’ (double taxation) systems, such as that extant in the US, as well as the ‘imputation’ system present in Australia. The imputation system does not simply make dividends ‘tax-free’ as such (it actually serves to ‘abolish’ corporate taxes, in a virtual sense). Imputation provides shareholders with a ‘tax credit’ equal to corporate tax already paid on those earnings such that a shareholder is taxed on their share of corporate earnings at their own marginal tax rate. Each shareholder/taxpayer then either has: (1) a tax bill for the difference between taxes already paid by the firm and the taxpayer’s marginal rate of tax (e.g. a taxpayer on a 35% marginal tax rate would be expected to pay 5% of the ‘grossed-up’ [before corporate tax] dividend in addition to the 30% corporate tax already paid by the firm on the shareholder’s behalf before dividends are paid); or (2) a tax refund for the difference if the shareholder/taxpayer is subject to a marginal income tax rate less than the corporate tax rate (e.g. the shareholder/taxpayer on a 25% marginal tax rate would receive a tax refund equivalent to 5% of the ‘grossed-up’ dividend as too much tax would have been paid by this low-income shareholder on their corporate earnings). Sounds to me like you have essentially turned all your corporations into what we call S Corporations.

Interesting. I’ve not heard of such firms. To what does the ‘S’ refer? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Whilst I have not read any in-depth explanation of Bush’s plan, I suspect it might look something like this imputation system. Change to the imputation system obviously entails changing incentives faced by corporate managers and an initial impact on share prices (and leverage). The former serves to partly reduce the ‘Free Cash Flow’ problem of encouraging corporate managers to release excess earnings by way of dividends (the present value of imputation credits diminishes if the credits are not distributed to shareholders) whilst dividend reinvestment plans allow shareholders to ‘opt in’ (or out) of returning cash flows immediately to that firm). The positive share price effect (investors care about and price after-tax returns, which are now higher under imputation) would partly counteract the ominous ‘wealth-effect’ blows to consumer spending we have all been expecting as a result of equity losses by American consumers. Future governments will find it more difficult to increase corporate taxes, as increases in corporate tax are offset by increased income tax credits (at least to local investors) whilst future reduction in the corporate tax rate is similarly ’sterilized’ by reduced income tax credits (except to foreign investors). The tax benefit of debt capital relative to equity is reduced, thus average leverage can be expected to reduce, lowering systemic risks of financial crisis. I haven’t had time to research Bush’s plan (tax season is pending, things are starting to heat up), all I’ve heard is that he wants to remove the tax on the dividends. Essentially, if that’s all he’s doing, he’s doing the exact opposite of what you were saying Australia has done.

Again, interesting. I hadn’t considered the possibility that a simple comment (by Dubya) would translate to a simple policy (scrap the tax on dividends). I guess the imputation system that I described just seems logical and would have the neccessary political, economic and ideological implications that Dubya might be after. I’m not sure that dividend imputation is quite "the exact opposite" of removing tax on dividends, but I take your point about the difference. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – As for investment opportunities, I agree with Susan. There are opportunities there if one searches hard enough (BTW: Ford’s new Hybrid Escape harnesses electricity generated by the braking process to power the electric engine once the vehicle reaches cruising speed – a non-nuclear, non-coal energy innovation). Alternatively, opportunities abound outside the US (another peculiar phenomenon of the American investor: an unwillingness to diversify portfolios globally despite a wealth of theory urging this strategy, an irrationality that has, I believe, contributed to the overvalued greenback of the last couple of years). Australian firms continue to enjoy solid profit growth, business investment intentions are increasing, and the economy continues to grow at around 4% p.a. despite a record drought impacting agricultural exports, a soft world economy, and a 20% appreciation of the local currency against the greenback in the last 14 months. Of course, much of these results have come on the back of hard fought microeconomic reforms (especially the almost complete eradication of trade protectionism), not just the long-run efficiency benefits of the imputation system. The fight (against the lawyers) for an economically rational America has yet to be played out. I’m afraid I don’t know anything about the number of Americans who invest in foreign companies, and I don’t keep track of the dollar vs. other currencies, because I don’t have to deal with foreign currencies (I live in a *very* small town in rural America), so although I understand what you’re saying, I can neither agree nor disagree with it.

The global economy affects us all, regardless of whether one lives in London, NYC, Sydney or a small rural community such as that in which you live. Currencies impact investment decisions (make in ‘here’ or make it ‘there’?), consumption decisions (buy imported or buy domestic?) as well as financial decisions (where should retirement savings be invested?). As for the irrationality of American investors, it is not a phenomenon unique to Americans. Everyone does it (‘home-bias’). I guess I had just expected more of American investors as much of the world looks to the US for economic leadership. This ought not be taken as a criticism of the US or her people. I *loved* my time there, miss tremendously all the friends I made and can’t wait to return soon

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Sorry to interrupt your conversation, but I thought you might be interested in another viewpoint. I am an Australian student of Accounting, Corporate Finance, and Politics and had the good fortune to spend some time studying at UC Berkeley recently. I was, quite frankly, amazed at many policies (both public and financial institutional) in the US, including the continued presence of a ‘double taxation’ system on dividends. You might want to (try) start a separate thread on that issue.

I thought that was what this thread was originally about (the politics of removal of double taxation on dividends)? I think corporate taxation is basically stupid, but a lot of people seem to just love the dickens out of it.  I am sure quite a few of them lurk around here.

Agreed. Ideological bias is a poor substitute for reasoned analysis. This is partly why I was surprised at US policy. Having been raised, academically speaking, on a diet of American academic economists whose work has greatly influenced Australian policy reform for the last 2 decades, I was shocked that the impact of these thinkers seems greater in Australia than it does in the US. As for investment opportunities, I agree with Susan. There are opportunities there if one searches hard enough (BTW: Ford’s new Hybrid Escape I think Toyota and / or Honda has been trying to hawk such a vehicle for the last year.  AIR, it has been a resounding thud in the marketplace.

Perhaps rising prices at the pump may spur consumer demand for a vehicle that obtains some 70-80mpg and rising environmental concerns may also attract interest in ‘zero-emission’ vehicles? AIR, California was looking to implement tough new emissions standards, incorporating SUVs into the regulatory net. CA seems like an awfully big vehicle market, so it seems unlikely that the big manufacturers will be making cars with one set of specs for CA and one for the rest of the country? Also, perhaps a domestic producer will succeed where Japanese producers have failed? peculiar phenomenon of the American investor: an unwillingness to diversify portfolios globally Not true.  Americans are very diversified through mutual funds.

Actually, it’s a well accepted phenomenon in international finance. It’s called the ‘home-bias’ and is present everywhere, to varying degrees. The bias is actually *greater* with American investors than many other nationalities (including Australians). For example, US equities comprise less than 50% of global equities (and shrinking), yet Americans have some 90% of their equity funds in domestic equity vehicles. IMHO, part of the reason for the rising greenback of the last several years is the faster erosion of the ‘home-bias’ in non-US countries compared with the US. More money flowing in than out puts upward pressure on the currency and equity markets alike. This is unlikely to be a sustainable trend, as we are witnessing at present. BTW, most of the foreign centered funds have not been outstanding buys.

Global portfolio diversification is a long-run strategic issue, not a short-run tactical issue. In any event, as a counter-example, the last 3 years have seen equity returns on US stocks of -40%, whilst the same period has seen returns on Australian stocks of +11%. It is a curious phenomenon that Australian investors have a greater *dollar* investment in listed US firms than US investors have in Australian listed firms. That is in absolute (not relative) terms, a fact which amazes in light of the fact that the US has more than 10 times the population and an equity market more than 10 times the size of that in Australia! Essentially, compared to the U.S., investment in most other countries sucks.  A.L. has noted the huge amount of capital that has flowed out of Switzerland to the U.S. because…….  Swiss investors think putting money in the U.S. will have a better return that sinking it into europe.

I am certainly not trying to run a nationalist argument here. I believe in the merits of the flexibility and dynamism of the US economy over the continued rigidities in the European markets (including especially the dangerous experiment that is the Euro). This, however, has little to do with the logic of international diversification. Returns are meaningless without examining their counterpart: risk. Also, valuation issues suggest that one can pay too much for any asset, even one likely to grow faster than the other. That funds are flowing in the other direction across the pond of late is evidence of this. of the last couple of years). Australian firms continue to enjoy solid profit growth I don’t know about Australia, I’ve always heard it was Socialist with a big S, and the government insisted in keeping its hand into everything. I’ve never found that attractive, long term.  Others may want to put in their capital.

Your knowledge of Australia is partly correct…if one were looking back some 25-75 years. Recent history, the present and the future are all working against your analysis though, my friend. As I intimated in my original post, I was quite surprised at many US policies as we have, in Australia, implemented many of the policies suggested by economic theories promulgated by US economists (especially those of the Chicago School). It has been an arduous journey, with many detractors and plenty of fights ahead, but the results of reform to date speak for themselves: * GDP growth consistently exceeds that in the US, both in absolute and per capita terms * Productivity growth is also consistently higher than that in the US * Real wages have grown in all income deciles over the last 20 years * Social and income mobility is higher than ever (meritocracy) * Unemployment continues to fall to levels similar to those in the US * Public finances are amongst the strongest in the world. Government debt has reduced almost to nothing. Moody’s rates Australian government debt AAA, the highest rating available. Despite the current global economic slowdown, government finance remains sound (little or no deficits). * Trade protectionism has been all but abolished (Cf. the US Farm Bill and steel tariffs!). Those businesses that have survived are consequently of world standard. * Privatisation of many (most?) large government assets and ongoing economically rational and pro-business policies have seen the Australian stock market leapfrog a number of countries in terms of market capitalization. The Australian equity market is now the 8th largest in the world and rapidly approaching the size of the Dutch bourse. This ‘leapfrogging’ has included countries with substantially larger economic and population bases, such as Italy. * Corporate governance is arguably even better here than it is in the US. Accounting standards are driven by principles, rather than by legalism and political horse-trading (e.g. Enron would not have happened here as Fastow’s ‘raptors’ would have been consolidated with the Enron accounts under an economic, rather than legal, entity consolidation requirement). Again, I do not wish to make nationalistic arguments. What has happened in one country in the past is of little consequence for the global future. What is important is the logic of portfolio theory and the wisdom of global thinking. If the US seems too crowded an investment space, look outside the US. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – *             Ronald Lee Todd M.B.A., C.P.A.                  * * Unemployed for seven years, mistake of being an accountant. * *   Students, when someone tells you of your great future as  * *       an accountant, ask him to show you the job.           *

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Why do you feel there is a lack of investment opportunities? I can see plenty of them. Because, in the present world economy, I don’t. Then you’re not looking very hard. Which is your preference, dot comms or ponzis? How about electric cars, methods of increasing gas mileage, finding more affordable methods of producing energy? Is that electric cars that get the electricity from coal, oil, natural gas fired or nuclear plants? Solar power, if you want to get picky. Gov. Davis is looking for that cheap "affordable" (as an accountant that word just causes my teeth to grate) electricity, etc…. Sorry, never had a problem with words, per se. They are just words. Anybody can misuse them.  Though perhaps a better way of saying it would be "ways of releasing us from the stranglehold of the oil companies". BTW, there is no shortage of oil.  All oil shortages have been politically manufactured.  Politicians have found that in the west they are as good as famine for controlling populations. I’m aware of that.  I think most of the country is aware of that by now. Think what choices does to that dynamic. The computer industry may be in trouble.  Technology as a whole, however, is still changing – and needs to. There is a difference in having faith in technology and being able to spot economically successful technology pathways. They are not obvious, except in hind sight.  I’ve seen a couple of things that might be profitable down the line, but they’re at the gambling stage not the investing stage. All investing is a gamble.  The amount of rise depends of the newness of

the                                                                  ^^^ s/b risk (confounded typos) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – product.  If you want low risk, you go for estabilished products.  If you want medium risk, you go for newer, carefully researched products.  If you want high risk, you invest in products in development that you believe are going to come through.  The higher the risk, the more likely the high return is. Those are just off the top of my head. Salesmen are the ones who commit other people’s money off the top of their head, investors don’t do that.  Read the economic history of Ben Graham and his student (hint: Bershire Hathaway). Hey, you didn’t say anything about how good the opportunites were until now, you just denied they existed.  I proved you wrong, without doing a lot of research.  Your problems with my grammer are just that:  yours.  If you want more details, do your own research. BTW, I’m neither in sales nor investing.  I’m a tax accountant.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Sorry to interrupt your conversation, but I thought you might be interested in another viewpoint. I am an Australian student of Accounting, Corporate Finance, and Politics and had the good fortune to spend some time studying at UC Berkeley recently. I was, quite frankly, amazed at many policies (both public and financial institutional) in the US, including the continued presence of a ‘double taxation’ system on dividends. Double taxation of dividends was ended in Australia some 15 years ago. Students of corporate finance learn about ‘classical’ (double taxation) systems, such as that extant in the US, as well as the ‘imputation’ system present in Australia. The imputation system does not simply make dividends ‘tax-free’ as such (it actually serves to ‘abolish’ corporate taxes, in a virtual sense). Imputation provides shareholders with a ‘tax credit’ equal to corporate tax already paid on those earnings such that a shareholder is taxed on their share of corporate earnings at their own marginal tax rate. Each shareholder/taxpayer then either has: (1) a tax bill for the difference between taxes already paid by the firm and the taxpayer’s marginal rate of tax (e.g. a taxpayer on a 35% marginal tax rate would be expected to pay 5% of the ‘grossed-up’ [before corporate tax] dividend in addition to the 30% corporate tax already paid by the firm on the shareholder’s behalf before dividends are paid); or (2) a tax refund for the difference if the shareholder/taxpayer is subject to a marginal income tax rate less than the corporate tax rate (e.g. the shareholder/taxpayer on a 25% marginal tax rate would receive a tax refund equivalent to 5% of the ‘grossed-up’ dividend as too much tax would have been paid by this low-income shareholder on their corporate earnings).

Sounds to me like you have essentially turned all your corporations into what we call S Corporations. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Whilst I have not read any in-depth explanation of Bush’s plan, I suspect it might look something like this imputation system. Change to the imputation system obviously entails changing incentives faced by corporate managers and an initial impact on share prices (and leverage). The former serves to partly reduce the ‘Free Cash Flow’ problem of encouraging corporate managers to release excess earnings by way of dividends (the present value of imputation credits diminishes if the credits are not distributed to shareholders) whilst dividend reinvestment plans allow shareholders to ‘opt in’ (or out) of returning cash flows immediately to that firm). The positive share price effect (investors care about and price after-tax returns, which are now higher under imputation) would partly counteract the ominous ‘wealth-effect’ blows to consumer spending we have all been expecting as a result of equity losses by American consumers. Future governments will find it more difficult to increase corporate taxes, as increases in corporate tax are offset by increased income tax credits (at least to local investors) whilst future reduction in the corporate tax rate is similarly ’sterilized’ by reduced income tax credits (except to foreign investors). The tax benefit of debt capital relative to equity is reduced, thus average leverage can be expected to reduce, lowering systemic risks of financial crisis.

