It seems even people who get to brew delicious beer for a living can have a bad day at work.
Craft brewers across America were frustrated this week…
Read more: Homebrewing, Great American Beer Festival, Small Batch Beer, Brewers Association, Craft Brewing, Craft Beer Brewers, Craft Beer Industry, Colorado Beer Festival, Microbrews, Beer, Beer Industry, Small Breweries, Craft Breweries, Craft Beer, Small Business News
, Craft Brewers Feel Growing Pains Of Industry Boom,
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has a seven-point plan for reforming healthcare, and a notable element is allowing individuals to deduct insurance premiums from taxes.
This proposed change to the tax code is meant to mirror how employer-based insurance is subsidized. It would mean that whether you buy health insurance directly from an insurance company, or get it through your job, you wouldn’t pay income taxes on your premiums.
Trump seems to suggest that this change would even the playing field between employer-based insurance and individual coverage.
But that isn’t true. Deducting individual premiums from taxes is not as good as employer-based tax exclusions. To understand why, let’s calculate the impact of both approaches for the typical American family.
Let’s meet our example family and get their financial basics:
Jane and her husband John have a household income of $80,000. They are subject to a 25 percent marginal income tax and a 7.65 percent FICA tax, which funds Social Security and Medicare. Their family health plan costs $12,000 per year.
Their take-home pay is higher if their health plan comes through their employer, rather than purchased individually. This is true even if Trump made it so they could deduct the cost of the individually-purchased plan. The following explains why.
Employer-sponsored approach
Employer-sponsored health insurance has been considered nontaxable by the IRS since the inception of the federal income tax in 1919. The practice of providing compensation in the form of “benefits” became more popular after World War II, and the tax-excluded status of employer benefits was officially cemented in the Revenue Act of 1954.
This system benefits both the employee and the employer, who can avoid income and FICA taxes from any funds spent on health insurance.
This means Jane can subtract $12,000 in health insurance costs from her salary before it is taxed. WIth $68,000 in taxable income, Jane pays $22,202 to the IRS. After taxes and insurance, Jane has a take-home pay total of $45,798.
Individual-purchased approach
Individual insurance is currently not excluded from taxes. But Trump’s plan would change that–kind of.
In this example, Jane’s full $80,000 is considered taxable. This means she pays $26,120 in taxes, which leaves $53,880. She then pays $12,000 for health insurance with take-home pay. That leaves her with $41,880.
When she pays her taxes, she can retroactively deduct the $12,000 in premiums from her taxes. That comes to $3,000 in her tax return, which leaves her with a total of $44,880 after taxes and health insurance.
Conclusion
As you can see, with employer-based health insurance, Jane’s household has almost $1,000 more in take-home pay. So while Trump’s plan would make individual health insurance more attractive than it is now–all else being equal–it still would not be as good as getting coverage from an employer.
— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
, Why Trump's Health Insurance Deductions Don't Add Up,
“The United States is fully lifting the ban on the sale of military equipment to Vietnam that has been in place for some 50 years.” President Barack Obama made this announcement during a press conference in Hanoi on May 23, 2016. Direct American military involvement in Vietnam ended on March 29, 1973, eight years after the initial deployment of American combat troops in March 1965. During the course of the war more than 58,000 American soldiers died and more than 300,000 were wounded. It is estimated that nearly 31% of Vietnam veterans suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. I believe that the impact on the psyche of an entire generation of American young men can never be accurately quantified. I can only imagine how the veterans and the families of those fallen in that conflict must feel in light of that news. Obama framed this decision as a step to remove a “lingering vestige of the Cold War.” Perhaps some of those most directly affected by the war can accept that but I would think the prevailing sentiment must be one of bewilderment if not disappointment or anger. The decision begs the oft repeated question, “What were we fighting for?”
According to the Editorial Board of the New York Times, “The Communist Party controls all institutions in Vietnam, permits no free elections, holds over 100 political prisoners and has yet to meet its obligations under the new trade agreement to allow labor unions.” Vietnam is still ruled by a very much authoritarian regime. So what we seem to have in this decision is a classic case of a shift in the national agenda. While we are still engaged in the Middle East, the Obama administration has made clear that the nation’s long term interests lie in Asia. China is an ascending force on the world scene and actively seeking to consolidate its power. This is most evident in their buildup of military installations in disputed territory in the South China Sea. China now, much more so than Vietnam, is a rival to American power in the region. As such, the sale of arms to Vietnam seems much more a method to counterbalance growing Chinese power rather than assuage remaining tensions of the Vietnam War. This is but another example of the fickle nature of international diplomacy. As Henry Kissinger said, “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests.” Such truth should make people reasonably skeptical of any armed conflict the nation engages in.