I haven’t had time to research Bush’s plan (tax season is pending, things are starting to heat up), all I’ve heard is that he wants to remove the tax on the dividends. Essentially, if that’s all he’s doing, he’s doing the exact opposite of what you were saying Australia has done. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – As for investment opportunities, I agree with Susan. There are opportunities there if one searches hard enough (BTW: Ford’s new Hybrid Escape harnesses electricity generated by the braking process to power the electric engine once the vehicle reaches cruising speed – a non-nuclear, non-coal energy innovation). Alternatively, opportunities abound outside the US (another peculiar phenomenon of the American investor: an unwillingness to diversify portfolios globally despite a wealth of theory urging this strategy, an irrationality that has, I believe, contributed to the overvalued greenback of the last couple of years). Australian firms continue to enjoy solid profit growth, business investment intentions are increasing, and the economy continues to grow at around 4% p.a. despite a record drought impacting agricultural exports, a soft world economy, and a 20% appreciation of the local currency against the greenback in the last 14 months. Of course, much of these results have come on the back of hard fought microeconomic reforms (especially the almost complete eradication of trade protectionism), not just the long-run efficiency benefits of the imputation system. The fight (against the lawyers) for an economically rational America has yet to be played out.

I’m afraid I don’t know anything about the number of Americans who invest in foreign companies, and I don’t keep track of the dollar vs. other currencies, because I don’t have to deal with foreign currencies (I live in a *very* small town in rural America), so although I understand what you’re saying, I can neither agree nor disagree with it.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Why do you feel there is a lack of investment opportunities?  I can see plenty of them. Because, in the present world economy, I don’t. Then you’re not looking very hard. Which is your preference, dot comms or ponzis? How about electric cars, methods of increasing gas mileage, finding more affordable methods of producing energy? Is that electric cars that get the electricity from coal, oil, natural gas fired or nuclear plants?

Solar power, if you want to get picky. Gov. Davis is looking for that cheap "affordable" (as an accountant that word just causes my teeth to grate) electricity, etc….

Sorry, never had a problem with words, per se. They are just words.  Anybody can misuse them.  Though perhaps a better way of saying it would be "ways of releasing us from the stranglehold of the oil companies". BTW, there is no shortage of oil.  All oil shortages have been politically manufactured.  Politicians have found that in the west they are as good as famine for controlling populations.

I’m aware of that.  I think most of the country is aware of that by now. Think what choices does to that dynamic. The computer industry may be in trouble.  Technology as a whole, however, is still changing – and needs to. There is a difference in having faith in technology and being able to spot economically successful technology pathways. They are not obvious, except in hind sight.  I’ve seen a couple of things that might be profitable down the line, but they’re at the gambling stage not the investing stage.

All investing is a gamble.  The amount of rise depends of the newness of the product.  If you want low risk, you go for estabilished products.  If you want medium risk, you go for newer, carefully researched products.  If you want high risk, you invest in products in development that you believe are going to come through.  The higher the risk, the more likely the high return is. Those are just off the top of my head. Salesmen are the ones who commit other people’s money off the top of their head, investors don’t do that.  Read the economic history of Ben Graham and his student (hint: Bershire Hathaway).

Hey, you didn’t say anything about how good the opportunites were until now, you just denied they existed.  I proved you wrong, without doing a lot of research.  Your problems with my grammer are just that:  yours.  If you want more details, do your own research. BTW, I’m neither in sales nor investing.  I’m a tax accountant.

Response:

Sorry to interrupt your conversation, but I thought you might be interested in another viewpoint. I am an Australian student of Accounting, Corporate Finance, and Politics and had the good fortune to spend some time studying at UC Berkeley recently. I was, quite frankly, amazed at many policies (both public and financial institutional) in the US, including the continued presence of a ‘double taxation’ system on dividends.

You might want to (try) start a separate thread on that issue. I think corporate taxation is basically stupid, but a lot of people seem to just love the dickens out of it.  I am sure quite a few of them lurk around here. … As for investment opportunities, I agree with Susan. There are opportunities there if one searches hard enough (BTW: Ford’s new Hybrid Escape

I think Toyota and / or Honda has been trying to hawk such a vehicle for the last year.  AIR, it has been a resounding thud in the marketplace. peculiar phenomenon of the American investor: an unwillingness to diversify portfolios globally

Not true.  Americans are very diversified through mutual funds.  BTW, most of the foreign centered funds have not been outstanding buys. Essentially, compared to the U.S., investment in most other countries sucks.  A.L. has noted the huge amount of capital that has flowed out of Switzerland to the U.S. because…….  Swiss investors think putting money in the U.S. will have a better return that sinking it into europe. … of the last couple of years). Australian firms continue to enjoy solid profit growth

I don’t know about Australia, I’ve always heard it was Socialist with a big S, and the government insisted in keeping its hand into everything. I’ve never found that attractive, long term.  Others may want to put in their capital. — *             Ronald Lee Todd M.B.A., C.P.A.                  * * Unemployed for seven years, mistake of being an accountant. * *   Students, when someone tells you of your great future as  * *       an accountant, ask him to show you the job.           *

Response:

Sorry to interrupt your conversation, but I thought you might be interested in another viewpoint. I am an Australian student of Accounting, Corporate Finance, and Politics and had the good fortune to spend some time studying at UC Berkeley recently. I was, quite frankly, amazed at many policies (both public and financial institutional) in the US, including the continued presence of a ‘double taxation’ system on dividends. Double taxation of dividends was ended in Australia some 15 years ago. Students of corporate finance learn about ‘classical’ (double taxation) systems, such as that extant in the US, as well as the ‘imputation’ system present in Australia. The imputation system does not simply make dividends ‘tax-free’ as such (it actually serves to ‘abolish’ corporate taxes, in a virtual sense). Imputation provides shareholders with a ‘tax credit’ equal to corporate tax already paid on those earnings such that a shareholder is taxed on their share of corporate earnings at their own marginal tax rate. Each shareholder/taxpayer then either has: (1) a tax bill for the difference between taxes already paid by the firm and the taxpayer’s marginal rate of tax (e.g. a taxpayer on a 35% marginal tax rate would be expected to pay 5% of the ‘grossed-up’ [before corporate tax] dividend in addition to the 30% corporate tax already paid by the firm on the shareholder’s behalf before dividends are paid); or (2) a tax refund for the difference if the shareholder/taxpayer is subject to a marginal income tax rate less than the corporate tax rate (e.g. the shareholder/taxpayer on a 25% marginal tax rate would receive a tax refund equivalent to 5% of the ‘grossed-up’ dividend as too much tax would have been paid by this low-income shareholder on their corporate earnings). Whilst I have not read any in-depth explanation of Bush’s plan, I suspect it might look something like this imputation system. Change to the imputation system obviously entails changing incentives faced by corporate managers and an initial impact on share prices (and leverage). The former serves to partly reduce the ‘Free Cash Flow’ problem of encouraging corporate managers to release excess earnings by way of dividends (the present value of imputation credits diminishes if the credits are not distributed to shareholders) whilst dividend reinvestment plans allow shareholders to ‘opt in’ (or out) of returning cash flows immediately to that firm). The positive share price effect (investors care about and price after-tax returns, which are now higher under imputation) would partly counteract the ominous ‘wealth-effect’ blows to consumer spending we have all been expecting as a result of equity losses by American consumers. Future governments will find it more difficult to increase corporate taxes, as increases in corporate tax are offset by increased income tax credits (at least to local investors) whilst future reduction in the corporate tax rate is similarly ’sterilized’ by reduced income tax credits (except to foreign investors). The tax benefit of debt capital relative to equity is reduced, thus average leverage can be expected to reduce, lowering systemic risks of financial crisis. As for investment opportunities, I agree with Susan. There are opportunities there if one searches hard enough (BTW: Ford’s new Hybrid Escape harnesses electricity generated by the braking process to power the electric engine once the vehicle reaches cruising speed – a non-nuclear, non-coal energy innovation). Alternatively, opportunities abound outside the US (another peculiar phenomenon of the American investor: an unwillingness to diversify portfolios globally despite a wealth of theory urging this strategy, an irrationality that has, I believe, contributed to the overvalued greenback of the last couple of years). Australian firms continue to enjoy solid profit growth, business investment intentions are increasing, and the economy continues to grow at around 4% p.a. despite a record drought impacting agricultural exports, a soft world economy, and a 20% appreciation of the local currency against the greenback in the last 14 months. Of course, much of these results have come on the back of hard fought microeconomic reforms (especially the almost complete eradication of trade protectionism), not just the long-run efficiency benefits of the imputation system. The fight (against the lawyers) for an economically rational America has yet to be played out.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Why do you feel there is a lack of investment opportunities?  I can see plenty of them. Because, in the present world economy, I don’t. Then you’re not looking very hard. Which is your preference, dot comms or ponzis? How about electric cars, methods of increasing gas mileage, finding more affordable methods of producing energy?  

Is that electric cars that get the electricity from coal, oil, natural gas fired or nuclear plants?   Gov. Davis is looking for that cheap "affordable" (as an accountant that word just causes my teeth to grate) electricity, etc…. BTW, there is no shortage of oil.  All oil shortages have been politically manufactured.  Politicians have found that in the west they are as good as famine for controlling populations. The computer industry may be in trouble.  Technology as a whole, however, is still changing – and needs to.

There is a difference in having faith in technology and being able to spot economically successful technology pathways. They are not obvious, except in hind sight.  I’ve seen a couple of things that might be profitable down the line, but they’re at the gambling stage not the investing stage. Those are just off the top of my head.

Salesmen are the ones who commit other people’s money off the top of their head, investors don’t do that.  Read the economic history of Ben Graham and his student (hint: Bershire Hathaway). — *             Ronald Lee Todd M.B.A., C.P.A.                  * *  Unemployed for six years, mistake of being an accountant.  * *   Students, when someone tells you of your great future as  * *       an accountant, ask him to show you the job.           *

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Why do you feel there is a lack of investment opportunities?  I can see plenty of them. Because, in the present world economy, I don’t. Then you’re not looking very hard. Which is your preference, dot comms or ponzis?

How about electric cars, methods of increasing gas mileage, finding more affordable methods of producing energy?  The computer industry may be in trouble.  Technology as a whole, however, is still changing – and needs to. Those are just off the top of my head. BTW, I apologize for forgetting to change my name back to my real name.  I use that nick on another group.

Response:

Why do you feel there is a lack of investment opportunities?  I can see plenty of them. Well, if there were so many, corporations would be borrowing on the cheap right now and making the big investments.  You could possibly do it yourself. Interest rates would get bid up a little higher if there were plentiful attractive investment opportunities, but interest rates are very low.

In a way, I am.  I’m buying a house. If you read the news, you certainly see some signs of excess capital sitting around with little chance to be productive.  There is a swarm of airliners mothballed; commercial real estate has high vacancy rates; hospitals have empty beds;  and factories that normally close for the year-end holidays are giving workers an extra week or two of unpaid time off at present.

First of all, those are not excess capital.  Excess capital is in cash. Those are capital assets that are not being used because they aren’t needed, and nobody else will buy them (invest in them) because the industries they are in are in financial trouble.  Real estate in particular is difficult to dispose of during bad times. There are plenty of opportunities for productive public investment, for example in education and infrastructure.  But cutting taxes doesn’t seem to be a way to get these to happen.

The theory is that cutting taxes leaves more money for investment.  That’s also the theory that lead to those low interest rates.  The gov’t cuts the prime rate, and all others go down correspondingly.  It wasn’t enough. Whether cutting taxes will succeed in changing the attitude that it’s time to play it close to the chest remains to be seen. Dragon

Response:

Why do you feel there is a lack of investment opportunities?  I can see plenty of them. Because, in the present world economy, I don’t. Then you’re not looking very hard.

Which is your preference, dot comms or ponzis? — *             Ronald Lee Todd M.B.A., C.P.A.                  * *  Unemployed for six years, mistake of being an accountant.  * *   Students, when someone tells you of your great future as  * *       an accountant, ask him to show you the job.           *

Response:

Why do you feel there is a lack of investment opportunities?  I can see plenty of them. Because, in the present world economy, I don’t.

Then you’re not looking very hard.

Response:

Why do you feel there is a lack of investment opportunities?  I can see plenty of them.

Well, if there were so many, corporations would be borrowing on the cheap right now and making the big investments.  You could possibly do it yourself. Interest rates would get bid up a little higher if there were plentiful attractive investment opportunities, but interest rates are very low.     If you read the news, you certainly see some signs of excess capital sitting around with little chance to be productive.  There is a swarm of airliners mothballed; commercial real estate has high vacancy rates; hospitals have empty beds;  and factories that normally close for the year-end holidays are giving workers an extra week or two of unpaid time off at present. There are plenty of opportunities for productive public investment, for example in education and infrastructure.  But cutting taxes doesn’t seem to be a way to get these to happen. Al

Response:

Why do you feel there is a lack of investment opportunities?  I can see plenty of them.

Because, in the present world economy, I don’t. — *             Ronald Lee Todd M.B.A., C.P.A.                  * *  Unemployed for six years, mistake of being an accountant.  * *   Students, when someone tells you of your great future as  * *       an accountant, ask him to show you the job.           *

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – As dividends are increased to fit this new tax situation, we could expect that there would be retirement accounts that built up huge balances of dividends received and capital losses, such that the total of dividends received could easily exceed the balance in the retirement account. Result = tax free pensions? Why, exactly, would they be building up capital losses?  Weren’t you aruguing earlier that the stock would go up?  That means capital gains, not capital losses. It will become the norm for corporations to raise dividends to close to the level of earnings and sign up the vast majority of the shareholders for automatic dividend reinvestment.  This will give us about the same situation as now — same amount of money actually going out of the corporations as cash dividends, same amount of earnings available for reinvestment, but big step up in basis for the shareholders so that capital gains and capital gains taxes will be vastly diminished.

That’s not how it works.  When dividends are reinvested, they are used to buy *more* stock.  Therefore, they do not step up the basis on the original stock, they create a new basis in the new stock.  Capital gains on sold stock will be the same as they are now.  You just won’t have the expense of paying the taxes on the dividends you didn’t receive in cash.  That should lead to more reinvistment of dividends. With a high level of automatic dividend reinvestment in place, it will be expected that positive fluctuations in earnings will lead to higher dividends, negative fluctuations will lead to capital losses. There will still be some capital gains from very propitious investments,  but overall, the expectation that stock prices should rise 8-12% per year on average will cease to be operative.  Capital losses will not be the norm, but with retained earnings suppressed, some fraction of investment accounts could easily get into the situation I describe.