The United States has been mired in conflicts in the Middle East for the greater part of my life but this is can be all but forgotten in the relative security of the nation’s soil. Most Americans do not know anything about war. We hear the facts and the figures of war on the news, we read of it in our history classes, we might watch portrayals of combat at the movies but most of us are entirely unacquainted with its realities. I’m writing this as Memorial Day approaches. I think now, as I do at other times, about how fortunate I am that my largest problems typically concern coursework. In a different time I may have had combat duty rather than college as a prospect after high school. But the fact of the matter is that the United States ended the draft in 1973 and it hasn’t been instituted since. Today less than .5% of the American population serves in the military. My peers and I may very well never be called upon to take up arms. This is a privilege that comes from our country utilizing an entirely volunteer military. Because of this, though, we risk war becoming an abstraction, irretrievably removed from our civilian lives.
Many take Memorial Day as a time to remember those who have fallen in service, those who have served and those who still serve. Throughout the year many express their gratitude to American servicemen and women in the form of, “Thank you for your service.” However, this expression can easily become a platitude. If we are to really express our gratitude to those who serve and honor the memory of those who have fallen we must use the democratic freedoms they swore to protect. We should deliberately, consistently and publicly question the rhetoric and agendas of a government which has poured out the blood of its people only to later render their sacrifices meaningless.
World War II may have been the last glorious war. I use the word glorious here very guardedly. I mean to say that perhaps America will never again achieve victory so complete over enemies so evil. Though human rights abuses inevitably occurred on both sides as the civilian/military target distinction was nearly unidentifiable by the war’s end, few would argue that the regimes of Imperial Japan and especially Nazi Germany were morally comparable to that of the United States (the matter of the atomic bomb notwithstanding). Additionally, the United States entered World War II because of declarations of war from both Germany and Japan, justifying absolutely claims of national defense. Today claims of the military being deployed for national defense are far more precarious. In modern conflicts the United States is engaged with stateless enemies and decisive victory is seemingly impossible to achieve. America’s tactics, it can be argued, are producing more enemies than they are destroying. Moreover, the conflict in Iraq especially is widely suspected of having been over oil from the onset. In this context it is crucial that we recognize that members of the military are not chess pieces to be sacrificed for narrow, impermanent interests and that we hold the government to account for their well-being. In this way we can honor the fallen by ensuring that those added to their ranks are as few as possible.
— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
, Memorial Day, Vietnam and the Ever-Changing Agenda,
State fiscal reform is not a matter of choosing “heads” or “tails.” The tax-cutting, starve-the-beast approach alone cannot sufficiently control the growth of government, either on the state or federal level. Spending reform, absent the return of money back into the hands of entrepreneurs, investors and taxpayers does not sufficiently accomplish growth. Insofar as state fiscal policy goes, taxes and spending are permanently linked as two sides of the same coin. States that make good choices on spending can afford to make good choices on taxes, and states that have a desire to be more business-friendly and competitive are incentivized to reduce spending.
It should come as no surprise that low-tax, economically-competitive states are more likely to be in good fiscal health. More importantly, it also seems that high-tax, non-competitive states are simply using the wrong playbook and, in an attempt to capture revenue, end up losing businesses and commerce. With the recent release of the ninth edition of the Rich States, Poor States: ALEC-Laffer State Economic Competitiveness Index, each state was handed a summary of how fiscal and economic policies influence their own economic outlook.
When comparing the top ten competitive states against the bottom ten, a clear pattern emerges. For example, one of the 15 equally-weighted policy variables considered in Rich States, Poor States is “debt service as a share of tax revenue.” This variable reflects a few elements of a state’s budget, including overall tax burden, spending levels and also the sheer size of its economy. Misinterpreted, the variable can be viewed as creating a perverse incentive to raise revenue by increasing taxes. However, the more responsible route to managing debt payments is by balancing budgets and reducing the accrual of debt altogether.
Unsurprisingly, states that earned a top ten ranking in Rich States, Poor States manage their debt better than states languishing in the bottom ten, resulting in a five spot advantage, on average, in the “debt service” variable. In terms of raw percentages, top ten states commit a full percentage point less of their tax revenue to debt service than the bottom ten states. However, the solution is not to manipulate the ratio by chasing new revenues.
Neither a state’s fiscal health nor its ability to generate sufficient revenue for core government services requires increasing taxes. In fact, the states with no personal income tax have recently seen more growth in revenue, due to both increased commerce and increased domestic in-migration. The proper path is to prioritize spending restraint, which allows for sustainable tax rate reductions, leading to economic growth and revenue generation.
It is no wonder, then, that State Budget Solutions’ most recent State Debt Report shows a relationship between state debt burdens and a poor economic outlook. Of the five states carrying the most state debt per capita, three are among Rich States, Poor States’ bottom 10 in economic outlook. Each of the five states carrying the least debt per capita are among the Rich States, Poor States top ten for economic outlook.
The need for priority-based budgeting should be obvious. When the proper role of government is heavily weighed during the budget and appropriations process, it becomes possible for a state to tighten the belt without constituents suffering losses of core services. By prioritizing the protection of individual rights and the provision of basic services, citizens can come to appreciate the benefits of limited government. Other spending reforms are even simpler and less demanding. For example, merely forcing agencies to publish mission statements and explain how much of a return on investment they provide to taxpayers can reduce bureaucratic overlap and increase transparency, allowing citizens to gauge whether the services provided are necessary.
Some reforms are more challenging. Unfunded pension liabilities and the struggle to make Annual Required Contribution (ARC) payments – the minimum funding amount needed to maintain long-term stability – represent not only a dead weight on state budgets, but also broken promises to retirees who count on their pension income. While many options for reform exist, the end-goal must first be made clear to both pensioners and taxpayers: reducing taxpayers’ burden will not necessarily harm revenue, but it will boost a state’s economy, which benefits both workers and retirees. Reforms are not punishments, and public sector workers are no one’s enemy. Rather, reasonable reforms are required to keep the promise made by the state to its workers. When those reforms are implemented, the burden of debt can be lifted off both the state and the taxpayer. When spending and debt are properly managed, a state is free to become more economically competitive and prosperous.
Bob Williams is a senior fellow at State Budget Solutions, a project of the ALEC Center for State Fiscal Reform. Joe Horvath, a research analyst for the ALEC Center for State Fiscal Reform, contributed to this blog.
— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
, Spending Cuts and Tax Reform: Not 'Heads' or 'Tails',
We know you drink it, but do you really know what it is?
Read more: Craft Beers, What Is It Anyway, Craft Beer Industry, Blue Moon, Beer, Shocktop, Beer Industry, Anheuser-Busch, Big Beer, Craft Beer, Taste News
, Craft Beer: What Is It, Anyway?,
People now have the option to not only drink gluten-free beer, but drink really good gluten-free beer.
Read more: Drinks, Gluten-Free, Food and Drink, Beer, Gluten Free, Food, Gluten Intolerance, Beer Industry, Drinking, Gluten, Craft Beer, Food for Thought, Taste News
, The Daily Meal: 5 Gluten-Free Beers That Actually Taste Good,
Scientists have discovered a radical new way to treat our most traumatic memories.
— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
, MAG: Science Breakthrough In The Cure For Fear,
WARNING: This post is dark and full of the biggest spoilers ever.
He’s baaaccccckkkk!!!
It’s been a year of speculation, theories and HBO making excuses, but all your guesses were right “Game of Thrones” fans! Jon Snow is back! Seven hells!
The whole entire second episode of Season 6, “Home,” was crazy. Bran returned and we saw a young Ned and his siblings, Benjen and Lyanna, in a vision of the past. We got some of Hodor’s mysterious backstory. Ramsay killed his daddy, Roose Bolton, Roose’s wife, Walda, and his new baby brother. Theon’s uncle, Euron Greyjoy, showed up and killed Theon’s dad, Balon. And Tyrion unchained Dany’s dragons. (WHAT!)
But all of that led up to the biggest moment of all: our man is alive! In the last moments of the episode, Davos convinced Melisandre to try and bring Jon Snow back from the dead. She cleaned his wounds, gave him a great haircut, said some words and that was basically it. After everyone left the room, Ghost perked up and Snow opened his eyes, gasping for breath.
He’s back, people! The hype is real! The hype is real!
Freakouts are coming …
— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
, Jon Snow Is Finally Back On 'Game Of Thrones',
Ben Platt (center) in Dear Evan Hansen.
Photo: Matthew Murphy
One is tempted to say, simply: Don’t ask questions, just go see Dear Evan Hansen. This is the most emotionally stunning new musical since Fun Home. It fits somewhere along the line between Fun Home and Next to Normal; the plots are different, yes, but all three family stories deal with the struggle of people who don’t fit in. Dear Evan Hansen is absorbing, wrenching, heart-breaking and at the same time exhilarating. And oddly enough, you might even consider it adorable.
Combine one of the finest new scores we’ve heard since–well, Fun Home and that little musical about the man on the ten-dollar bill; an altogether gripping performance from a young actor named Ben Platt; and a bracing production from director Michael Grief (of Rent and Next to Normal), and you can see where this is heading. Emotionally raw, uncompromisingly honest shows are especially hard to pull off. When everything works, though, they are a marvel to behold.