Some investment accounts already get into sticky situations.  I just don’t see how this is going to increase the number of accounts that do. The possibilities for tax avoidance under a quick-and-dirty plan to make dividends tax free are immense.  Think of all the ways to use accounting to transmute taxable income into tax-free dividends.  To create capital losses by paying tax-free dividends. Creating capital losses by paying tax-free dividends actually stikes me as a  pretty stupid thing to do, unless your goal is to eventually drive yourself  out of business. If you ever saw the sales pitch for oil-deal tax shelters like Mr. Bush used to sell, you would know that many ‘businesses’ were formed with that as an integral part of the plan.

I wouldn’t invest in oil on a bet.  I believe oil is on it’s way out, if we can ever get the oil companies to release the stranglehold they have on our economy. Without a whole pile of rules, if it is allowed to offset capital gains with capital losses, the capital gains tax could be largely eradicated by corporations set up specifically to produce tax-free dividends and capital losses.  And when a major corporation prospered and its stock shot up, think of all the scheming that would be triggered to find ways to shelter the shareholders from their impending capital gains taxes.

I have yet to see a large corporation that cared spit about whether it’s shareholders income was sheltered from taxes.  In addition, this is not going to shelter shareholders from impending capital gains taxes, because it will not step up their basis in the stock. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Doesn’t matter if they do.  See above.  But in point of fact, the reason they call it double taxation is because dividends are not deductible to the issuing corporation.  So both the corporation and the shareholder are taxed on the money. Having suffered some double taxation, I surely don’t like it.  I’m very much in favor of getting rid of double taxation.  But the Democrats are right that this should be part of a much larger tax reform project, not an ad-hoc to fix the economy.  I’m just about convinced that more major changes are needed. FOr example, I think that if you don’t tax dividends, taxing capital gains is not a good idea, either.  But if you drop the capital gains tax, then you need to give the small and risk averse savers some tax shelter on interest income, too. That’s a pretty big set of changes.  Alternatively, getting rid of corporate income taxes, but making both dividends and retained earnings taxable to the shareholders makes some sense, but we usually try to avoid taxing people who don’t have any cash flow to pay their taxes.   So that won’t work for now either.  It’s all a tough nut to crack.

Yes, it is.  There are a lot of factors to consider.  Dropping the capital gains tax definitely favors the rich.  None of it will help the people who need it most – the ones who can’t afford to invest or save in the first place. the increase in investment is critical at this time Not much reason to think that there will be any big change in the investment  decisions of corporations directly on account of this tax change. The current system is not biased in favor of reinvesting earnings or in favor of distributing earnings, since the double taxation will apply whether you pay out dividends now or later. Maximizing the value of cash flow maximizes the value of the firm whether the distributions to shareholders are taxed or untaxed. There is an indirect effect — if share prices rise and corporations see a lower cost of capital, that will make them more inclined to invest.  But with interest rates so low at this time,  cost of capital is not the cause of the current slump.  Lack of investment opportunities is.

Why do you feel there is a lack of investment opportunities?  I can see plenty of them.

Response:

… in favor of getting rid of double taxation.  But the Democrats are right that this should be part of a much larger tax reform project,

I guarantee you, that will never happen.  It is akin to demanding an elk lay eggs. Rather than running on about shoulda, woulda, coulda, review U.S. corporate behavior before 1913 and the start the of the tax extortion project.  As the years have gone by, I’ve become increasingly unswayed by F.U.D. — *             Ronald Lee Todd M.B.A., C.P.A.                  * *  Unemployed for six years, mistake of being an accountant.  * *   Students, when someone tells you of your great future as  * *       an accountant, ask him to show you the job.           *

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – President George Bush, Jr, today asked for repeal of the tax on corporate dividends.  Sounds like a nice simple way to remove double taxation, but there seem to be a couple of pretty major technical issues raising their heads out in the weeds on this one. 1. Tax sheltered dividends — The great masses of the middle classes earns much or most of their dividends through tax-sheltered and other accounts where the dividends are xnot directly taxable or tax deferred for the individual savers, ie pension funds, IRA’s, 401k’s, dividends received by insurance companies and other intermediaries on funds deposited by their customers, etc. What will happen under the Bush plan to the investors when they finally enter a taxable position by cashing out their insurance, drawing a retirement income, or whatever.  Will they have a big accumulated tax-free credit they can then apply to reduce the taxation on their payouts?  If so, who keeps track of all that and allocates and accumulates the ‘tax-free’ part of the account balances each year?  If not, isn’t it a rip off to let the intermediaries take advantage of the tax credit on money that’s not really theirs?

IRA’s, pension funds and other retirement accounts already have to keep track of what portion of the individuals account is going to be taxable when the individual starts to draw on it.  Don’t know a lot about insurance companies, but it seems to me that now, dividends deposited to with intermediaries (including insurance companies) to individuals accounts are taxed to the individual, if I understand what you’re saying correctly. 2. Retained earnings — As long as capital gains are taxable and dividends are tax free, corporations would be insane to retain earnings.  That would make it possible for stock prices to rise, exposing shareholders to capital gains taxes when they sell their shares.  No one would ever want their stock to rise when they could pay dividends tax-free to avert capital gains taxes. This will lead to some strange pracices — maybe borrowing to pay dividends when current earnings are low, and to a huge increase both in dividends and dividend reinvestment plans.

Corporations retain earnings for a great many reasons, such as expansion, equipment or building replacement, etc.  Those reasons will still be there.

Response:

IRA’s, pension funds and other retirement accounts already have to keep track of what portion of the individuals account is going to be taxable when the individual starts to draw on it.

The record keeping is pretty difficult when there is mixed money in an account. For most IRA’s and qualified pensions, the benefits are 100% taxable.  (All pre-tax money).   As dividends are increased to fit this new tax situation, we could expect that there would be retirement accounts that built up huge balances of dividends received and capital losses, such that the total of dividends received could easily exceed the balance in the retirement account. Result = tax free pensions?   The possibilities for tax avoidance under a quick-and-dirty plan to make dividends tax free are immense.  Think of all the ways to use accounting to transmute taxable income into tax-free dividends.  To create capital losses by paying tax-free dividends.   Do you think that they will limit tax-free dividends to not exceed the corporate income that has been taxed? Surely, all this monkey business is not what the plan is supposed to produce.  But we do have a President who used to be a tax-shelter salesman, so he must be aware of the potential for unsought results. Al

Response:

so he must be aware of the potential for unsought results.

Always have been, always will be, toss a pebble in a pond….., chaos theorey, etc. The reduction of the tax burden and the increase in investment is critical at this time (decade like, but overdue), anything, and I do mean anything, that will do it is satisfactory in the short run. — *             Ronald Lee Todd M.B.A., C.P.A.                  * *  Unemployed for six years, mistake of being an accountant.  * *   Students, when someone tells you of your great future as  * *       an accountant, ask him to show you the job.           *

Response:

IRA’s, pension funds and other retirement accounts already have to keep track of what portion of the individuals account is going to be

taxable when the individual starts to draw on it. The record keeping is pretty difficult when there is mixed money in an account. For most IRA’s and qualified pensions, the benefits are 100% taxable.  (All pre-tax money).

Sorry, brain spasm.  Must have been tireder than I though.  You’re right, at least about IRA’s – except for Roths, which are all tax free because what you contributed wasn’t. As dividends are increased to fit this new tax situation, we could expect that there would be retirement accounts that built up huge balances of dividends received and capital losses, such that the total of dividends received could easily exceed the balance in the retirement account. Result = tax free pensions?

Why, exactly, would they be building up capital losses?  Weren’t you aruguing earlier that the stock would go up?  That means capital gains, not capital losses. The possibilities for tax avoidance under a quick-and-dirty plan to make dividends tax free are immense.  Think of all the ways to use accounting to transmute taxable income into tax-free dividends.  To create capital losses by paying tax-free dividends.

Creating capital losses by paying tax-free dividends actually stikes me as a pretty stupid thing to do, unless your goal is to eventually drive yourself out of business. Do you think that they will limit tax-free dividends to not exceed the corporate income that has been taxed?

Doesn’t matter if they do.  See above.  But in point of fact, the reason they call it double taxation is because dividends are not deductible to the issuing corporation.  So both the corporation and the shareholder are taxed on the money.  Paying out more in dividends than you made is just plain foolish.  Sooner or later you stop paying out retained earning and start paying out capital.  And even if you don’t, you’re certainly going to start shrinking instead of growing.  Not a good business practice. Surely, all this monkey business is not what the plan is supposed to produce.  But we do have a President who used to be a tax-shelter salesman, so he must be aware of the potential for unsought results.

Believe me, you don’t want to get me started on the "President".  My opinion of *him* is probably a lot lower than yours is.

Response:

As dividends are increased to fit this new tax situation, we could expect that there would be retirement accounts that built up huge balances of dividends received and capital losses, such that the total of dividends received could easily exceed the balance in the retirement account. Result = tax free pensions? Why, exactly, would they be building up capital losses?  Weren’t you aruguing earlier that the stock would go up?  That means capital gains, not capital losses.

It will become the norm for corporations to raise dividends to close to the level of earnings and sign up the vast majority of the shareholders for automatic dividend reinvestment.  This will give us about the same situation as now — same amount of money actually going out of the corporations as cash dividends, same amount of earnings available for reinvestment, but big step up in basis for the shareholders so that capital gains and capital gains taxes will be vastly diminished.   With a high level of automatic dividend reinvestment in place, it will be expected that positive fluctuations in earnings will lead to higher dividends, negative fluctuations will lead to capital losses. There will still be some capital gains from very propitious investments,  but overall, the expectation that stock prices should rise 8-12% per year on average will cease to be operative.  Capital losses will not be the norm, but with retained earnings suppressed, some fraction of investment accounts could easily get into the situation I describe. The possibilities for tax avoidance under a quick-and-dirty plan to make dividends tax free are immense.  Think of all the ways to use accounting to transmute taxable income into tax-free dividends.  To create capital losses by paying tax-free dividends. Creating capital losses by paying tax-free dividends actually stikes me as a  pretty stupid thing to do, unless your goal is to eventually drive yourself  out of business.

If you ever saw the sales pitch for oil-deal tax shelters like Mr. Bush used to sell, you would know that many ‘businesses’ were formed with that as an integral part of the plan. Without a whole pile of rules, if it is allowed to offset capital gains with capital losses, the capital gains tax could be largely eradicated by corporations set up specifically to produce tax-free dividends and capital losses.  And when a major corporation prospered and its stock shot up, think of all the scheming that would be triggered to find ways to shelter the shareholders from their impending capital gains taxes. Doesn’t matter if they do.  See above.  But in point of fact, the reason they call it double taxation is because dividends are not deductible to the issuing corporation.  So both the corporation and the shareholder are taxed on the money.  

Having suffered some double taxation, I surely don’t like it.  I’m very much in favor of getting rid of double taxation.  But the Democrats are right that this should be part of a much larger tax reform project, not an ad-hoc to fix the economy.  I’m just about convinced that more major changes are needed. FOr example, I think that if you don’t tax dividends, taxing capital gains is not a good idea, either.  But if you drop the capital gains tax, then you need to give the small and risk averse savers some tax shelter on interest income, too. That’s a pretty big set of changes.  Alternatively, getting rid of corporate income taxes, but making both dividends and retained earnings taxable to the shareholders makes some sense, but we usually try to avoid taxing people who don’t have any cash flow to pay their taxes.   So that won’t work for now either.  It’s all a tough nut to crack. the increase in investment is critical at this time

Not much reason to think that there will be any big change in the investment  decisions of corporations directly on account of this tax change. The current system is not biased in favor of reinvesting earnings or in favor of distributing earnings, since the double taxation will apply whether you pay out dividends now or later. Maximizing the value of cash flow maximizes the value of the firm whether the distributions to shareholders are taxed or untaxed. There is an indirect effect — if share prices rise and corporations see a lower cost of capital, that will make them more inclined to invest.  But with interest rates so low at this time,  cost of capital is not the cause of the current slump.  Lack of investment opportunities is. Al

Response:

President George Bush, Jr, today asked for repeal of the tax on corporate dividends.  Sounds like a nice simple way to remove double taxation, but there seem to be a couple of pretty major technical issues raising their heads out in the weeds on this one. 1. Tax sheltered dividends — The great masses of the middle classes earns much or most of their dividends through tax-sheltered and other accounts where the dividends are xnot directly taxable or tax deferred for the individual savers, ie pension funds, IRA’s, 401k’s, dividends received by insurance companies and other intermediaries on funds deposited by their customers, etc. What will happen under the Bush plan to the investors when they finally enter a taxable position by cashing out their insurance, drawing a retirement income, or whatever.  Will they have a big accumulated tax-free credit they can then apply to reduce the taxation on their payouts?  If so, who keeps track of all that and allocates and accumulates the ‘tax-free’ part of the account balances each year?  If not, isn’t it a rip off to let the intermediaries take advantage of the tax credit on money that’s not really theirs? 2. Retained earnings — As long as capital gains are taxable and dividends are tax free, corporations would be insane to retain earnings.  That would make it possible for stock prices to rise, exposing shareholders to capital gains taxes when they sell their shares.  No one would ever want their stock to rise when they could pay dividends tax-free to avert capital gains taxes. This will lead to some strange pracices — maybe borrowing to pay dividends when current earnings are low, and to a huge increase both in dividends and dividend reinvestment plans. Al

Response:

Question:

Net Radio Pulls Plug in Protest

When was the article written and where was it from, because I haven’t seen anything like this. —- —–BEGIN PERL GEEK CODE BLOCK—–     P+++++++c–*P6 ?R ++M+++O++MA+E PU BD++C++D++S++X WP MO PP n+CO?PO-o+G+A-OLC+OLCC+OLJ+OLP–OLR–OL CO–OLS–OLL–OLA–Ee Ev-Eon+Eot!Eob Eoa!uL+++++uB!uS!uH!uo!w—m!osA!osBE! ——END PERL GEEK CODE BLOCK—— elizabeth at psy dox dot com

Response:

Net Radio Pulls Plug in Protest More than 500 online streaming radio stations will be turning off the music this Wednesday to protest royalty fee arrangements set to be imposed on Internet broadcasters in May.

Can we do anything in the internet?

Response:

Net Radio Pulls Plug in Protest More than 500 online streaming radio stations will be turning off the music this Wednesday to protest royalty fee arrangements set to be imposed on Internet broadcasters in May. KING-FM Seattle, KPIG-Freedom, Calif., Choice Radio, WICB-FM Ithaca, and WOLF-FM are just a few stations that will cease programming on Wednesday in protest.  Hundreds of other outlets will either go silent or air continuous public service announcements warning listeners that proposed royalty fees on music programming will likely force them permanently off the net.  Even the net’s largest players, including Live365.com, Shoutcast, and Winamp Radio will be airing announcements informing listeners that their programming may cease by the end of May. The controversy erupted after the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which represents record labels, lobbied the government to set a royalty rate for Internet-delivered music programming.  The RIAA claims that artists have not been properly compensated for their works aired over streaming Internet services.  Most broadcasters and Internet radio stations already pay some royalties for transmission of music programming through agreements with BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC, who represent artists.  But under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) passed in 1998, Internet streaming services are also required to pay performance royalties to the record industry.  Currently, broadcasters pay no performance royalties, but some proposals floated around the industry would set performance royalties at one-half the rate charged to Internet radio stations. The royalty payment arrangement proposal by the U.S. Copyright Office sets a rate of 14/100ths of a penny per song streamed, per listener. At first glance, that would seem miniscule, but Internet stations claim that the paperwork alone in accounting for the new performance royalty charges would be cumbersome.  Many stations tabulated what their potential costs would be and several found they would immediately become bankrupt. Radioparadise.com, an Internet station in Paradise, California discovered their fees would be over $9,000 per month, which exceeds their monthly advertising income of just $4,500. While more than 10,000 Internet radio stations exist today, just 16% of the 156 million Internet users sample their programming, and considering the sheer number of stations, only a handful attract listeners in numbers comparable to a traditional radio broadcaster.  Without 50,000 listeners or more, most advertisers ignore Internet stations. Kurt Hanson, publisher of RAIN: Radio and Internet Newsletter, operates SaveInternetRadio.org, a web site advocating Internet radio stations. Hanson is calling on Internet radio fans to contact members of Congress and the U.S. Copyright Office demanding the existing proposal be scuttled. Many Internet radio advocates claim that implementation of performance rights royalties will mean a cash windfall for the RIAA, and will potentially devastate small, independently operated Internet radio stations. "While (the) proposed royalty rate might be manageable for Internet radio properties owned by multi-billion-dollar corporations like AOL, Yahoo!, and Microsoft, it will effectively bankrupt the vast majority of webcasters. For example, for a mid-sized independent webcaster (imagine two or three people working out of a home office or a campus apartment) that has had an average audience of 1,000 listeners for the past three years, the bill for retroactive royalties – which will come due 45 days after the royalty rate is approved – would be $525,600," said Hanson. Some members of Congress have begun to respond to constituent complaints about the matter.  Twenty representatives sent a letter to the U.S. Copyright Agency that calls for a review of royalty rates to ensure they don’t harm Internet radio. Will Robedee operates Save Our Streams, a web site specializing in helping consumers find contact information about their elected officials and assisting them in writing letters and making phone calls.  But Robedee is also focusing on the potential effects royalties will have on educational and non-commercial Internet broadcasters. "The DMCA is causing direct harm to educational and public radio stations, the public, students, universities, public and private schools and other non profit organizations.  Many stations have stopped streaming their audio on the Internet due to the DMCA. Other stations have scrapped plans to begin webcasting.  Further, groups that have no station, have also dropped plans to begin an Internet only station due to the DMCA," said Robedee. Among the largest public broadcasters ceasing streaming is New York City-based WNYU, operated by New York University.  That station is urging fans to contact members of Congress. The potential impact of the royalty fees comes at a time when the media industry as a whole is facing one of the bleakest advertising recessions in decades. Nearly 100 Internet stations have closed down because of fears about the retroactive royalty payments as well as a lack of advertiser support, making them unsustainable. But if a new arrangement cannot be worked out before the May 21st implementation of the new royalty rate, the majority of domestic Internet music stations may join the 100 already closed  before the dog days of summer are upon us.

Response:

Before I have read much of this article, I must say that a Warning Label should be affixed to all commercial broadcast and publishing media (newspapers too..lest I sound like John Nash to the beyond extreme) that schizophrenics may be mind altered by these media to such an incredible degree (like red flashing lights in video games causing epileptic seizures in susceptable individuals, or sun-sensitivity to the overly-medicated) that they should be barred from being exposed to these media for their own protection. I’d say more but I too suffer from the inescapeable feeling that lying naked in front of my radio at night will cause a power shift at the radio station that I am listening to. They might even start playing ads requesting new employees, like last night exactly at the same time the message below was originally posted here! Threats to Radio and Television Station Personnel in the United States by Individuals with Severe Mental Illnesses Summary We carried out a national survey to assess threats against radio and television stations by individuals with severe mental illnesses. A questionnaire was sent to 813 stations (442 radio, 371 television); 259 (31.9 percent) responded. 123 stations (47.5 percent of those responding) reported having at some time received a telephone call, letter, fax, or e-mail from an individual asking the station to stop talking about them or sending voices to their head. The stations had received a total of 3,155 such communications from 284 separate individuals in the past year, with one station reporting having received 1,500 communications. 47 stations reported that staff members had been threatened with harm in such communications. 43 stations reported that an individual had at some time personally come to their station to ask them to stop talking about them or to stop sending voices to their head. The stations reported having received a total of 150 such visits from 61 different individuals in the past year. 18 stations reported that a staff member had been threatened with harm in person by such individuals in the past year. 13 stations reported that such visitors actually attempted to harm station personnel, including one completed homicide. 63 stations had at some time called law enforcement officials for assistance in cases of electronic or in-person threats. Threats to radio and television personnel by individuals with severe mental illnesses are relatively common. They are one consequence of permitting over 1.4 million individuals with severe mental illnesses in the United States to not receive treatment at any give time. Other consequences include homelessness, incarceration, and episodes of violence. However, individuals with severe mental illnesses who are receiving treatment are not more dangerous than the general population. Problems of the sort described in this report are attributable to a relatively small fraction of those not being treated. Twelve recommendations are made to minimize threats to radio and television personnel. These include educating station personnel about such threats, installing safety features such as emergency buttons and electronic door-opening devices, and involving law enforcement personnel when threats are received. Introduction On August 31, 1994, William Tager shot and killed NBC employee Campbell Montgomery outside NBC studios at Rockefeller Center in New York City. Police stated that Tager, age 46, had told them that NBC, CBS and ABC "were bugging him, tapping his phones and sending rays through his TV set, and he couldn’t take it anymore."1 According to the National Institute of Mental Health, there are approximately 3.5 million people in the United States with active symptoms of schizophrenia or manic-depressive illness (bipolar disorder).2 Of these, between 40 and 50 percent-1.4 to 1.7 million people-are not receiving treatment at a given time.3  Delusions and auditory hallucinations relating to radio and television are common symptoms experienced by individuals with these diseases, including beliefs that people on radio or television are talking about them, putting thoughts into their heads (thought insertion), taking thoughts out of their heads (thought withdrawal), causing them to do specific things (delusions of control), or simply spying on them through radio or television. Some individuals with severe mental illnesses experiencing these delusions and hallucinations have been known to contact the radio and television stations. We undertook a survey to describe the frequency and consequences of these contacts. Methods We identified the 60 largest media markets in the United States from the listing of Designated Market Areas (DMAs) prepared by Bacon’s Information Inc.4 All television stations (N = 371) and all radio stations of 50,000 watts or greater (N = 442) in these 60 markets were sent a two-page questionnaire. These 60 areas include 159.8 million out of the total United States population of 265.2 million (60 percent). The two-page questionnaire (see attached) consisted of 11 questions dealing with contacts with radio/television stations by individuals with serious mental illnesses, with additional space for comments on the answers. The stations were also asked to identify how they were "best characterized" by type of radio (news, talk, bluegrass/country, classical music, rock/popular, religious, or other) or television (network affiliate, cable, other) station. Respondents were guaranteed confidentiality. Questions were written to reflect symptoms frequently experienced by individuals with schizophrenia or manic-depressive illness, specifically a belief that people on the radio or television were talking about them or spying on them (called delusions of reference).5 These symptoms usually decrease when such individuals are being treated with antipsychotic medication, and reducing them is one of the goals of treatment.6 Follow-up questionnaires were sent twice to stations that had not responded. The results from the questionnaires were entered into an Access database, rechecked individually, and then transferred to a State database. Categorical variables are described with percentages, while continuous ones are described as medians. In addition to the descriptive data, the following comparisons were conducted for each variable in the questionnaire: a) radio vs. television (respondents with both radio and television stations and those not stating whether they were a radio or television station, a total of 20 stations, were excluded); b) talk radio vs. non-talk radio stations; c) survey round 1 vs. survey round 2 vs. survey round 3. If one variable was dichotomous and the other categorical or dichotomous, the chi-square test was used. If one variable was dichotomous and the other continuous, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used. If one variable was categorical and the other continuous, the Kruskal-Wallis test was used. All statistical tests were 2-sided, and a p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results A total of 259 stations returned completed responses (31.9 percent of those sent questionnaires). These included 129 radio stations, 110 television stations, 18 that identified themselves as both radio and television stations, and 2 in which the type of station was not indicated. The response rate for radio stations (129/442, or 29.2 percent) was virtually identical to that for television stations (110/371, or 29.6 percent). Among the 129 radio stations that responded, 49 identified themselves as news stations, 41 as talk stations, 19 as bluegrass/country stations, 12 as classical stations, 61 as rock/popular stations, 7 as religious stations, and 33 as other stations. Among the 110 television stations that responded, 100 identified themselves as a network affiliate, 4 as cable, and 26 as other. Many stations identified themselves in more than one category. The geographical distribution by state of questionnaires sent and received was also virtually identical (e.g., 11 percent of the questionnaires were sent to stations in California and the same percentage of responses were received; 10 percent were sent to stations in Texas and the same percentage received). The response rate for each of the three mailings was similar: 10.9 percent, 12.7 percent, and 11.1 percent of those remaining after previous mailings. Among the 259 responding stations, 123 (47.5 percent) indicated that they had ever received a letter, telephone call, fax, and/or e-mail from an individual asking them "to stop sending voices to his/her head or to stop talking about him/her" (see attached figure). The requests were most commonly received by telephone (85 percent of stations that received a communication received a telephone call), followed by letter (70 percent), fax (22 percent), and e-mail (17 percent). Most stations that had received a communication indicated having received more than one form of communication. The stations were asked to estimate the number of separate communications they had received from such individuals in the past year. The stations had received a total of 3,155 communications, including one station that estimated it had received 1,500 such communications. The median number of communications per station that had received a communication was 5. The stations were also asked to estimate the number of separate individuals sending such communications in the past year. The stations indicating receipt of such communications reported that they had been contacted by 284 separate individuals (median 1-2). This included one station that reported it had been contacted by 20 separate individuals. Several responding stations commented on the volume of such communications: "Phone calls from these clearly suffering from mental illness are routine-averaging perhaps 10 a week." Television station in Texas "I am in HR [staff human resources] and this is a daily part of my job-dealing with … read more »

Response:

Before I have read much of this article, I must say that a Warning Label should be affixed to all commercial broadcast and publishing media (newspapers too..lest I sound like John Nash to the beyond extreme) that schizophrenics may be mind altered by these media to such an incredible degree (like red flashing lights in video games causing epileptic seizures in susceptable individuals, or sun-sensitivity to the overly-medicated) that they should be barred from being exposed to these media for their own protection. I’d say more but I too suffer from the inescapeable feeling that lying naked in front of my radio at night will cause a power shift at the radio station that I am listening to. They might even start playing ads requesting new employees, like last night exactly at the same time the message below was originally posted here! Threats to Radio and Television Station Personnel in the United States by Individuals with Severe Mental Illnesses Summary We carried out a national survey to assess threats against radio and television stations by individuals with severe mental illnesses. A questionnaire was sent to 813 stations (442 radio, 371 television); 259 (31.9 percent) responded. 123 stations (47.5 percent of those responding) reported having at some time received a telephone call, letter, fax, or e-mail from an individual asking the station to stop talking about them or sending voices to their head. The stations had received a total of 3,155 such communications from 284 separate individuals in the past year, with one station reporting having received 1,500 communications. 47 stations reported that staff members had been threatened with harm in such communications. 43 stations reported that an individual had at some time personally come to their station to ask them to stop talking about them or to stop sending voices to their head. The stations reported having received a total of 150 such visits from 61 different individuals in the past year. 18 stations reported that a staff member had been threatened with harm in person by such individuals in the past year. 13 stations reported that such visitors actually attempted to harm station personnel, including one completed homicide. 63 stations had at some time called law enforcement officials for assistance in cases of electronic or in-person threats. Threats to radio and television personnel by individuals with severe mental illnesses are relatively common. They are one consequence of permitting over 1.4 million individuals with severe mental illnesses in the United States to not receive treatment at any given time. Other consequences include homelessness, incarceration, and episodes of violence. However, individuals with severe mental illnesses who are receiving treatment are not more dangerous than the general population. Problems of the sort described in this report are attributable to a relatively small fraction of those not being treated. Twelve recommendations are made to minimize threats to radio and television personnel. These include educating station personnel about such threats, installing safety features such as emergency buttons and electronic door-opening devices, and involving law enforcement personnel when threats are received. Introduction On August 31, 1994, William Tager shot and killed NBC employee Campbell Montgomery outside NBC studios at Rockefeller Center in New York City. Police stated that Tager, age 46, had told them that NBC, CBS and ABC "were bugging him, tapping his phones and sending rays through his TV set, and he couldn’t take it anymore."1 According to the National Institute of Mental Health, there are approximately 3.5 million people in the United States with active symptoms of schizophrenia or manic-depressive illness (bipolar disorder).2 Of these, between 40 and 50 percent-1.4 to 1.7 million people-are not receiving treatment at a given time.3  Delusions and auditory hallucinations relating to radio and television are common symptoms experienced by individuals with these diseases, including beliefs that people on radio or television are talking about them, putting thoughts into their heads (thought insertion), taking thoughts out of their heads (thought withdrawal), causing them to do specific things (delusions of control), or simply spying on them through radio or television. Some individuals with severe mental illnesses experiencing these delusions and hallucinations have been known to contact the radio and television stations. We undertook a survey to describe the frequency and consequences of these contacts. Methods We identified the 60 largest media markets in the United States from the listing of Designated Market Areas (DMAs) prepared by Bacon’s Information Inc.4 All television stations (N = 371) and all radio stations of 50,000 watts or greater (N = 442) in these 60 markets were sent a two-page questionnaire. These 60 areas include 159.8 million out of the total United States population of 265.2 million (60 percent). The two-page questionnaire (see attached) consisted of 11 questions dealing with contacts with radio/television stations by individuals with serious mental illnesses, with additional space for comments on the answers. The stations were also asked to identify how they were "best characterized" by type of radio (news, talk, bluegrass/country, classical music, rock/popular, religious, or other) or television (network affiliate, cable, other) station. Respondents were guaranteed confidentiality. Questions were written to reflect symptoms frequently experienced by individuals with schizophrenia or manic-depressive illness, specifically a belief that people on the radio or television were talking about them or spying on them (called delusions of reference).5 These symptoms usually decrease when such individuals are being treated with antipsychotic medication, and reducing them is one of the goals of treatment.6 Follow-up questionnaires were sent twice to stations that had not responded. The results from the questionnaires were entered into an Access database, rechecked individually, and then transferred to a Stata database. Categorical variables are described with percentages, while continuous ones are described as medians. In addition to the descriptive data, the following comparisons were conducted for each variable in the questionnaire: a) radio vs. television (respondents with both radio and television stations and those not stating whether they were a radio or television station, a total of 20 stations, were excluded); b) talk radio vs. non-talk radio stations; c) survey round 1 vs. survey round 2 vs. survey round 3. If one variable was dichotomous and the other categorical or dichotomous, the chi-square test was used. If one variable was dichotomous and the other continuous, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used. If one variable was categorical and the other continuous, the Kruskal-Wallis test was used. All statistical tests were 2-sided, and a p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results A total of 259 stations returned completed responses (31.9 percent of those sent questionnaires). These included 129 radio stations, 110 television stations, 18 that identified themselves as both radio and television stations, and 2 in which the type of station was not indicated. The response rate for radio stations (129/442, or 29.2 percent) was virtually identical to that for television stations (110/371, or 29.6 percent). Among the 129 radio stations that responded, 49 identified themselves as news stations, 41 as talk stations, 19 as bluegrass/country stations, 12 as classical stations, 61 as rock/popular stations, 7 as religious stations, and 33 as other stations. Among the 110 television stations that responded, 100 identified themselves as a network affiliate, 4 as cable, and 26 as other. Many stations identified themselves in more than one category. The geographical distribution by state of questionnaires sent and received was also virtually identical (e.g., 11 percent of the questionnaires were sent to stations in California and the same percentage of responses were received; 10 percent were sent to stations in Texas and the same percentage received). The response rate for each of the three mailings was similar: 10.9 percent, 12.7 percent, and 11.1 percent of those remaining after previous mailings. Among the 259 responding stations, 123 (47.5 percent) indicated that they had ever received a letter, telephone call, fax, and/or e-mail from an individual asking them "to stop sending voices to his/her head or to stop talking about him/her" (see attached figure). The requests were most commonly received by telephone (85 percent of stations that received a communication received a telephone call), followed by letter (70 percent), fax (22 percent), and e-mail (17 percent). Most stations that had received a communication indicated having received more than one form of communication. The stations were asked to estimate the number of separate communications they had received from such individuals in the past year. The stations had received a total of 3,155 communications, including one station that estimated it had received 1,500 such communications. The median number of communications per station that had received a communication was 5. The stations were also asked to estimate the number of separate individuals sending such communications in the past year. The stations indicating receipt of such communications reported that they had been contacted by 284 separate individuals (median 1-2). This included one station that reported it had been contacted by 20 separate individuals. Several responding stations commented on the volume of such communications: "Phone calls from these clearly suffering from mental illness are routine-averaging perhaps 10 a week." Television station in Texas "I am in HR [staff human resources] and this is a daily part of my job-dealing with … read more »