Now it’s a leap for most theatergoers to buy tickets without knowing what they are in for. Dear Evan Hansen is one of those shows in which your ignorance of the specifics is its own reward; that is, I imagine the effect is even stronger if the plot takes you by surprise. That said, you are likely to leave Second Stage eager to see the show again, story surprises or not.
Let us go back a few steps. The score comes from Benj Pasek & Justin Paul, the team which made a tuneful debut with A Christmas Story. (Their second New York appearance came with the intentionally abrasive Dogfight, which nevertheless included some admirable musical numbers.) The Dear Evan Hansen score is searing: bounteously tuneful music, with lyrics that range from gripping to tender to laugh-out-loud funny. Time and again, an already-winning song builds and develops in such a manner that it boosts our enjoyment and propels the show. Pasek & Paul have also learned how a powerful opening vamp, à la John Kander, can make the upcoming song irrepressible.
Ben Platt in Dear Evan Hansen.
Photo: Matthew Murphy
A list of song titles is all but meaningless at this stage, but consider “Waving Through a Window,” “All We See Is Sky for Forever,” “Sincerely, Me” (“Reinvention”), “Requiem,” “If I Could Tell Her,” “Disappear” (“No One Deserves to Be Forgotten”), “You Will Be Found,” “Only Us,” “So Big, So Small.” All are winners, and most are marvels. And this doesn’t include the title character’s lacerating climactic soliloquy “Words Fail.” Compare this to the musicals with original scores that Broadway has seen since Hamilton opened in August. I won’t be churlish enough to name names, but there isn’t one of them–to my ears, at least–that has more than a few places where effective music and lyrics serve the characters and the show. Dear Evan Hansen will at some point release a cast album, and leaving the performance you’ll be eager to place your order right now.
The show has other creators as well, of course; musicals are based on songs, and scores like this are so welcome that we tend to over-enthuse when they come along. Dear Evan Hansen is an original musical, not based on a film, novel or comic book. (The story is derived from something that happened in Pasek’s high school class.) The book is by Steven Levenson, author of The Unavoidable Disappearance of Tom Durgin and The Language of Trees (both produced locally at the Roundabout). He does an impressive job building this impressive musical, but this is one of those shows where all creative hands are in tune.
Greif–who’s resume also includes Grey Gardens, Our Lady of Kibeho and If/Then–is infinitely well-suited to Dear Evan Hansen. (Let it be said that the new musical–while staged with an effective mix of scenery, projections and lighting–is happily not as loud as Greif’s rock musicals.) Scenery comes from David Korins (Hamilton), costumes from Emily Rebholz (If/Then), lighting from Japhy Weideman (The Visit) and projections from Peter Nigrini (Here Lies Love). Danny Mefford choreographs, his work displaying the same youthful spiritedness of his cast over at Fun Home. The eight-piece orchestration by Alex Lacamoire (Hamilton)–featuring two guitars plus four strings, led by Ben Cohn from the keyboard–effectively enhances the vibrant score.
And then there is the cast. Ben Platt gives an altogether astonishing performance as Evan Hansen, so much so that if the show were Tony-eligible he’d surely be in prime contention for the best actor award. (It is almost equally astonishing to learn–after watching this performance–that the 22-year-old Platt headed the Chicago company of The Book of Mormon as the buffoonish Elder Cunningham. He presumably grew up under the influence of Wicked, as his father is the top-billed producer of that blockbuster, but his performance certainly speaks for itself.) The rest of the eight-person cast is pitch-perfect: Laura Dreyfuss as the girl, Zoe; Will Roland, Mike Faist and Kristolyn Lloyd as the school kids; and Jennifer Laura Thompson and John Dossett as Zoe’s parents. Rachel Bay Jones–who played the “average ordinary kind of woman” in the 2013 revival of Pippin–seems to blend right into the ensemble as Evan’s mother until late on, when she tears apart the house with “So Big, So Small.” And be advised: this is one of those shows that, like Carousel, can turn the house into a sea of sobs. 
Laura Dreyfuss and Ben Platt in Dear Evan Hansen.
Photo: Matthew Murphy
Dear Evan Hansen is presently scheduled at Second Stage through May 29. It seems a strong candidate for transfer, but those who were lucky enough to see Hamilton at the Public will tell you that there’s a lot to be said for getting in earlier rather than later.
.
Dear Evan Hansen opened May 1, 2016 and continues through May 29 at Second Stage Theatre
— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
, Aisle View: A Thrilling New Musical,
Have no fear, beer lovers: National Beer Day doesn’t have to cost you an arm and a leg.
Read more: Beer, Beer Industry, Craft Beer, Saving Money, Saving Money Tips, Coupons, Online Coupons, Discounts, Discount Shopping, Sales, Taste News
, GOBankingRates: 15 National Beer Day Coupons, Deals and Freebies,