Response:

Before I have read much of this article, I must say that a Warning Label should be affixed to all commercial broadcast and publishing media (newspapers too..lest I sound like John Nash to the beyond extreme) that schizophrenics may be mind altered by these media to such an incredible degree (like red flashing lights in video games causing epileptic seizures in susceptable individuals, or sun-sensitivity to the overly-medicated) that they should be barred from being exposed to these media for their own protection. I’d say more but I too suffer from the inescapeable feeling that lying naked in front of my radio at night will cause a power shift at the radio station that I am listening to. They might even start playing ads requesting new employees, like last night exactly at the same time the message below was originally posted here!

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Threats to Radio and Television Station Personnel in the United States by Individuals with Severe Mental Illnesses Summary We carried out a national survey to assess threats against radio and television stations by individuals with severe mental illnesses. A questionnaire was sent to 813 stations (442 radio, 371 television); 259 (31.9 percent) responded. 123 stations (47.5 percent of those responding) reported having at some time received a telephone call, letter, fax, or e-mail from an individual asking the station to stop talking about them or sending voices to their head. The stations had received a total of 3,155 such communications from 284 separate individuals in the past year, with one station reporting having received 1,500 communications. 47 stations reported that staff members had been threatened with harm in such communications. 43 stations reported that an individual had at some time personally come to their station to ask them to stop talking about them or to stop sending voices to their head. The stations reported having received a total of 150 such visits from 61

different individuals in the past year. 18 stations reported that a staff member had been threatened with harm in person by such individuals in the past year. 13 stations reported that such visitors actually attempted to harm station personnel, including one completed homicide. 63 stations had at some time called law enforcement officials for

assistance in cases of electronic or in-person threats. Threats to radio and television personnel by individuals with severe

mental illnesses are relatively common. They are one consequence of permitting over 1.4 million individuals with severe mental illnesses in the United States to not receive treatment at any given time. Other consequences include homelessness, incarceration, and episodes of violence. However, individuals with severe mental illnesses who are receiving

treatment are not more dangerous than the general population. Problems of the sort described in this report are attributable to a relatively small fraction of those not being treated. Twelve recommendations are made to minimize threats to radio and

television personnel. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – These include educating station personnel about such threats, installing safety features such as emergency buttons and electronic door-opening devices, and involving law enforcement personnel when threats are received. Introduction On August 31, 1994, William Tager shot and killed NBC employee Campbell Montgomery outside NBC studios at Rockefeller Center in New York City. Police stated that Tager, age 46, had told them that NBC, CBS and ABC "were bugging him, tapping his phones and sending rays through his TV set, and he couldn’t take it anymore."1 According to the National Institute of Mental Health, there are

approximately 3.5 million people in the United States with active symptoms of schizophrenia or manic-depressive illness (bipolar disorder).2 Of these, between 40 and 50 percent-1.4 to 1.7 million people-are not receiving treatment at a given time.3  Delusions and auditory hallucinations relating to radio and television are common symptoms experienced by individuals with these diseases, including beliefs that people on radio or television are talking about them, putting thoughts into their heads (thought insertion), taking thoughts out of their heads (thought withdrawal), causing them to do specific

things (delusions of control), or simply spying on them through radio or television. Some individuals with severe mental illnesses experiencing these delusions and hallucinations have been known to contact the radio and television stations. We undertook a survey to

describe the frequency and consequences of these contacts. Methods We identified the 60 largest media markets in the United States from the listing of Designated Market Areas (DMAs) prepared by Bacon’s Information Inc.4 All television stations (N = 371) and all radio stations of 50,000 watts or greater (N = 442) in these 60 markets were sent a two-page questionnaire. These 60 areas include 159.8 million out of the total United States population of 265.2 million (60 percent). The two-page questionnaire (see attached) consisted of 11 questions

dealing with contacts with radio/television stations by individuals with serious mental illnesses, with additional space for comments on the answers. The stations were also asked to identify how they were "best characterized" by type of radio (news, talk,

bluegrass/country, classical music, rock/popular, religious, or other) or television (network

affiliate, cable, other) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – station. Respondents were guaranteed confidentiality. Questions were written to reflect symptoms frequently experienced by individuals with schizophrenia or manic-depressive illness, specifically a belief that people on the radio or television were talking about them or spying on them (called delusions of reference).5 These symptoms usually decrease when such individuals are being treated with antipsychotic medication, and reducing them is one of the goals of treatment.6 Follow-up questionnaires were sent twice to stations that had not responded. The results from the questionnaires were entered into an Access database, rechecked individually, and then transferred to a Stata database. Categorical variables are described with percentages, while continuous ones are described as

medians. In addition to the descriptive data, the following comparisons were conducted for each variable in the questionnaire: a) radio vs. television (respondents with both radio and television

stations and those not – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – stating whether they were a radio or television station, a total of 20 stations, were excluded); b) talk radio vs. non-talk radio stations; c) survey round 1 vs. survey round 2 vs. survey round 3. If one variable was dichotomous and the other categorical or dichotomous, the chi-square test was used. If one variable was dichotomous and the other continuous, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used. If one variable was categorical and the other continuous, the Kruskal-Wallis test was used. All statistical tests were 2-sided, and a p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results A total of 259 stations returned completed responses (31.9 percent of those sent questionnaires). These included 129 radio stations, 110 television stations, 18 that identified themselves as both radio and television stations, and 2 in which the type of station was not indicated. The response rate for radio stations (129/442, or 29.2 percent) was virtually identical to that for television stations (110/371, or 29.6 percent). Among the 129 radio stations that responded, 49 identified themselves as news stations, 41 as talk stations, 19 as bluegrass/country stations, 12 as classical stations, 61 as rock/popular stations, 7 as religious stations, and 33 as other stations. Among the 110 television stations that responded, 100 identified themselves as a network affiliate, 4 as cable, and 26 as other. Many stations identified themselves in more than one category. The geographical distribution by state of questionnaires sent and received was also virtually identical (e.g., 11 percent of the questionnaires were sent to stations in California and the same percentage of responses were received; 10 percent were sent to stations in Texas and the same percentage received). The response rate for each of the three mailings was similar: 10.9 percent, 12.7 percent, and 11.1 percent of those remaining after previous mailings. Among the 259 responding stations, 123 (47.5 percent) indicated that they had ever received a letter, telephone call, fax, and/or e-mail from an individual asking them "to stop sending voices to his/her head or to stop talking about him/her" (see attached figure). The requests were most commonly received by telephone (85 percent of stations that received a communication received a telephone call), followed by

letter (70 percent), fax (22 percent), and e-mail (17 percent). Most stations that had received a communication indicated having received more than one form of communication. The stations were asked to estimate the number of separate communications they had received from such individuals in the past year. The stations had received a total of 3,155 communications, including one station that estimated it had received 1,500 such communications. The median number of communications per station that had received a communication was 5. The stations were also asked to estimate the number of separate

individuals sending such – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – communications in the past year. The stations indicating receipt of such communications reported that they had been contacted by 284 separate individuals (median 1-2). This included one station that

… read more »

Response:

Threats to Radio and Television Station Personnel in the United States by Individuals with Severe Mental Illnesses Summary We carried out a national survey to assess threats against radio and television stations by individuals with severe mental illnesses. A questionnaire was sent to 813 stations (442 radio, 371 television); 259 (31.9 percent) responded. 123 stations (47.5 percent of those responding) reported having at some time received a telephone call, letter, fax, or e-mail from an individual asking the station to stop talking about them or sending voices to their head. The stations had received a total of 3,155 such communications from 284 separate individuals in the past year, with one station reporting having received 1,500 communications. 47 stations reported that staff members had been threatened with harm in such communications. 43 stations reported that an individual had at some time personally come to their station to ask them to stop talking about them or to stop sending voices to their head. The stations reported having received a total of 150 such visits from 61 different individuals in the past year. 18 stations reported that a staff member had been threatened with harm in person by such individuals in the past year. 13 stations reported that such visitors actually attempted to harm station personnel, including one completed homicide. 63 stations had at some time called law enforcement officials for assistance in cases of electronic or in-person threats. Threats to radio and television personnel by individuals with severe mental illnesses are relatively common. They are one consequence of permitting over 1.4 million individuals with severe mental illnesses in the United States to not receive treatment at any given time. Other consequences include homelessness, incarceration, and episodes of violence. However, individuals with severe mental illnesses who are receiving treatment are not more dangerous than the general population. Problems of the sort described in this report are attributable to a relatively small fraction of those not being treated. Twelve recommendations are made to minimize threats to radio and television personnel. These include educating station personnel about such threats, installing safety features such as emergency buttons and electronic door-opening devices, and involving law enforcement personnel when threats are received. Introduction On August 31, 1994, William Tager shot and killed NBC employee Campbell Montgomery outside NBC studios at Rockefeller Center in New York City. Police stated that Tager, age 46, had told them that NBC, CBS and ABC "were bugging him, tapping his phones and sending rays through his TV set, and he couldn

Question:

You get what you pay for is an urban legend.  Price and value are seldom equal. If you want to buy a piece of accounting software, and do it right, it is a long an arduous task.  A few people get lucky, most don’t. ACW, If you want to pay $600, you get a $600 accounting program. Arnold

– *             Ronald Lee Todd M.B.A., C.P.A.                  * *  Unemployed for five years, mistake of being an accountant. * *    From the Socialist People’s Republic of Kalifornia,      * *           the Seventh worst state for business,             * *                   Ayn Rand was right                        *

Response:

ACW, If you want to pay $600, you get a $600 accounting program. Arnold – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –         I have been unsing version 11 for Windows and find it to be a very quirky and unstable piece of !*~=)&?^.  Is is just me or does anyone else agree with this opinion?  I think it was a downgrade not an upgrade when we bought version 11.  Version 9 was the last version we had and that was rather sloppy looking but functional.  After dealing with this thing for a few months now I begin to think that given a couple months  not only could I write something better in Access but that I probably should.  Now who has that kind of spare time – we’ve got a business to run.         I’d settle for a decent stable accounting package which we could migrate our data to but it would have to be comparable in price to Daceasy i.e. no more than about $600. Convincing the boss to migrate is hard enough – coughing up lots of money – well thats really tough. He doesn’t have to work with this piece of !*^%! so why should he care if we are suffering. (yes I know it would save labor costs and headaches in the long run – but this is a pointy haired boss monster we’re talking about… OK now that I’ve vented – please, sympathy or suggestions anyone? Arm Chair Warrior Working late for the sake of other people’s money.

Response:

        I have been unsing version 11 for Windows and find it to be a very quirky and unstable piece of !*~=)&?^.  Is is just me or does anyone else agree with this opinion?  I think it was a downgrade not an upgrade when we bought version 11.  Version 9 was the last version we had and that was rather sloppy looking but functional.  After dealing with this thing for a few months now I begin to think that given a couple months  not only could I write something better in Access but that I probably should.  Now who has that kind of spare time – we’ve got a business to run.         I’d settle for a decent stable accounting package which we could migrate our data to but it would have to be comparable in price to Daceasy i.e. no more than about $600. Convincing the boss to migrate is hard enough – coughing up lots of money – well thats really tough. He doesn’t have to work with this piece of !*^%! so why should he care if we are suffering. (yes I know it would save labor costs and headaches in the long run – but this is a pointy haired boss monster we’re talking about… OK now that I’ve vented – please, sympathy or suggestions anyone? Arm Chair Warrior Working late for the sake of other people’s money.

Response:

Question:

I hate that commercial where they show two ceo, one that encouraged his employees to read the Wall Street Journal and the other that did not.

I hate it too. I do not think it makes any difference to a company’s success whether its employees who are not managers, accountants, or business professionals, read the WSJ.

Response:

I hate that commercial where they show two ceo, one that encouraged his employees to read the Wall Street Journal and the other that did not.

Me too.  I’ve seen it a zillion times. Bruce.

Response:

I hate that commercial where they show two ceo, one that encouraged his employees to read the Wall Street Journal and the other that did not.

Response:

Question:

November 3 1999 "Know ye not history and you are doomed to repeat it." Know ye your history of malice and repeat it, and the malice of consequences repeateth also. No group in the world has such a repeated history as the Circumcised Hebrews. They relish in recounting this history as if it is a high point of achievement, without going through the recognized procedure of objectively learning from history. It is always the other guy who is at fault.                     "The Jewish Book of Days" is a small hard covered calender book starting off with Janurary and ending in December with no particular year involved. Each page is divided up into seven horizontal spaces, each one having a numerical date corresponding to the month and in each space there is a notation for something the Jews find significant, such as Janurary 1 notes "Hank Greenberg, professional baseball player, born (1911)" or June 27 notes "The Yiddish newspaper Die Yidishe Velt began publication in New York (1902)". The Jewish history also cites among the attaining people and moments of their history a substantial recollection of their effects on others, the first appearing under the book date, 14 The Church burned confiscated Jewish books in Rome(1601) 31 Henry II forbade Jews in England to build new synagogues(1253) Feb. 6 First auto-da-fe of the Spanish Inquisition(1481) 13 Jews of Speyer massacred(1195) 28 First auto-da-fe in the New World(1574) Mar. 9 Pope Innocent IV ordered that the Talmud be burned(1244) 18 More than eighty French Jews were burned at the stake in Bray(1191) 5 The Polish army executed thirty five Jews for handing out Joint Distribution Committee packages to the Jews of Pinsk(1919) 28 A progrom at Elizavetgrad was followed by a series of progroms throughout the Ukraine and neighboring provinces(1881) May 7 Empress Catherine I ordered all Jews expelled from the Ukraine(1727) 13 Nonnative Jews expelled from Bohemia(1763) 19 Iraqi Jews began to depart for Israel(1950) 31 Sigmund III of Poland tried to keep Jews out of Riga(1593) June 15 Many Jews were killed during a riot in Safed(1834) 19 Loius IX of France decreed all Jews must wear yellow badge(1269) 24 Russian Minister of the Interior instructed local authorities to suppress Zionism among the Jews(1903) 19 Thirty eight Jews burned in Brandenburg as a result of a Host-declaration libel(1810) 22 Jews of France arrested at the order of King Philip(1306) 30 Citizens of Nuremburg forbidden to borrow from Jews(1539) Aug  5 More than 300 Jews were killed in a massacre in Barcelona(1391) 11 Marranos who escaped from Spain fall victim to auto-da-fe in Lima(1635) 16 Laws regulating the condition of Jews of Saxony issued(1838) 18 Jews Oath abolished in Austria(1846) 19 Maximillian I orders the destruction of Jewish books(1509) 23 Jews throughout Palestine were attacked by Arab rioters(1929) Sept  3 Many Jews were killed in a riot during coronation of Richard the Lion Hearted(1189) 21 Swedish Government revoked privileges previously granted Swedish Jews(1838) Oct 4 Jews deprived of rights by Vichy government in France(1940) 5 Ludwig IX expelled the Jews from Lower Bavaria(1450) 21 Emperor Joseph II of Austria abolished distinctive Jewish dress(1781) 23 Jews in Barbados forbidden to engage in retail trade(1668) 30 Pope Innocent XI forbade Jews in Rome to engage in banking(1682) 31 Date by which Jews had to leave Portugal(1497) 9 Kristallnact(1938) 14 Jews no longer permitted to attend German schools(1938) 26 The Council of Clermont proclaimed the First Crusade, that led to the massacre of many Jewish communities(1092) 25 King Frederick III of Sicily required all Jews to wear badges(1369) 27 Jews were prohibited from practicing medicine in Romania(1868) So here we have a recurrant theme spanning ten centuries and many different areas. We might assume that this rejoicing record compiled by the Jewish community is that which they were able to find but that the full account, if records were available, might excede this by many times. Holocaust books give us a more up to date account about raging resentments among a variety of countries in this century, especially in their accounts of Einsatzgruppens, where we might get the idea that people in Hungary, Romania, Ukraine, White Russia and else where, had more to do with whatever really happened than the Germans. We also have to recognize, aside from any moral judgements, that whatever really happened during WW II is a continuation of the listed history above. Since these bewailings of dates of reactions are always devoid of discussing any extenuating circumstances we are left to wonder about the ultimate cause and effect of the reoccurance. Nevertheless, one example of the above has found it’s way into history books as to any details. This is the Spanish expulsion of Jews in 1492. The historical account of Jews in Spain starts off with them finding their way into the land as tagalongs to the invading Moorish army, thus making them complicit in the invasion. After a few centuries the Moors were rightfully ejected from Spain, but the Jews were allowed to stay, evidentally in consideration of their biblical connection. Inspite of this initial forgiving accomodation a change of heart occurred. Evidentally the Jews had saturated much of the trade, including the agricultural chain, and eventually it got to the point of intolerance and the Spanish reacted. About three years ago Spain allowed itself to be badgered into giving a formal apology for this history. The one thing that is certain from the overall history of the Jews, by their own accounting, aside from any discussion of cause and effect, is that for some reason many generations in many nations allowed the Jews to establish themselves but for some reason became irratated to the point of severe reaction, which the Jews call "persecution". It is evident that great rage was directed towards the Jews, and we must recognize that the Jews’ repeated history suggests that they are the ultimate responsibility for whatever happened to them.  They can propagandize all they want about how brilliant they are, how benevolent they are, but their own history does not support it. The most repeated history in the history of the world. By comparison, the statistics of American anti-Semitism, though plentiful, appear mild. There was Gen. U.S. Grant’s expulsion of Jewish merchants from the Tennessee war zone in the Civil War, an act that Lincoln countermanded. There was the lynching of Leo Frank in Georgia in 1915, after his spurious conviction for the murder of one of his female employees. There was Henry Ford’s infamous republication in the 1920s of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion."  -A heartfelt thank you to Tom Moran for the above work   January 21, 1996 — SANDRA "If dissidents are ever going to accomplish anything they had better learn NOW that everything Jews hate they must love, everything Jews despise they must embrace, and everything Jews attack they must defend."         -SFC Steven M. Barry, USA (Ret.), Editor, The Resister

Response:

<snip for space fairly accurate history of the persecution of the Jews) – -Since these bewailings of dates of reactions are always devoid of -discussing any extenuating circumstances we are left to wonder about the -ultimate cause and effect of the reoccurance. Nevertheless, one example of -the above has found it’s way into history books as to any -details. This is the Spanish expulsion of Jews in 1492. – -The historical account of Jews in Spain starts off with them -finding their way into the land as tagalongs to the invading Moorish army, -thus making them complicit in the invasion. After a few centuries the -Moors were rightfully ejected from Spain, but the Jews were allowed to -stay, evidentally in consideration of their biblical connection. Inspite -of this initial forgiving accomodation a change of heart occurred. -Evidentally the Jews had saturated much of the trade, including the -agricultural chain, and eventually it got to the point of intolerance and -the Spanish reacted. Translation:  The Spanish merchant class and ruling class got really angry that tho they unwiling to work as cooperatively with each others as the Jews were, and therefore were not as successful….so they stirred up hatred of folks who they themselves were oppressing…… – -About three years ago Spain allowed itself to be badgered into giving a -formal apology for this history. If a people are going to take pride in thier history, then they need to take responsibility for ALL their history, wouldn’t you think, – -The one thing that is certain from the overall history of the Jews, by -their own accounting, aside from any discussion of cause and effect, is -that for some reason many generations in many nations allowed the Jews to -establish themselves but for some reason became irratated to the point of -severe reaction, which the Jews call "persecution". What do you call  the deprival of human rights based on religion and/or race. justice? You’re a really scary child. -It is evident that great rage was directed towards the Jews, and we must -recognize that the Jews’ repeated history suggests that they are the -ultimate responsibility for whatever happened to them.  They can -propagandize all they want about how brilliant they are, how benevolent -they are, but their own history does not support it. IWhy must we "recognize" such a lie? I guess you are the kind of person who feels that little girls who have been raped must have " asked for it",  that its was the White man’s duty to wipe out Native people in the Americas, that those civil-rights workers deserved to be lynched. – -The most repeated history in the history of the world. Evil done by humans to other humans is the most repeated history in the world. – -By comparison, the statistics of American anti-Semitism, though plentiful, -appear mild. There was Gen. U.S. Grant’s expulsion of Jewish merchants -from the Tennessee war zone in the Civil War, an act that Lincoln -countermanded. There was the lynching of Leo Frank in Georgia in 1915, -after his spurious conviction for the murder of one of his female -employees. There was Henry Ford’s infamous republication in the 1920s -of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." And you are trying to correct that, by stirring up more hatred against Jews? – -SANDRA -"If dissidents are ever going to accomplish anything they had better learn -NOW that everything Jews hate they must love, everything Jews despise they -must embrace, and everything Jews attack they must defend." –        -SFC Steven M. Barry, USA (Ret.), Editor, The Resister Well, at least you proove you are no lover of Jesus Christ!!! Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I’m Gay http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/1734 – Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches http://www.ufmcc.com Every 3.6 seconds a real person dies from hunger somewhere in the world!!! Feed a hungry person today: http://www.hungersite.com Every day 1800 children woldwide are infected with HIV. Please help provide care: http://www.thekidsaidssite.com To send e-mail, remove nohate from address

Response:

November 3 1999

…it was a very good year…… — I’ll write no line before its time

Response:

Question:

hi, i am trying to find a site outside sage where people might discuss business works. yesterday i installed the new Gold upgrade and saw Businessworks slow down to 1/100 its previous speed.  Tech support said it is a bigger, more powerful system designed to integrate into other products, but what kind of an answer is that?  previously an invoice search might take 1-1/2 seconds.  the same search in the new system took 7 minutes.  anyone else experience anything like this?  has Sage screwed up and put out a dog? is it the Pervasive 2000 database? I uninstalled the upgrade so that we could continue doing business.  Anyone else?

Response:

Hi.  I’m looking at the Businessworks software as an upgrade from Peachtree. Other than this upgrade problem you mentioned, how do you like the software? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – hi, i am trying to find a site outside sage where people might discuss business works.

Response:

BusinessWorks 12.5 is a solid, stable, easy to use intuitive accounting and business management program.  Hard to find flaws.  Easy to learn.  It usually puches you into correct procedures.  Many reports, can use excell or crystal for additional reports, but most reports are already in the system. Gold, the new 32 bit upgrade is a load.  Slower than mollasses, buggy, hard to install, and not ready for market yet.  Lookups or reports that took 1 or 2 seconds in 12.5 can take 60 to 90 seconds.  Pretty hard to be productive when you are dealing with these types of waits.  It surprises me that Sage released it.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi.  I’m looking at the Businessworks software as an upgrade from Peachtree. Other than this upgrade problem you mentioned, how do you like the software? hi, i am trying to find a site outside sage where people might discuss business works.

Response:

You are right.  Business Works 12.5 was good and solid, I do not know why I wanted to go with the new Gold.  If I had know then what I know now, I would not have made the upgrade.  We have now got ours working pretty well, just have to stay away from some of the icon buttons, we did have to get a new computer and really bumping the memory up trying to get more speed.  Slow it is and full of bugs.   – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – BusinessWorks 12.5 is a solid, stable, easy to use intuitive accounting and business management program.  Hard to find flaws.  Easy to learn.  It usually puches you into correct procedures.  Many reports, can use excell or crystal for additional reports, but most reports are already in the system. Gold, the new 32 bit upgrade is a load.  Slower than mollasses, buggy, hard to install, and not ready for market yet.  Lookups or reports that took 1 or 2 seconds in 12.5 can take 60 to 90 seconds.  Pretty hard to be productive when you are dealing with these types of waits.  It surprises me that Sage released it. Hi.  I’m looking at the Businessworks software as an upgrade from Peachtree. Other than this upgrade problem you mentioned, how do you like the software? hi, i am trying to find a site outside sage where people might discuss business works.

Response:

Question:

And valium can cost "x" in one pharmacy and "y" in another. Like, Lisa, I’m unclear on the point your making. To me, it’s a shopping thing — as a consumer, shop around for the best price. Getting down to the nitty gritty, my insurance pays $786 to the pharmacy, I pay another $8 to the pharmacy so if my math is correct, that’s $794 to the pharmacy. Best regards, Meg

Response:

i think you could safely say abc’s range from about 850 to 1200 a month. (i have tried all three at this point. betaseron seems to be the keeper for me) i’m not sure what point you are trying to make. in all cases the literature i received from the drug companies gave me THEIR price for the drug. gramted it was in small print usually and not prominently highlighted. the literature also said some insurance companies have agreements with alternate providers and the drug company could not guarantee pricing in those cases — which is why i believe there is variation between some mail order pricing and various pharmacies like cvs and walgreens. my insurance WILL NOT allow me to order directly from Berlex (by the way, Berlex makes Betaseron, not Avonex as someone indicated. Biogen makes Avonex.) i have no idea what they are paying for the drug or where they are buying it from. I never see a bill. i pick it up at my docs office each month. my hmo doesnt cover injectibles, except for insulin. but through some loophole or fear of getting sued or some thing i am thankful for, they will cover the ms drugs anyway. for reasons i dont understand, the only way they will cover it is if it is delivered to the doctor’s office instead of directly to me or to a pharmacy where i’d pick it up. inconvienent,  but i can live with it considering i dont even have a copay for the stuff. plus, originally i was having to drive to my neuro’s office, which is 35 miles away. but they agreed to ship it to my primary care doc, even tho she didnt prescribe it. it’s only ten miles to her office. like i said, i have no idea what it is costing the insurance company. but i know it is somewhere in that 850-1200 range. another factor is that berlex, and i cant recall with biogen or teva marion, gives 2 months of the year for free if you order for ten consecutive months. anyway, i am curious about what you are driving at. >First let me say that a message regarding price ranges of the ABC drugs >should be permanently displayed and updated for viewers (new and old) of >this newsgroup.

Be Well, Lisa to send email, remove 123 from my address. "Please explain to me the scientific nature of ‘The Whammy’" – Scully "The Daily News asks her for the dope. She says, ‘Man, the dope’s that there’s still hope.’"- Springsteen

Response:

To complicate the ABC drug pricing policy. I get Betaseron free from the Veterans Administration. The box of Betaseron comes to me with a yellow Post It Note. The note has $558.19. I would guess this is the price the V.A. pays for Betaseron. Chuck   l

Response:

You might find it interesting to know that in Nova Scotia, if you get the drug through the MS Clinic, the govt pays the total amount.  I don’t know about other provinces. Gaylan Meg <mliverg…@mindspring.com123> wrote in message

news:7pnps9$257$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> And valium can cost "x" in one pharmacy and "y" in another. Like, Lisa, I’m > unclear on the point your making. To me, it’s a shopping thing — as a > consumer, shop around for the best price. Getting down to the nitty gritty, > my insurance pays $786 to the pharmacy, I pay another $8 to the pharmacy so > if my math is correct, that’s $794 to the pharmacy. Best regards, Meg

Response:

alexandgaylan wrote: > You might find it interesting to know that in Nova Scotia, if you get the > drug through the MS Clinic, the govt pays the total amount.  I don’t know > about other provinces. > Gaylan

This is not the case in Newfoundland. The Government will only pay an amount based on an income analysis. With the price of these drugs who can afford $1,500 a month.

Response:

My Avonex was $535 a month.  It all bullsh*t.  They charge whatever the insurance companies are willing to pay. Rachelle

Response:

Correction:  Berlex makes Betaseron. teva.mar…@hmrag.com    makes Copaxone. Biogen makes Avonex. I posted that message because it seems that at least once a week someone posts a message asking about the ABC’s and how much it will cost.  Their doctors should be able to give them at least a price range, but most probably won’t.  These people need INFORMATION to start with. When you check the web pages of the ABC makers, they avoid giving the average cost or even a price range.  There needs to be a way to be an informed consumer, especially for those who might have to bear all or part of the cost themselves, those who are concerned about a lifetime maximum on their insurance policies, and those who are trying to keep costs down period! If we could comparison shop, providers would have more incentive to offer lower prices.  If we all were conscientious about keeping the costs down, MSer’s might have better insurance, etc. options in the future. When I started on Avonex, cost information was avoided on the web pages, so I signed on with a provider who didn’t initially give me the correct price. When I saw the 1st EOB from the insurance company, I was alerted me that they were charging more than I was told.  I simply complained and got them to lower the price!  It’s apparently NO BIG DEAL to the provider.  They’ll charge as much as they can get away with! Again, the message was posted to help folks have INFORMATION to begin with. The cost shouldn’t be as ambiguous as the disease. news <5…@stoutinternet.com> wrote in message

<37bf4…@news.greennet.net>… >First let me say that a message regarding price ranges of the ABC drugs >should be permanently displayed and updated for viewers (new and old) of >this newsgroup. >One of the most irritating aspects is the difficulty obtaining upfront & >honest information about cost, etc. on any of them.

  Ask for the average price because – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->otherwise, the standard line is that "the price varies depending on the >provider and your insurance."  Once you know the average price, that might >give you some leverage with potential providers. >P.S.  Since a message regarding prices probably won’t be permanently >displayed here, maybe everyone should start out every message by stating the >price for the drug they’re taking.

Response:

First let me say that a message regarding price ranges of the ABC drugs should be permanently displayed and updated for viewers (new and old) of this newsgroup. It is a shame that the producers of the ABC drugs do not willingly share this information on their web pages and in the literature they distribute. One of the most irritating aspects is the difficulty obtaining upfront & honest information about cost, etc. on any of them. Look at the web sites of Avonex, Beterseron, & Copaxone.  Contact them and ask "what the average price is."  Ask for the average price because otherwise, the standard line is that "the price varies depending on the provider and your insurance."  Once you know the average price, that might give you some leverage with potential providers. Anyway, I’ve asked the group and I’ve been watching for prices.  This is what I’ve seen so far. Avonex: 1.  "Avonex Support" tells me that the "average cost" of Avonex is $852.  2.  Wal-Mart provides it for $868. 3.  Walgreen’s price $859. 4.  Eckerd’s price is approx. $875 5.  CVS charges $762.20. 6.  Walgreen’s in Colorado Springs Avonex (1 mo.) costs $859. 7.  Avonex was $989.40/mo through Berlex. 8.  Recently, I contacted my Rx provider to inform them that I would be changing pharmacies because while their price for Avonex was 1022.40, the "average" as reported by the Avonex support line is $852.  To make a long story short, they called me back to say that they will reduce the cost to $852! Copaxone: 1.  Walgreen’s in Colorado Springs Copaxone (1 mo.) costs an even $1,000. 2.  one month supply of Copax + supplies is about $1100.00 3.   copaxone  around $1,200 a month 4.  When insurance was paying for Copaxone it was $1,144 per month.  I understand there is a three tiered pricing of this drug,depending on who you get it from and what requirements your insurance has 5.  I am on Copaxone and, it can cost anywhere from $785 to $1,000 per month. 6.  one month supply of Copax + supplies is about $1100.00 7.  teva.mar…@hmrag.com    This is the company that makes Copaxone. Contact them and ask "what the average price is." 8.  Try SOMA.COM  They quoted me about $786 for a one month supply! for copaxone Betaseron 1.  cost about $1,100 a month  2.  Edmonton Canada.The best price I’ve found for a month supply of betaseron is $1500.  3.  My HMO looks at Betaseron as a treatment and pays for it 100%.  It depends on your policy. P.S.  Since a message regarding prices probably won’t be permanently displayed here, maybe everyone should start out every message by stating the price for the drug they’re taking.

Response:

In a message dated 08/25/1999 10:51:05 AM Central Daylight Time, DeeSad…@HOME.COM writes:

<< Speaking of pricing — my doc has suggested Avonex to me but have no  insurance that covers any meds. Any suggestions? There is no way I can  afford.   >> Dee,  Call  avonex @1-800-456-2255 and ask about their "access program",. I got on it last Oct.. It’s a sliding scale based on your previous year tax return. I am on medicare which does not pay for prescriptions.,  I have to pay for 4 months avonex and get 9 months free. My payments are $284 a month fo a year. It is a lot, but at least I am able to get the drug. Edee

Response:

In article <37C410F6.3BDF0…@home.com>, DeeSad…@HOME.COM (Dee Sadler) writes: >Speaking of pricing — my doc has suggested Avonex to me but have no >insurance that covers any meds. Any suggestions? There is no way I can >afford.

Call the avonex people. They do have a program to help make it available. My problem was that I still couldn’t afford it…but maybe things will work out so that you can. Margaret "You are braver than you believe, and stronger than you seem, and smarter than you think." Christopher Robin to Pooh in "Pooh’s Grand Adventure" to reply directly to me remove nojunk from my email address

Response:

If you’re a veteran, you can get many of these expensive medications for only a $2.00 co=pay if you meet certian income requirements…check it out, and GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Response:

Speaking of pricing — my doc has suggested Avonex to me but have no insurance that covers any meds. Any suggestions? There is no way I can afford. Dee – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Cleodemko wrote: > My Avonex was $535 a month.  It all bullsh*t.  They charge whatever the > insurance companies are willing to pay. > Rachelle

Response:

>Speaking of pricing — my doc has suggested Avonex to me but have no >insurance that covers any meds. Any suggestions? There is no way I can >afford.

Hi Dee, Try these: http://www.ims-1.com/~freemed/info.html http://home.texoma.net/~moreland/patient/free-2.html http://www.avonex.com Rachelle

Response:

In article <37c15…@news.greennet.net>,   "news" <5…@stoutinternet.com> wrote: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Correction:  Berlex makes Betaseron. > teva.mar…@hmrag.com    makes Copaxone. > Biogen makes Avonex. > I posted that message because it seems that at least once a week someone > posts a message asking about the ABC’s and how much it will cost. Their > doctors should be able to give them at least a price range, but most > probably won’t.  These people need INFORMATION to start with. > When you check the web pages of the ABC makers, they avoid giving the > average cost or even a price range.  There needs to be a way to be an > informed consumer, especially for those who might have to bear all or part > of the cost themselves, those who are concerned about a lifetime maximum on > their insurance policies, and those who are trying to keep costs down > period! > If we could comparison shop, providers would have more incentive to offer > lower prices.  If we all were conscientious about keeping the costs down, > MSer’s might have better insurance, etc. options in the future. > When I started on Avonex, cost information was avoided on the web pages, so > I signed on with a provider who didn’t initially give me the correct price. > When I saw the 1st EOB from the insurance company, I was alerted me that > they were charging more than I was told.  I simply complained and got them > to lower the price!  It’s apparently NO BIG DEAL to the provider. They’ll > charge as much as they can get away with! > Again, the message was posted to help folks have INFORMATION to begin with. > The cost shouldn’t be as ambiguous as the disease.

Your info was quite interesting. Many people have the cost paid by their insurance company so they really don’t care what the stuff costs.  That’s the way it goes with a lot of the U.S. health care system, which is why costs are so high. gordon Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

In article <7prmm8$4b…@nnrp1.deja.com>, darb…@my-deja.com writes: >Your $535    seems to be th elowball figure

Real low. Mine was $853. Kathi

Response:

Kathi Matthews wrote: > But the shipping costs don’t account for the difference between $535 and $853. > Neither, I think, does the local economy.  Not *that* much difference.   And > they should charge the same to all insurance companies. > Kathi

Then the difference is probably the individual pharmacy’s mark-up. Which, I agree, sucks. Lin ~~ You can tune a piano, but you can’t tuna fish ~~ My header never changes…..look carefully & don’t be fooled by forgeries!

Response:

In article <37C1E061.5…@fnet.FriendlyNet.com>, Lin&Jim <Danc…@fnet.FriendlyNet.com> writes: >W/ some slight variations, I’m sure that’s more-or-less how it’s handled >everywhere…..so I’m sure the price will vary somewhat depending on >where you live (shipping costs, general economy), what pharmacy you deal >w/, your insurance coverage, all that stuff.

But the shipping costs don’t account for the difference between $535 and $853. Neither, I think, does the local economy.  Not *that* much difference.   And they should charge the same to all insurance companies. Kathi

Response:

>Your $535    seems to be th elowball figure.  Why not tell the world >where you are buying it.

I bought it at Medic Drug in Cleveland Ohio. Rachelle

Response:

The VA doesn’t bother to tell me how much they pay for drugs. Beta seron is $1600/month in BC Fluvoxamine is about $72.00/month Oxybutnin?? Amantadine ?? Considering I have heard that total costs for a wheelchair bound person can add up to $1,000,000 per year  I think that supplying us with the drugs is a bargain to the providers. Thomas (Remove YOURHAT when replying) Taqueant colloquia

Response:

news wrote: > I posted that message because it seems that at least once a week someone > posts a message asking about the ABC’s and how much it will cost.  Their > doctors should be able to give them at least a price range, but most > probably won’t.  These people need INFORMATION to start with.

….& that info does NOT come from the dr’s office. It comes from the pharmacy who sells/handles the drug in question. Dr’s don’t spend their time running price checks between all the area pharmacies on all the drugs they could possibly write for! I call Jim at work & tell him I need a refill (if I forgot to write it down the night before)…..he calls Berlex & places my order…..they ship it to him at the pharmacy, where he then bills our insurance for their share of it. W/ some slight variations, I’m sure that’s more-or-less how it’s handled everywhere…..so I’m sure the price will vary somewhat depending on where you live (shipping costs, general economy), what pharmacy you deal w/, your insurance coverage, all that stuff. Lin ~~ You can tune a piano, but you can’t tuna fish ~~ My header never changes…..look carefully & don’t be fooled by forgeries!

Response:

>The cost shouldn’t be as ambiguous as the disease.

now i get your point Be Well, Lisa to send email, remove 123 from my address. "Please explain to me the scientific nature of ‘The Whammy’" – Scully "The Daily News asks her for the dope. She says, ‘Man, the dope’s that there’s still hope.’"- Springsteen

Response:

> Gordon wrote: The point of the original post was to try to show the wide

price disparaties.  It was informative. The same price range exists for many drugs.  The drug companies will not explain it.  It seems though that U.S. customers pay for the research and development and the overseas customers get the price benefit. Mosssst people whose insurance co pays really don’t care about the price.  This helps on keeping the price up.  One time I challeneged a hospital bill.  They asked me why did I care since my insurance co was paying.  That is what drives up healyh care costs. < If I’m a retailer who wants to sell a product, and the wholesaler is making that product available to other retailers (no exclusivity), as a general rule the wholesaler sets a price. That wholesale price frequently comes with Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price, just to give retailers a ballpark area. But according to what the market will bear, it’s the retailer who sets the fair market value price on the product. If you want a lower price, shop around. If your insurance company won’t go to that lower-priced pharmacy, you might ask them why. If you’re unhappy that Americans pay more for a drug that was researched and developed in this country, then sold for less in other countries, I’ll simply say that I’m thankful to live in a country wealthy enough to research and develop drugs that could be to the benefit of all. Flame away, folks. That’s just my opinion. As to hospital charges — I, too, have challenged hospital bills, and have received the same comment from accounting. Then I called the insurance company and let them know. From that point, it’s their problem to challenge the bill or pay it. Done. Thanks. My best regards, Meg

Response:

In article <19990822123818.09742.00002…@ng-fg1.aol.com>,   cleode…@aol.com (Cleodemko) wrote: > My Avonex was $535 a month.  It all bullsh*t.  They charge whatever the > insurance companies are willing to pay. > Rachelle

The point of the original post was to try to show the wide price disparaties.  It was informative. The same price range exists for many drugs.  The drug companies will not explain it.  It seems though that U.S. customers pay for the research and development and the overseas customers get the price benefit Mosssst people whose insurance co pays really don’t care about the price.  This helps on keeping the price up.  One time I challeneged a hospital bill.  They asked me why did I care since my insurance co was paying.  That is what drives up healyh care costs. Your $535    seems to be th elowball figure.  Why not tell the world where you are buying it. gordon Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

Question:

If you are aware of improper and or illegal actions of your employers then you should exit the company ASAP!  You didn’t indicate if you are signing checks.  My guess here is that you are not.  If that is the case keep it that way.  If you are signing checks then my suggestion would be to contact legal counsel immediately, you may wish to do so anyway. Regarding your marketability.  I would think your background and experience will serve you well.  I’m not familiar with the job market in your state but given the tight labor market overall it shouldn’t be difficult to find a new position. Good Luck Don   Regards,   Donald A Haney, MBA   Emergency Care Specialists, PC   "Learning occurs in the mind, independent of time and place." – Plato   I’m currently in an accounting/admin support position at a small financial   services company.  I’m curious as to how this office compares to other   offices of the same size.  I also need to know how I fit (what is my   value??) in the marketplace with my current skills and experience.  I’ve   seen some salary surveys on the net that give average salary, but I’m   curious as to what a "real world" accountant or human resource manager would   say about my situation.   A little background:  Last year gross revenue was approx. $6,500,000 and as   of  6/30/99 was about $3,800,000.  Currently have approx. 85 employees: 35   commission-only salespeople, 2 owner/managers, 3 department managers,   remaining employees are salary or hourly support/customer service staff.   Averaging 5 to 7 new-hires/terminations per month.  I’m the first full-time   accounting/admin support person in the 12-year history of the company.   Previously only had part-time clerks/bookkeeper.  None of the managers are   accountants by training and there are a FEW(read too many) non-standard   procedures in place.  I’ve been here for 2 years and I’m finding it   impossible to keep up with the current workload as well as back-track to   bring the delinquent items up-to-speed.  Should one person be able to handle   a company this size?   I handle the following:   -all supply inventory and ordering   -all timecard/payroll/commission calculations (using MS Access and Excel) to   prepare gross figures for payroll service twice per month;  the pay periods   end on the 15th(for paychecks dated the 20th) and the last day of the   month(for paychecks dated the 20th)   -all A/P and general journal research/data-entry through month-end financial   statements (however I do not analyze them, only pass them to management)   -no A/R other than the tracking of draw monies given to employees, usually a   running balance of $3,000 to $5,000   -all new-hire/termination paperwork to include:  general information sheets,   W-4s, I-9s, medical insurance enrollment, 401k enrollment and compliance,   COBRA compliance, and PTO accruals   -year-end 1099 calculations to give to payroll service (however I believe it   is incorrect to give 1099s to W-2 employees)   -responsible for all service calls, maintenance contracts, and leases for   office equipment:  4 heavy-use marketing printers, 5 photocopiers, 4 mail   machines, 7 fax machines, and many desktop LaserJets   weekly sales reports:  7 total done in Excel   -travel arrangements   -filing/cataloging of paid invoice copies   -type 80 wpm, know Windows 95/98, MS Office 97 and Corel Office v7(except   Paradox), Peachtree Complete v6(just learning), Quicken 98   -familiar with graphics/scanning software   -familiar with basic networking:  e.g. if my printer is broken I can connect   to another one on the network instead of just sitting there and I won’t   stare blankly if you say ethernet, pci, copy it from the server, or "Please   share your CD-ROM drive"   -know enough of HTML and FTP to get pages on the web (www.atpoffice.com) but   not quite ready for e-commerce or scripting languages   What do you all think I would be worth on the open market?  I’m in Orange   County, California.  I don’t have a degree, but do have some college.  I   have almost 20 years experience and NO desire to be a manager.  I only speak   one language.   2nd question:  Do I incur any legal risk by carrying out instructions that I   know to be incorrect?  So far I’ve been handling such requests by thoroughly   documenting them and, when appropriate, getting initials of the requestor   who is always a manager.   For example:   -W-2 employees being paid bonus with no withholding and then getting a 1099   at the end of the year (This creates havoc with the payroll service which   has to add dummy employee numbers in December to get a 1099 for an   SSN/employee that has already been issued a W-2 and then delete them all in   January.)   -people who would obviously be defined as employees, being labeled and paid   as contractors   -non-exempt employees not being compensated for overtime (at least I think   they’re non-exempt because they get docked for partial days, they don’t   supervise anyone, and they perform clerical/non-managerial duties all of the   time.)   -child support to an employee’s ex-spouse/partner being lessened by putting   a current spouse on the payroll to accept diverted income(i.e. they’ve never   even been into the office)   -non-standard personnel practices:  for example, allowing only certain   employees to show EXEMPT on line 7 of their W-4 (I checked with the IRS and   was told that the employer has no authority to deviate from what an employee   puts on their W-4 much less on a subjective case-by-case basis.)   Any managers our there?  What do you think?  How would you expect your   assistant or clerk to handle such requests?  I’m pretty sure I will be shown   the door when I bring these things up during my review.   I appreciate any information you can give me.

Response:

Don’s right. I would hit the road as soon as I had a new job. Also, if you stay, you need help. In a company that size, there should be two, and maybe three people handling what you are doing. As long as you don’t sign checks and keep documentation (if you decide to leave, make copies), you are PROBABLY safe. Some day those practices will catch up with them and defending them will be expensive. The IRS, when they catch you, take a dim view of that as they consider it fraudulent (friend in mgt with IRS says that’s the program). Lastly, be sure you’re not on the check signing card, much less signing checks. Luck,  Dana To reply, please remove NOSPAM from the address Visit our web site at http://www.tailored-computing.com

Response:

2nd question:  Do I incur any legal risk by carrying out instructions that I know to be incorrect?

Depends on the specifics.  More likely than not.  So far I’ve been handling such requests by thoroughly documenting them and, when appropriate, getting initials of the requestor who is always a manager.

This will work to a point – however the remainder of your post leads me to suspect that you have reached that point. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – For example: -W-2 employees being paid bonus with no withholding and then getting a 1099 at the end of the year (This creates havoc with the payroll service which has to add dummy employee numbers in December to get a 1099 for an SSN/employee that has already been issued a W-2 and then delete them all in January.) -people who would obviously be defined as employees, being labeled and paid as contractors -non-exempt employees not being compensated for overtime (at least I think they’re non-exempt because they get docked for partial days, they don’t supervise anyone, and they perform clerical/non-managerial duties all of the time.) -child support to an employee’s ex-spouse/partner being lessened by putting a current spouse on the payroll to accept diverted income(i.e. they’ve never even been into the office) -non-standard personnel practices:  for example, allowing only certain employees to show EXEMPT on line 7 of their W-4 (I checked with the IRS and was told that the employer has no authority to deviate from what an employee puts on their W-4 much less on a subjective case-by-case basis.) Any managers our there?  What do you think?  How would you expect your assistant or clerk to handle such requests?  I’m pretty sure I will be shown the door when I bring these things up during my review.

DO NOT – REPEAT – NO NOT wait for your review.  These are serious matters.  In order to protect yourself, you must act. I would suggest that you: 1.  Quietly retain your own lawyer.  Under these circumstances a lawyer is cheap at twice the price. 2.  If your lawyer agrees, consult with your employer’s outside CPA firm.  They probably / possibly do not know what is going on and may be just as interested as you are in getting it cleaned up.   Reputable CPAs will not put up with this sort of thing if they know about it. 3.  If # 2 doesn’t work, WITH YOU LAWYER’S GUIDANCE AND ASSISTANCE,  confront your managers / owners.   They will either want to clean it up or have you leave by mutual consent, which of course you will want to do also. A long time friend /associate of mine in the Seattle area just went through something very similar to what you are describing.  He ended up with a much better job than he left. Good luck, Jim Hudspeth, CPA Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

I’m currently in an accounting/admin support position at a small financial services company.  I’m curious as to how this office compares to other offices of the same size.  I also need to know how I fit (what is my value??) in the marketplace with my current skills and experience.  I’ve seen some salary surveys on the net that give average salary, but I’m curious as to what a "real world" accountant or human resource manager would say about my situation. A little background:  Last year gross revenue was approx. $6,500,000 and as of  6/30/99 was about $3,800,000.  Currently have approx. 85 employees:  35 commission-only salespeople, 2 owner/managers, 3 department managers, remaining employees are salary or hourly support/customer service staff. Averaging 5 to 7 new-hires/terminations per month.  I’m the first full-time accounting/admin support person in the 12-year history of the company. Previously only had part-time clerks/bookkeeper.  None of the managers are accountants by training and there are a FEW(read too many) non-standard procedures in place.  I’ve been here for 2 years and I’m finding it impossible to keep up with the current workload as well as back-track to bring the delinquent items up-to-speed.  Should one person be able to handle a company this size? I handle the following: -all supply inventory and ordering -all timecard/payroll/commission calculations (using MS Access and Excel) to prepare gross figures for payroll service twice per month;  the pay periods end on the 15th(for paychecks dated the 20th) and the last day of the month(for paychecks dated the 20th) -all A/P and general journal research/data-entry through month-end financial statements (however I do not analyze them, only pass them to management) -no A/R other than the tracking of draw monies given to employees, usually a running balance of $3,000 to $5,000 -all new-hire/termination paperwork to include:  general information sheets, W-4s, I-9s, medical insurance enrollment, 401k enrollment and compliance, COBRA compliance, and PTO accruals -year-end 1099 calculations to give to payroll service (however I believe it is incorrect to give 1099s to W-2 employees) -responsible for all service calls, maintenance contracts, and leases for office equipment:  4 heavy-use marketing printers, 5 photocopiers, 4 mail machines, 7 fax machines, and many desktop LaserJets weekly sales reports:  7 total done in Excel -travel arrangements -filing/cataloging of paid invoice copies -type 80 wpm, know Windows 95/98, MS Office 97 and Corel Office v7(except Paradox), Peachtree Complete v6(just learning), Quicken 98 -familiar with graphics/scanning software -familiar with basic networking:  e.g. if my printer is broken I can connect to another one on the network instead of just sitting there and I won’t stare blankly if you say ethernet, pci, copy it from the server, or "Please share your CD-ROM drive" -know enough of HTML and FTP to get pages on the web (www.atpoffice.com) but not quite ready for e-commerce or scripting languages What do you all think I would be worth on the open market?  I’m in Orange County, California.  I don’t have a degree, but do have some college.  I have almost 20 years experience and NO desire to be a manager.  I only speak one language. 2nd question:  Do I incur any legal risk by carrying out instructions that I know to be incorrect?  So far I’ve been handling such requests by thoroughly documenting them and, when appropriate, getting initials of the requestor who is always a manager. For example: -W-2 employees being paid bonus with no withholding and then getting a 1099 at the end of the year (This creates havoc with the payroll service which has to add dummy employee numbers in December to get a 1099 for an SSN/employee that has already been issued a W-2 and then delete them all in January.) -people who would obviously be defined as employees, being labeled and paid as contractors -non-exempt employees not being compensated for overtime (at least I think they’re non-exempt because they get docked for partial days, they don’t supervise anyone, and they perform clerical/non-managerial duties all of the time.) -child support to an employee’s ex-spouse/partner being lessened by putting a current spouse on the payroll to accept diverted income(i.e. they’ve never even been into the office) -non-standard personnel practices:  for example, allowing only certain employees to show EXEMPT on line 7 of their W-4 (I checked with the IRS and was told that the employer has no authority to deviate from what an employee puts on their W-4 much less on a subjective case-by-case basis.) Any managers our there?  What do you think?  How would you expect your assistant or clerk to handle such requests?  I’m pretty sure I will be shown the door when I bring these things up during my review. I appreciate any information you can give me.

Response:

Question:

Hello there, Does anyone know what represent the tail number ? Is it an accounting number of fixed assets. Thank you in advance. Philippe

The tail number is a number assigned to an aircraft by the carrier and is usually on the tail (hence the name) and on the NLG strut doors. It may or may not be the same number as the registration. Usually tail numbers are in sequence by aircraft type.  At my employer for example MD11’s are 800 series, 767’s are 100 series etc.  It is these numbers that an aircraft is known by within the carrier.  They are usually 3 or 4 digits and much easier to use than registration numbers.  In the carriers Ops Spec section which lists pertinate data on each aircraft operated the tail number, registration number, aircraft type, serial number etc are all listed. -Seth

Response:

The tail number if is an FAA registration number much like a licence plate on your car. All aircrafft registered in the US will start with a N.

Response:

There is a place on the web where you can look up tail numbers and see who owns them and get a description of the plane. Take a look at www.landings.com

The tail number if is an FAA registration number much like a licence plate on your car. All aircrafft registered in the US will start with a N.

Response:

Hello there, Does anyone know what represent the tail number ? Is it an accounting number of fixed assets. Thank you in advance. Philippe

The tail number is:- a a US forces number which is the year of manufacture plus the construction number/serial no. e.g. AF98                                       123 USAF, 1998 c/n 123 other US services are slightly different Other national fofces use different methods. you can buy a book of tail numbers/ registrations from any book store. — chas

Response:

Other national fofces use different methods. you can buy a book of tail numbers/ registrations from any book store.

Not true – I was just in my local Amish bookstore and they didn’t seem to have anything about airplanes (or cars, or telephones).  I then went around the corner to the "Spiritual Way of Enlightenment Bookstore and Karma Shop" and they didn’t have one either, but did offer to meditate on it and let me know if any specific alpha-numeric sequences appeared to them.  I did manage to get quite a good Chicken Tandoori, tho.  Thanks for the idea.    

Response:

Hello there, Does anyone know what represent the tail number ? Is it an accounting number of fixed assets. Thank you in advance. Philippe

Response:

Hello there, Does anyone know what represent the tail number ? Is it an accounting number of fixed assets. Thank you in advance.

Americanism!  Used to describe the registration painted on the aircraft tail/wings  i.e.  In the USA it would be N5222M in the UK G-BSZT or in France F-XXXX (sorry, don’t know exact format as I have never flown a French registered aircraft). — Alan Huckerby Made entirely from recycled electrons

Response:

Does anyone know what represent the tail number ?

By tail number, I presume you mean the registration, eg F-GHKA on a French-registered aircraft, or N12345 on a US one. This is a registration number very much like the plates on a car: it is a unique identifier issued to an aircraft by that country’s authorities. The initial letter or letters are an identifier for the country (eg F for France, G for UK, N for USA, etc — not always the country’s initial). That is then followed by an alphanumeric code according to rules set by that country’s authorities. In most places, that code is also the aircraft’s radio call sign, usually preceded by the aircraft type (eg "Cessna 12345"), although airlines usually use their flight number as their callsign. These tail numbers are sometimes assigned sequentially (F-GHKA before F-GHKB), sometimes within blocks (eg all airliners registered in Switzerland (HB) are in the HB-Ixx block, with individual types usually within sub-blocks, eg Swissair MD-11s are in the HB-IWx block), and sometimes selected by the airlines themselves from among unused numbers, and following certain rules (eg in the US). On some airlines (especially US airlines), you’ll often also find another number painted on the tail and elsewhere on the aircraft (eg on the nose or one the nosewheel doors). This is usually a number used internally by the airline to identify each aircraft, for its own purposes, and is known as a fleet number. This number has no official status, but may be related to the tail number (eg several US airlines choose tail numbers such that the numeric part matches their internal fleet number). Stefano Pagiola — All opinions are my own. Check out my web site at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/self.html Visit Smiliner: The BAe 146/Avro RJ site at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/smiliner.html

Response: