Tag: corporate

White House budget assumes student-debt forgiveness will move forward

Post By Stock , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Borrowers across the country are in financial limbo as they wait for the Supreme Court to decide whether the White House’s student-debt cancellation plan is legal. But the Biden administration’s own financial planning presumes the initiative will survive the courts. 

As part of the Department of Education’s funding request to Congress for $2.7 billion for the Office of Federal Student Aid, officials took the costs and savings into account of President Joe Biden’s plan to cancel up to $20,000 in student debt for a wide swath of borrowers, Undersecretary of Education James Kvaal said on a conference call with reporters Thursday.  

The “budget assumes that we will move forward,” with the plan, Kvaal said. 

The fiscal-year 2024 funding request unveiled Thursday marks the latest salvo in a battle over the money Congress will give FSA. If the courts allow the Biden administration’s debt-relief plan to move forward, FSA would be charged with implementing it. That’s made FSA funding a flashpoint for congressional Republicans in recent months. But FSA is also responsible for almost every aspect of the financial-aid and student-loan system, something that could be put at risk if the office doesn’t get enough money from Congress. 

Biden administration officials didn’t provide much detail on the call with reporters about how debt cancellation impacted the Department of Education’s request for funding for FSA. Implementing the debt-relief plan would likely be a cost, but wiping borrowers off the books could also save the agency money because there would be fewer accounts to deal with. 

“My assumption is that if you take cancellation into account, the budget request would be smaller than it would be if you assume cancellation is not happening,” said Sarah Sattelmeyer, the project director for education, opportunity and mobility in the Higher Education Initiative at New America, a think tank.  

That could create challenges if the court strikes down debt cancellation, she said. “The bottom line is, really we need to make sure there are sufficient resources for any situation that might happen with FSA,” she said. “That’s the most important because when there aren’t sufficient funds, students and borrowers bear the brunt of that.” 

Like the IRS, FSA may not ‘seem sexy,’ but it’s important

Though FSA is not a household name, the office is in charge of all sorts of seemingly wonky tasks that touch almost every student and borrower. FSA oversees the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, which college students use to apply for loans and grants; it disperses student loans to borrowers; manages the companies collecting student-loan payments; monitors colleges for wrongdoing and more. 

That’s why many researchers and student-loan borrower advocates were concerned when Congress level-funded FSA last year, despite a request from the Department of Education for an uptick of $800 million. Congressional Republicans touted the decision as providing “no new funding for the implementation of the Biden administration’s student-loan forgiveness plan.” 

Dominique Baker, an associate professor of education policy at Southern Methodist University, compared FSA to the Internal Revenue Service. “It doesn’t always seem sexy,” to lawmakers to increase funding for these types of bodies, she said, but a lack of funds can have a real impact. 

She cited delays in borrowers qualifying for relief under already existing programs as one impact of an underfunded FSA. Last year, the Department of Education said that student-loan servicers weren’t properly tracking the number of payments borrowers made toward qualifying for forgiveness under certain student-loan repayment plans.   

“It is important to ensure that college is affordable,” Baker said. “It is sometimes easier to talk about funding pieces that make college more affordable than it is to talk about compliance and regulatory bodies that are ensuring that this one piece of paper that gets shuffled over to this other desk happens in a timely manner.” If it doesn’t, she added, “you will accidentally pay five months of extra loan payments past when your debt should have been canceled.”  

Over the past few years, FSA has been asked to do even more than what’s typically required. Many of the Biden administration’s initiatives to improve the student-loan experience, including making it easier for borrowers to access Public Service Loan Forgiveness and proposing sweeping changes to the way borrowers repay their student loans, fall under FSA’s purview. 

In addition, FSA is in the middle of overhauling its student-loan servicing contracts in an aim to provide a better experience for borrowers. Things like giving more direction to student-loan servicers about how they communicate with borrowers about their loans, and ensuring student-loan companies are more responsive to issues borrowers and regulators have raised in litigation, are part of that effort and will require resources, said Clare McCann, a higher-education fellow at Arnold Ventures.

“All of that is incredibly important to making sure borrowers are going to have a smooth transition back into repayment, when that does happen,” she said. 

It’s too early to say which of these priorities could be at risk because of Congress’ decision to level-fund FSA last year, Sattelmeyer said. “We don’t have a great idea yet of the tradeoffs FSA is going to make, but they’re going to have to make tradeoffs,” she said. 

For fiscal-year 2024, the Biden administration has asked for a $620 million increase over the amount that Congress enacted for fiscal-year 2023. And if FSA doesn’t get that funding increase, researchers and advocates worry the office will continue to have to make tradeoffs that could hurt students and borrowers.

“D.C. is and remains a political town,” Sattelmeyer said of the possibility that the department’s funding increase for FSA could fall victim to the same forces that scuttled it last year. “I can’t predict the future, but I can say that it is really important to message,” through the budget, “that FSA needs additional resources,” she said. “It’s also important for practitioners and advocates and others in this space to be pushing for additional resources.” 

Source link

#White #House #budget #assumes #studentdebt #forgiveness #move

What the EU corporate sustainability directive needs to include

Post By World , ,


The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

While the idea of corporate sustainability has become mainstream in the past years, there is still a lot of debate worldwide on how companies can actually embed it into the way they do business.

Yet there’s one aspect that seems evident: to truly transform industries and improve the economic system, we need policy change to hold businesses accountable and accelerate the transition.

The European Union has the opportunity to lead the way in establishing a regulatory framework in line with the ambitions of its Green Deal.

The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), currently in draft form, could be instrumental in accelerating the business transformation towards a fairer, greener economy.

However, one key part of it is at threat of being watered down or removed entirely.

What is Article 25 and why is it important?

Article 25 — one of the thirty articles included within the CSDDD — proposes that directors of large businesses should be required to take into account the repercussions of their decisions for sustainability matters. 

This includes human rights, climate change and environmental consequences. 

Under this regulation, directors will need to also pay attention to and consider — along with shareholders — the interests of those stakeholders affected by the company’s decisions. 

This specific approach to running a business, commonly referred to as stakeholder governance, tends to achieve better outcomes for all. 

For example, these types of businesses are more likely to employ people from local communities, pay increased attention to diversity and inclusion as well as achieve fairer wages and pay differentials.

More focus is also placed on the environment — a silent, yet fundamental factor — putting a company’s impact on biodiversity, air quality, waste management and reduction of carbon at the focal point of overall sustainability strategies.

A huge missed opportunity in the making

The language of the directive is key here: Article 25 on the Directors’ Duty of Care proposes mandatory consideration of sustainability matters.

It does not, as some detractors have argued, imply automatic prioritisation of “sustainability matters.” Finding that proper balance is to be left to the directors.

Despite overwhelming support (including up to 89% of individual responses to the EU Consultation) for this kind of regulation, some EU member states and a number of MEPs are advocating now to remove this obligation from the directive.

This would be a huge missed opportunity and threatens the success of achieving the EU’s Green Deal targets, which depend heavily on mass-regulated change in corporate behaviour and accountability. 

One reason given is that this regulation is unnecessary, arguing that in most member states, a company can already set a broader duty of care on its directors, should it choose to.

In reality, most do not; of the 27.5 million businesses in Europe, around 1% adopt a form of governance that commits directors to consider sustainability matters and stakeholder interests.

 So how would this work in practice?

Research points to why clear rules can make a difference

During this consultation period, B Lab Europe initiated the Interdependence Coalition (IC) to advocate for more specific and clearer rules on directors’ duty of care and for the scope of it to apply to all businesses.

The IC has over 300 signatories from businesses across Europe and bases its position on the learnings from the B Corp movement, where over 6,400 companies globally — a number that continues to grow each day — have voluntarily adopted a broad duty of care to consider the interests of stakeholders in their corporate decisions.

Our internal research (backed by some external studies) on B Corp suggests that these legal changes can be both good for business and good for people and the planet, including benefits such as robust competitive revenue growth alongside their impact.

Just in Europe, the participants saw 22% annual growth on average and increased interest from high-quality applicants, followed by high levels of staff motivation and retention.

The business also saw improved access to and lower cost of capital; and increased impact over time.

These figures show that not only do we urgently need to transition to a better way of doing business but also that stakeholder governance is a win-win for our planet, for society and for sustainable growth.

What is at stake?

Article 25 is a necessary condition to meet the EU Green Deal ambitions as it directly points directors towards sustainability. 

It is clearly not sufficient on its own, and companies will need time, support and commitment to fully adapt to the new reality of the CSDDD requirements.

Revising directors’ duty of care on an EU level would be a strong signal that it is no longer tolerable for directors of companies to operate without considering the wider implications of their decisions and to justify them based only on profits.

We urge the decision-makers of our collective future in Europe to continue to lead the way globally by setting the ground rules for sustainable corporate governance for member states to implement. 

This requires reassessing their position to drop Article 25 from the Directive. Regulators need to catch up with market demand; without it, an opportunity to make a small but very impactful and fundamental change in corporate law and culture — to how directors should think — will be wasted. 

As we face a planetary crisis, we don’t have time to waste.

Katie Hill is a former Executive Director of B Lab Europe and co-founder of the Interdependence Coalition. Wojciech Baginski is an attorney, a director on B Lab’s Global Board of Directors and co-founder of the Interdependence Coalition, an initiative that aims at transforming the way we do business in Europe.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#corporate #sustainability #directive #include

India is becoming a hot market for investors, but it risks falling victim to its own success

Post By Stock , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

India is poised to become the world’s most important country in the medium term. It has the world’s largest population (which is still growing), and with a per capita GDP that is just one-quarter that of China’s, its economy has enormous scope for productivity gains.

Moreover, India’s military and geopolitical importance will only grow. It is a vibrant democracy whose cultural diversity will generate soft power to rival the United States and the United Kingdom.

One must credit Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi for implementing policies that have modernized India and supported its growth. Specifically, Modi has made massive investments in the single market (including through de-monetization and a major tax reform) and infrastructure (not just roads, electricity, education, and sanitation, but also digital capacity). These investments – together with industrial policies to accelerate manufacturing, a comparative advantage in tech and IT, and a customized digital-based welfare system – have led to robust economic performance following the COVID-19 slump.

These investments — together with industrial policies to accelerate manufacturing, a comparative advantage in tech and IT, and a customized digital-based welfare system — have led to robust economic performance following the COVID-19 slump.

Yet the model that has driven India’s growth now threatens to constrain it. The main risks to India’s development prospects are more micro and structural than macro or cyclical. First, India has moved to an economic model where a few “national champions” — effectively large private oligopolistic conglomerates — control significant parts of the old economy. This resembles Indonesia under Suharto (1967-98), China under Hu Jintao (2002-12), or South Korea in the 1990s under its dominant chaebols.

In some ways, this concentration of economic power has served India well. Owing to superior financial management, the economy has grown fast, despite investment rates (as a share of GDP) that were much lower than China’s. The implication is that India’s investments have been much more efficient; indeed, many of India’s conglomerates boast world-class levels of productivity and competitiveness.

But the dark side of this system is that these conglomerates have been able to capture policymaking to benefit themselves. This has had two broad, harmful effects: it is stifling innovation and effectively killing early-stage startups and domestic entrants in key industries; and it is changing the government’s “Make in India” program into a counterproductive, protectionist scheme.

We may now be seeing these effects reflected in India’s potential growth, which seems to have declined rather than accelerated recently. Just as the Asian Tigers did well in the 1980s and 1990s with a growth model based on gross exports of manufactured goods, India has done the same with exports of tech services. Make in India was intended to strengthen the economy’s tradable side by fostering the production of goods for export, not just for the Indian market.

Instead, India is moving toward more protectionist import-substitution and domestic production subsidization (with nationalistic overtones), both of which insulate domestic industries and conglomerates from global competition. Its tariff policies are preventing it from becoming more competitive in goods exports, and its resistance to joining regional trade agreements is hampering its full integration into global value and supply chains.

“ India should be focusing on industries where it has a comparative advantage, such as tech and IT, artificial intelligence, business services, and fintech. ”

Another problem is that Make in India has evolved to support production in labor-intensive industries such as cars, tractors, locomotives, trains, and so forth. While the labor intensity of production is an important factor in any labor-abundant country, India should be focusing on industries where it has a comparative advantage, such as tech and IT, artificial intelligence, business services, and fintech. It needs fewer scooters, and more Internet of Things startups. Like many of the other successful Asian economies, policymakers should nurture these dynamic sectors by establishing special economic zones. Absent such changes, Make in India will continue to produce suboptimal results.

“ The recent saga surrounding the Adani Group is symptomatic of a trend that will eventually hurt India’s growth. ”

Finally, the recent saga surrounding the Adani Group
512599,
-4.98%
is symptomatic of a trend that will eventually hurt India’s growth. It is possible that Adani’s rapid growth was enabled by a system in which the government tends to favor certain large conglomerates and the latter benefit from such closeness while supporting policy goals.

Again, Modi’s policies have deservedly made him one of the most popular political leaders at home and in the world today. He and his advisers are not personally corrupt, and their Bharatiya Janata Party will justifiably win re-election in 2024 regardless of this scandal. But the optics of the Adani story are concerning.

There is a perception that the Adani Group may be, in part, helping to support the state political machinery and finance state and local projects that would otherwise go unfunded, given local fiscal and technocratic constraints. In this sense, the system may be akin to “pork barrel” politics in the US, where certain local projects get earmarked in a legal (if not entirely transparent) congressional vote-buying process.

Supposing that this interpretation is even partly correct, Indian authorities might reply that the system is “necessary” to accelerate infrastructure spending and economic development. Even so, this practice would be toxic, and it would represent a wholly different flavor of realpolitik compared to, say, India’s vast purchases of Russian oil since the start of the Ukraine War.

While those shipments still account for less than one-third of India’s total energy purchases, they have come at a significant discount. Given per capita GDP of around $2,500, it is understandable that India would avail itself of lower-cost energy. Complaints by Western countries that are 20 times richer are simply not credible.

The scandal surrounding the Adani empire does not seem to extend beyond the conglomerate itself, but the case does have macro implications for India’s institutional robustness and global investors’ perceptions of India. The Asian financial crisis of the 1990s demonstrated that, over time, the partial capture of economic policy by crony capitalist conglomerates will hurt productivity growth by hampering competition, inhibiting Schumpeterian “creative destruction,” and increasing inequality.

It is thus in Modi’s long-term interest to ensure that India does not go down this path. India’s long-term success ultimately depends on whether it can foster and sustain a growth model that is competitive, dynamic, sustainable, inclusive, and fair.

Nouriel Roubini, professor emeritus of economics at New York University’s Stern School of Business, is chief economist at Atlas Capital Team and the author of “Megathreats: Ten Dangerous Trends That Imperil Our Future, and How to Survive Them” (Little, Brown and Company, 2022).

This commentary was published with permission of Project Syndicate —
India at a Crossroads

More: This perfect storm of megathreats is even more dangerous than the 1970s or the 1930s.

Also read: Freeing the U.S. economy from China will create an American industrial renaissance and millions of good-paying jobs

Source link

#India #hot #market #investors #risks #falling #victim #success

Starbucks workers contend company is busting unions. ‘This will be a priority for me,’ congressman says.

Post By Stock , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

SANTA CLARA, CALIF. — Starbucks Corp. employees met with U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna at his California office on Friday and contended the company is retaliating against employees who unionize or are trying to organize, and is not bargaining in good faith.

The giant coffee chain denies those allegations. But what the Democratic congressman from Silicon Valley heard Friday from Starbucks
SBUX,
-0.41%
employees and union representatives in a meeting attended by MarketWatch echoes other complaints from around the nation that the company is engaging in union-busting — and he vowed to continue to try to help make sure the employees are treated fairly.

Edith Saldano, who works at a location in Santa Cruz County, sat next to the congressman and told him that the company “has embarrassed us over and over again and has not respected us.” Saldano said that during her store’s first bargaining session in November, Starbucks’ lawyers walked out after three minutes.

Saldano fought back tears as she recounted that she had “waited all day” and lost out on a day’s worth of work, which she really needed because she was “houseless” at the time in an area known for its high cost of living. She handed Khanna the employees’ contract proposal.

“We’re asking that you read it over and that you talk to them,” said Saldano, who added that she also sits on the national bargaining committee.

Khanna agreed to take a look and told Saldano: “I appreciate you for fighting not just for yourself but for everyone.”

The congressman has prided himself on being pro-labor and standing with low-wage workers, including Silicon Valley janitors and California’s fast-food workers, through the years. Khanna told the Starbucks employees Friday he has also met with the company’s unionized workers in Los Angeles, and that he hopes to help persuade the company — which is in transition and is set to have its new chief executive officially take over in a couple of months — change its approach to the growing movement to unionize at hundreds of its stores.

The National Labor Relations Board has accused Starbucks of illegally firing workers who have unionized, and the company is facing hundreds of charges of violating labor laws. Judges have ruled against the company in some of those cases. Starbucks in turn has filed complaints with the NLRB, accusing the union of not bargaining in good faith.

In-depth: Unions’ push at Amazon, Apple and Starbucks could be ‘most significant moment in the American labor movement’ in decades

A couple of other Starbucks employees who asked to remain anonymous for fear of reprisal at a Bay Area store where they’re seeking to unionize also gave emotional testimonies at Khanna’s office on Friday. They spoke of having their hours reduced to the point where they don’t qualify for benefits, and being understaffed and overworked in physically demanding jobs.

“They run us into the ground until we’re too fatigued, and we’re replaced with cheaper baristas,” one of the employees said. “We’re organizing because we’re powerless as individuals.”

The other said Starbucks “is dominating the market by any means necessary,” and that employees “need the support of congressmen” and other leaders.

Brandon Dawkins, vice president of organizing for SEIU Local 1021, said possible retaliation by the company is also “putting fear into stores that want to unionize… they see what the unionized workers are going through.”

Khanna thanked the employees for their “courage,” and said “this will be a priority for me just like last Congress,” and outlined how he plans to continue to try to help.

Starbucks spokesman Andrew Trull said Friday that allegations that the company has not bargained in good faith are “simply false.” Trull said Starbucks has “come to the table” for more than 85 bargaining sessions at different stores since October.

“At each of these sessions with Workers United, Starbucks has been met by union representatives who insist on broadcasting in-person sessions to unknown individuals not in the room and, in some instances, have posted excerpts of the sessions online,” Trull said.

As for the allegations that Starbucks is reducing the number of hours available for employees who unionize, Trull said “Starbucks has a longstanding practice of adjusting store hours to reflect seasonal changes in customer demand.”

A spokesperson for Starbucks Workers United said longtime Starbucks employees say “the current pattern of reducing hours does not fit the history in the company.” In addition, the union spokesperson said the company is complicating scheduling of meetings by not allowing bargaining committee members unpaid time off; that the union and the company have agreed to virtual bargaining sessions; and that the union introduces participants for every meeting.

Outgoing Starbucks Chief Executive Howard Schultz refused to appear before a Senate committee last week that wanted to ask him about the accusations of labor-law violations by the company.

The company’s letter to Sanders said that since Schultz is on his way out as CEO, the company was offering its chief public affairs officer, Al Jones, to appear before the committee instead.

The chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Democratic Sen. Bernie Sanders, said in a statement lasst week that he intends “to hold Mr. Schultz and Starbucks accountable for their unacceptable behavior.”

In October, Khanna and 30 other lawmakers sent a letter to Schultz, urging him and the company to work with the unions that have formed at hundreds of Starbucks stores around the nation.

For more: Starbucks urged to work with unions in letter from members of Congress

Since then, the congressman’s staff has been in touch with the company, whose representatives have told them that Starbucks is allowing workers to exercise their rights under the National Labor Relations Act.

Khanna told the employees on Friday that he has corresponded with new Starbucks CEO Laxman Narasimhan and expects to meet with him after he takes over April 1.

“I’m hopeful that between the approach to him and the approach to some of the board members, who I know, that they may see the light — allowing for reasonable unionization and reasonable terms,” Khanna said. He mentioned that Microsoft Corp.
MSFT,
-1.56%
last year came to a neutrality agreement with the Communications Workers of America; Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella is a Starbucks board member.

Source link

#Starbucks #workers #contend #company #busting #unions #priority #congressman

Tindered out? How to avoid creeps, time wasters and liars this Valentine’s Day

Post By Stock , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Michelle has had her fair share of bad dates.

A divorced mother of four children, Michelle, 52, resolved to maintain her sense of humor when she returned to the dating market, and signed up for Hinge, an online dating service that includes voice memos, in addition to audio and video functions that enable two interested parties to talk to each other without sharing their phone numbers. 

Given that she had not dated since she was in her 20s, Michelle, who asked for her surname to be withheld, was thrown into the world of online dating, right swipes, ghosting, men who were actually living overseas, married men, men who lied about their age and men who posted photos that were 10 years old. She split from her husband of nearly two decades in 2014. 

Hinge is part of Match.com’s
MTCH,
+1.22%
group of apps along with OKCupid, Tinder, Bumble, and Christian Mingle, among others. The company promotes itself as the app that is designed to be deleted by its users. It’s a bold statement in the era of online dating, when people scroll through profiles — swiping right for yes and left for no — in search of their perfect mate.

But Hinge, like many other dating apps, introduced a video function in 2020 to help push people to “meet” during the worst days of the coronavirus pandemic. Dating experts advise applying the same rules you would to a Zoom
ZM,
+3.06%
call: dress smartly, use an overhead light rather than a backlight that casts you in shadow, and don’t sit in front of yesterday’s pile of dirty laundry.

“‘It’s amazing how many guys use a picture from 10 years ago. You can barely recognize them when you meet them.’”


— Michelle, 52, a divorced mother of four who searched for love online

A video date will reveal a lot more than a profile picture. “It’s amazing how many guys use a picture from 10 years ago,” Michelle said. “You can barely recognize them when you meet them. I discovered that someone who is very quick to ask for your email address or your number is more likely to be a scammer. Unfortunately, there’s a lot of scamming on dating apps.”

She’s not wrong. Nearly 70,000 Americans lost $1.3 billion to romance scams through social media and dating apps last year, up from 56,000 the year before, according to the Federal Trade Commission. That’s broadly in line with the amount of money lost the previous year, but up significantly from the $730 million lost in 2020. 

Through her work as a social worker, Michelle has learned to evaluate people and look for red flags. She has used those skills when online dating. She watches out for “goofy stuff” like a man who is writing like a character from a romance novel. “The Lifetime Channel Christmas Love Story is not happening on Hinge,” she said. “Those are the things that I kind of find funny.” 

Other red flags: Someone who lies about their age, is unwilling to meet, won’t turn on the video chat function — what have they got to hide? — and a man who is cheap. “Why did I drive 45 minutes to meet you and you can’t even buy me a cup of coffee? I don’t want someone who is stingy. Either they’re really miserly, have poor judgment, or poor people skills.”

The perilous side of handheld love machines

Dating apps are the ultimate love machine, churning out potential partners every two seconds, someone who is taller, younger, hotter, richer, broader, slimmer, sexier, kookier, weirder — and the list goes on. All of life’s parade is a swipe away. Millions of people use dating apps — from Grindr for gay men to Facebook Dating for pretty much everyone.

There is a balance between keeping people swiping and helping them find love. It’s a numbers game, and can be as addictive as playing the slots. EHarmony promotes its Compatibility Score, while OKCupid asks users to answer an almost limitless number of questions in order to match with more appropriate people. But critics say it leads to the gamification of people’s love lives.

Jenny Taitz, author of “How to Be Single and Happy: Science-Based Strategies for Keeping Your Sanity While Looking for a Soul Mate,” said one of the most common complaints about dating apps is the constant game of cat and mouse. Each user is probably talking to several people at the same time, and it’s tough to get people off the apps and into the real world.

If you like someone, she says, move to a video chat to test the chemistry. “It’s time-consuming, but you need to move from a pen pal to an in-person meetup,” she said. “It could be something that you do all the time, so you really have to have limits. If you’re having four dates a week, does that mean you’re not making time for friendships where you have an investment?”

“‘The same person who volunteers at a soup kitchen might easily ghost someone. There is so much detachment.’”


— Jenny Taitz, author of ‘How to Be Single and Happy’

Anonymity can often lead to ghosting, when people just disappear or stop answering messages. “We need to treat people like they would treat their future child or best friend,” Taitz said. “Bad behavior is so pervasive, and people are not held accountable for their actions. The same person who volunteers at a soup kitchen might easily ghost someone. There is so much detachment.”

Some studies have linked dating apps with depression, while other studies have found that online dating has led to a string of robberies through hook-ups on Grindr, and can also make it easier for sexual predators to find victims. These problems obviously exist in the real world, but social media and dating apps can provide an easier path for bad actors. 

Julie Valentine, a researcher, sexual-assault nurse examiner, and associate dean of Brigham Young University’s College of Nursing, analyzed 1,968 “acquaintance” sexual assaults that occurred between 2017 and 2020. She and her fellow researchers concluded that 14% of these sexual assaults resulted from a dating-app’s first in-person meeting. 

“One-third of the victims were strangled and had more injuries than other sexual-assault victims,” the study found. “Through dating apps, personas are created without being subjected to any criminal background checks or security screening. This means that potential victims have the burden of self-protection.” 

All those coffees take time and money

A spokeswoman for Match.com said it does not release data on how many people have actually used the video chat function. If people did use the function more often without sharing their phone number, it would in theory provide a layer of protection, help weed out bad actors, and help people decide whether a prospective date is compatible early in the process.

Cherlyn Chong, the Las Vegas-based founder of Get Over Him, a program to help women get over toxic relationships, does not believe the video chat function is as widely used as it should be. Chong, who describes herself as a dating coach and a trauma specialist, encourages her clients to use every method available to screen dates, in addition to meeting in a public place.

So what if a man did not want to video chat? “If they didn’t want to video, that’s fine,” Chong said. “But their reaction to the request would be a litmus test. We would know he is probably not someone to date, as he is not flexible. It’s also very telling if a woman explains that it’s a safety issue. The response of the guy in that situation would also be another litmus test.”

“Once you give someone their phone number, you don’t know what they are going to do with it,” Chong said. She said one of her clients encountered a man who shared her phone number with others, and sent it to a spam site on the internet. “You want to believe in the best of people,” she said, “but there are people who misuse your number because they can’t handle rejection.”

“‘A couple of cocktails in New York City? You’re looking at $60 to $100, or a few hundred dollars for a pricier meal.’”


— Connell Barrett, author of ‘Dating Sucks, But You Don’t’

Connell Barrett, author of “Dating Sucks, But You Don’t,” said video dates are a good first step. “You can see your date, and read their body language,” he said. “Because physical contact is off the table for a video date, it can free both singles to let go and not worry about the pressure about moving in for the first kiss. Good chemistry happens when there’s less pressure.”

Video dating also saves you time and money, especially if you’re the one who picks up the tab. “A couple of cocktails in New York City? You’re looking at $60 to $100, or a few hundred dollars for a pricier meal,” he said. Regular daters could end up spending up to $1,500 a month in bigger cities, if they’re dating a lot and eating out, Barrett added.

How much you spend will clearly depend on your lifestyle. Members of The League, a dating app that’s geared towards professionals, spend up to $260 a month on dates, followed by $215 a month for singletons using Christian Mingle, $198 for people signed up to Match.com, and $174 for Meta’s
META,
+3.03%
Facebook Dating subscribers, according to a recent survey. 

A video call allows people to get a sense of the person’s circumstances and personality, and can avoid wasting an hour having coffee with someone you will never see again. Be fun, be playful, don’t ask about exes or grill the other person “60 Minutes”-style, Barrett said. “A big mistake people make in dating is trying to impress the other person,” he said.

Video dating goes back to the 1970s

Jeff Ullman created the first successful video-dating service in Los Angeles in 1975 called Great Expectations. People recorded messages direct-to-camera. “We started with Betamax, moved to VHS, and upgraded to CD-ROMs,” he said. “As long as there are adults, there will be the hunt for love, and there will be the longing for ‘I’m missing someone, I’m missing something,’” he told MarketWatch.

“The best and the brightest did not go into dating services in the 1970s and 1980s,” he said. “I only went into it because I wanted to change the world. What I wanted to do was turn pity to envy. Our videos were 5 or 6 minutes long. There were no stock questions. They had to be ad-libbed. The only similar question was the last one: ‘What are the qualities that are most important in a relationship?’” 

He turned Great Expectations into a national franchise where customers paid $595 to $1,995 a year for membership ($1 in 1975 is around $5 today). “We did not hard sell you. We did a ‘heart sell.’ We had all kinds of Type As — doctors, lawyers, studio production chiefs, who all thought they were God’s gift, or God’s gift to womankind, but when they talked about their loneliness, they cried.”

People will always be searching for that perfect mate, Ullman said, whether it’s through videos, words, photos, psychological compatibility, A.I., or through arranged marriages or matchmakers. “But there is no perfect match. My wife Cindy and I are well matched. She’s not perfect. I’m not perfect. The moment either one of us begins to think we’re perfect is the moment we introduce negative forces.”

“‘What I wanted to do was turn pity to envy. Our videos were 5 or 6 minutes. There were no stock questions.’”


— Jeff Ullman, created Great Expectations, a video-dating service in Los Angeles in 1975

Before TikTok and Skype, people were not as comfortable in front of the camera, particularly if they had to talk about themselves. “We always hid the camera,” Ullman said. The 1970s decor of dark wood and indoor plants made that easier. “When we were finished, they’d say, ‘When are you going to start?’” But they were already on tape. They were, he said, happy with the first take 95% of the time.

Ullman required his franchisees to give members a three-day right to cancel for any reason — including “I’m not going to tell you” — if they changed their terms of service. “They just had to mail us or fax us their notice. Half of my franchisees were about to revolt.” Until, he said, they realized they could not afford to have a bad reputation in an industry where people were putting their hearts on the line.

It all started with a Sony-Matic Portable Videocorder gifted to him by his parents when he graduated from UC Berkeley in 1972. “They were very expensive, but they were portable. Whenever I went anywhere, whether it was a parade or a demonstration, which were common back then, they always let me in because they thought I was from “60 Minutes.” It gave us a sense of power.”

Fast forward to 2023: That power is in the hands of the $3 billion online dating industry and, perhaps to a lesser extent, in the hands of the singletons who are putting their own messages out into the world through words and pictures. In the 1970s, most people were still meeting in person. These days, your online competition is, well, almost every single person within a 50-mile radius.

Watching out for those ‘green flags’

Video dating has come in handy for singletons like Andrew Kneeshaw, a photographer and publican in Streete, County Westmeath, a small town in the Irish midlands. He’s currently active on three dating sites: Plenty of Fish, Bumble and Facebook Dating. In-app video calls have saved him — and his potential dates — time, gasoline and money spent on coffee and lunch. 

“Even someone local could be 15 or 20 miles away,” he said. He’s currently talking to a woman in Dublin, which is more than an hour away. “Hearing someone’s voice is one thing, but seeing that they are the genuine person they are supposed to be on the dating site definitely does help.” He could spend upwards of 20 euros ($21.45) on coffee/lunch, excluding gasoline.

He did go on a dinner date recently without having a video call, and he regretted it. “Neither of us felt there was a spark,” Kneeshaw said. So they split the check as they would likely never see each other again? “That sounds terrible, but yes,” he said. “I go on a date at best once a week. If you’re doing it a few times a week, it does add up very quickly.”

Ken Page, a Long Beach, N.Y.-based psychotherapist and host of the Deeper Dating podcast, is married with three children, and has compassion for people like Kneeshaw who live in more remote areas. In New York, he said, some people won’t travel uptown if they live downtown, and many more people won’t even cross the river to New Jersey. 

“‘If it’s a video chat, you have the opportunity to get to know them more, and have that old-fashioned courtship experience.’”


— Ken Page, a psychotherapist and host of the Deeper Dating podcast

He said green flags are just as important as red flags when deciding to move from a video date to an in-person date. “Is their smile warm and engaging? Are you attracted to the animation they have in their face? You just get tons more data when you see the person. You save money, and you save time before you get to the next step.”

In-person first dates can be brutal. “Your first reaction is, ‘they’re not attractive enough, I’ve got to get out of here,’” Page said. “If it’s a video chat, you have the opportunity to get to know them more, and have that old-fashioned courtship experience where attraction starts to grow. The ‘light attractions’ have more opportunity to grow without the pressure of meeting in person.”

Dating apps are a carousel of romantic dreams. The focus is on looks rather than personality or character. “There are so many people waiting online,” Page said. “That does not serve us. Unless the person really wows us, we swipe left. If you do a video chat, you will be more likely to get to know that person — instead of only getting to know the ‘9s’ and ‘10s.’”

And Michelle? The divorced Californian mother of four said she finally met a guy on Hinge last October, and they’ve been dating since then. “He’s just a fabulous guy. He actually moved slower than what I had experienced with other guys I had dated.” She kept her sense of humor and perspective, which helped. “He said, ‘You’re so funny.’ I didn’t have anything to lose.”

“It’s almost going to Zara
ITX,
+1.55%,
” she said. “Nine times out of 10 you may not find something you like, but one time out of 10 you do.”

Source link

#Tindered #avoid #creeps #time #wasters #liars #Valentines #Day

‘My stepmother has been less than ethical’: I suspect my stepmom removed me as beneficiary from my late father’s life-insurance policy. What can I do?

Post By Stock , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

My dad passed away in March 2019. My stepmom told me I had an inheritance from my dad.  She ceased communication with me after my dad passed away. I reached out to the Department of Financial Services website for lost life-insurance policies, and received a letter saying my dad was a participant, but had named someone other than me as a beneficiary.  

My stepmother has been less than ethical at times. She previously stole money from her sister’s bank account while working for the financial institution that she now runs. Her sister did not press charges, so the matter was dropped by my dad, with whom she was having an affair. Is it possible that she changed the beneficiary, and could have forged anything on behalf of my dad?  

My family also suspects she tried to cash another life-insurance policy for which I was a 51% beneficiary. She sent me a check after my dad passed saying it was a “gift,” and called me nearly two years later saying a policy had just been “found” with me as 51% beneficiary. I suspect she was the 49% beneficiary. To make matters worse, that policy was through her place of business.

Suspicious Daughter

Dear Suspicious,

Anything is possible. It sounds like you are dealing with an unknown quantity, and she should not be trusted with other people’s money. Your stepmother does not, from your account, appear to be on the up-and-up, given that she reportedly stole money from her sister’s bank account. It may be that she could not bring herself to cash a policy with you receiving 49% — hence the delay —  but given the division outlined in the policy it seems unlikely that she could have kept the entire policy for herself. An executor has a responsibility to deal with an estate in a timely manner.

It’s not unheard of for people to question an amendment that was made to a trust, insurance policy or last will and testament. Priscilla Presley, the ex-wife of Elvis Presley, the “King of Rock and Roll” who died in 1977, filed legal documents in Los Angeles Superior Court last week, disputing the validity of an amendment to a living trust overseeing the estate of her late daughter Lisa Marie Presley, who died earlier this month. The 2016 amendment removed Priscilla Presley and a former business manager as trustees, the Associated Press reported.

Among the issues cited in the legal filing: Priscilla Presley was allegedly not notified of the change as required, an absence of a witness or notarization, Priscilla Presley’s name was misspelled in a document that was allegedly signed by her late daughter, and Lisa Marie Presley’s own signature was described as atypical, the news agency also reported. Aside from questions swirling over the authenticity of an amendment, changes to wills, trusts and — in your case — insurance policies must always meet certain legal standards.

“It’s not unheard of for people to question an amendment that was made to a trust, insurance policy or last will and testament.”

“Last-minute changes in beneficiaries can be a red flag for life-insurance companies,” according to LifeInsuranceAttorney.com. “Usually, the person insured by a life-insurance policy can change their beneficiaries whenever they want, so long as the change complies with any specific requirements in the life-insurance policy. However, when the insured person is elderly, severely ill or lacking mental capacity, and the change in beneficiary happens shortly before the insured person passes away, they may have been unduly influenced by others.”

“For example, a caretaker or estranged family member may convince or influence the vulnerable insured person to add them as a beneficiary on the insured person’s life-insurance policy or to remove other beneficiaries,” the firm says. What’s more, “Life-insurance companies may also deny claims if the beneficiary made a change in the beneficiary that did not comply with the requirements of the insured person’s life-insurance policy. Some policies may require that the insured person have a certain amount of witnesses present,” it adds.

Depending on the amount of money involved, you may wish to hire an attorney to see if you have a case and/or to put your mind at rest. The statute of limitations — that is, the amount of time you have to challenge the validity of a life-insurance policy — may vary, depending on the circumstances, the state where you live and/or whether new information has come to light. “The statute of limitations, in most cases, lasts for three years. But not always,” according to the Center for Life Insurance Disputes, an insurance agency in Washington, D.C.

She stopped talking to you after your father passed away: It could be that she was shoring up what was left of his estate, and figuring out what she could take for herself. Or it may be that you did not get along, and a breakdown of communication was inevitable. Or both. Were there any changes made to your father’s policy that would raise a red flag? That much is unclear. Your stepmother may have learned her lesson when she was not prosecuted by her sister for alleged financial malfeasance.

And, then again, maybe not.

You can email The Moneyist with any financial and ethical questions related to coronavirus at [email protected], and follow Quentin Fottrell on Twitter.

Check out the Moneyist private Facebook group, where we look for answers to life’s thorniest money issues. Readers write in to me with all sorts of dilemmas. Post your questions, tell me what you want to know more about, or weigh in on the latest Moneyist columns.

The Moneyist regrets he cannot reply to questions individually.

More from Quentin Fottrell:

My mother excluded me from her will — before she died, my sibling cashed out her annuity policy, on which I was a beneficiary. Should I sue my family?

‘I’m clean and sober’: My late father left me 25% of his estate, and my wealthy brother 75%. My brother died 10 months later. Should I ask his son for his share?

‘It’s still painful’: My wife of just one year left me, took all her belongings and won’t answer her phone. How do I protect my finances?



Source link

#stepmother #ethical #suspect #stepmom #removed #beneficiary #late #fathers #lifeinsurance #policy

‘Gaslighters have two signature moves’: Are you being gaslighted at work? Here’s how to recognize the signs.

Post By Stock , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Are you less happy at work since you befriended that new recruit? Have they told you stories about how colleagues have constantly undermined them? Maybe you have a boss who excludes you from key meetings and then asks why you did not attend a meeting even though you are pretty sure you were not invited to begin with. If any of this rings true, you may be working with a gaslighter.

Gaslighters, as the name suggests, cast themselves in a positive light — friend or confidante who is here to help — but actually are manipulating or undermining others, usually from the shadows, which adds to their potential power.

Merriam-Webster named “gaslighting” the word of the year. Searches for the word on Merriam-Webster.com surged 1,740% in 2022 over the prior year, despite there not being an event that the publisher — known for its dictionaries — could point to as a cause of the spike.

It defines gaslighting as “psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one’s emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator.”

The term was coined in a 1938 play, “Gas Light,” a psychological thriller set in Victorian London and written by Patrick Hamilton.

George Cukor’s 1944 film, “Gaslight,” based on the play, further popularized the term. In that film, Gregory (Charles Boyer) tries to convince his wife Paula (Ingrid Bergman) that she has lost her reason. When he turns on the lights in the attic in his search for a treasure trove of hidden jewels, the gaslight flickers in the rest of the house. He tells Paula that she is merely imagining the dimming of the lights.

‘Jerks at work’ or actual gaslighters?

The workplace is fertile ground for such behavior, given what’s at stake: money, power, status, promotion, rivalry and the intrigue that often comes with office politics. 

I’m in the business of helping people work out their conflicts at work. In fact, I dedicated a whole chapter in my book, “Jerks at Work,” to gaslighters. 

“‘For gaslighters, slow and steady wins the race, and the best ones make friends with their victims first.’”

What has surprised me is how wide-ranging the definition of “gaslighting” has become. Everything from “not respecting personal boundaries” to “talking so much shit about me I couldn’t get hired for two years” seems to fall under the “gaslighting” umbrella. 

What I’ve learned from my doom scrolling on social media is that the word “gaslighter” — probably the worst name to bestow on a colleague or boss — seems to refer to anyone who’s done a whole bunch of bad things to us at work, especially things that involve humiliation. 

So what really is a gaslighter, and why is it important to distinguish one from, say, a demeaning boss with a chip on their shoulder and a penchant for public shaming?

If we stick to the clinical definition, gaslighters have two signature moves: They lie with the intent of creating a false reality, and they cut off their victims socially. 

They position themselves as both savior and underminer, creating a negative and fearful atmosphere, spreading gossip and taking credit for other people’s work. They are often jealous and resentful, and aim to undercut others in order to further their own position.

“ In the workplace, you may also be an unwitting pawn in the gaslighting of another colleague. ”

You may also be an unwitting pawn in the gaslighting of another colleague. The gaslighter might try to convince you that Johnny is trying to steal your leadership role on a project, and encourage you to freeze him out in the cafeteria at lunch time, or simply be extra wary about sharing important information.

For gaslighters, slow and steady wins the race, and the best ones make friends with their victims first. For this reason, it could also be considered a form of workplace harassment.

They often flatter them, make them feel special. Others create a fear of speaking up in their victims by making their position at work seem more precarious than it is. And the lies are complex, coming at you in layers. It takes a long time to realize your status as a victim of gaslighting, and social isolation is a necessary part of this process. 

“‘It takes a long time to realize your status as a victim of gaslighting, and social isolation is a necessary part of this process.’”

Take smart action — no direct confrontration

There’s a difference between an annoying coworker or micromanaging boss, and a gaslighter, who lies and conspires to undermine your position. “The gaslighter doesn’t want you to improve or succeed — they’re out to sabotage you,” according to the careers website Monster.com. “They will accuse you of being confused or mistaken, or that you took something they said the wrong way because you are insecure. They might even manipulate paper trails to “prove” they are right.”

Examples cited by Monster.com: “You know you turned in a project, but the gaslighter insists you never gave it to them. You can tell someone has been in your space, moving things around, or even on your computer, but you don’t have proof. You are the only one not included in a team email or meeting invite, or intentionally kept out of the loop. Then when you don’t respond or show up, you are reprimanded.”

Knowing this, what can you do to prevent yourself from becoming a target? First, recognize that gaslighters don’t wear their strategy on their sleeve. Flattery, making you feel like you’re a part of a special club, or questioning your expertise are not things that raise gaslighting alarm bells. 

Rather than looking out for mean behavior by a boss or coworker, look out for signs of social isolation. A boss who wants to cut you off from coworkers and other leaders should raise red flags, even if the reason is that “you’re better than them.” 

Second, recognize that lie detection is a precarious — and from a scientific perspective, almost impossible — business. Don’t try to become a lie detector, instead take notes, so you can put your “gaslighter” on notice that you are wise to their tactics. You can also use the notes as evidence if you decide to later raise the situation with your human resources department. 

Here are some ways to beat the gaslighter: Send emails with “a summary of today’s meeting” so you can document the origin of ideas and make sure they don’t steal credit from you. Furthermore, document things that happened in person, and share it with your would-be gaslighter. And speak up at meetings. Don’t allow yourself to be browbeaten into submission. 

The more you document, the more difficult it will be to be victimized. But a word of warning: Don’t try to confront gaslighters — instead, go to your social network to build your reality back up. Trying to beat these folks at their own game is a losing strategy.

Any of these actions, and especially a combination done early in a professional relationship, can work wonders protecting yourself and your career. 

Tessa West is a New York University social psychology professor with a particular interest in workplace behavior, and author of “Jerks at Work: Toxic Coworkers and What to Do About Them.“

Related stories:

‘We’re like rats in a cage’: Sick and tired of their jobs, American workers strive to regain their agency, their time — and their sanity‘

People are seeking a genuine connection with their colleagues’ — one that goes beyond ‘Hollywood Squares’ Zoom meetings. Not all workers are happy with remote work.‘

The backlash to quiet quitting smacks of another attempt by the ruling class to get workers back under their thumbs:’ Am I wrong?

We want to hear from readers who have stories to share about the effects of increasing costs and a changing economy. If you’d like to share your experience, write to [email protected]. Please include your name and the best way to reach you. A reporter may be in touch.

Source link

#Gaslighters #signature #moves #gaslighted #work #Heres #recognize #signs

Financial Face-off: Should you opt for a high-deductible health plan with lower monthly costs?

Post By Stock , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Hello and welcome to Financial Face-off, a MarketWatch column where we help you weigh financial decisions. Our columnist will give her verdict. Tell us whether you think she’s right in the comments. And please share your suggestions for future Financial Face-off columns by emailing our columnist at [email protected]. 

It’s the time of year to sign up for a new health insurance plan, either through an employer or through the government’s Health Insurance Marketplace.

The decision may feel especially fraught this year. High inflation, layoffs and a potential recession are weighing on people’s minds and finances. Americans have been tightening their budgets and may be looking for ways to save money on their health-insurance costs. One way to do that, at least in terms of upfront costs, could be to sign up for a high-deductible health plan. These plans typically have lower monthly costs (premiums), but they have higher deductibles, or, the amount of money that you have to pay out of your own pocket before the insurance kicks in to cover healthcare costs.

So is this the year to try to save some cash by signing up for a high-deductible health plan?

Why it matters

It’s no secret that healthcare is expensive in the U.S., but the language of health insurance often obscures that reality with euphemisms such as “cost-sharing,” “coinsurance,” “copay” and “deductible.” Here’s a quick translation: if you see one of those terms, just mentally replace it with a dollar sign, because it means you will be paying money.

Choosing a healthcare plan is important. Medical bills can strain a household’s finances, and healthcare debt is very common. More than half (57%) of Americans have incurred debt caused by a medical or dental expense in the last five years, according to a nationally representative survey released in June by KFF, an independent nonprofit that researches healthcare issues.

One of the survey’s more troubling findings was that even people who have health insurance fall into debt, with more than four in 10 insured adults reporting that they currently had health-related debt.

In other words, the decision about which health-insurance plan to choose can have far-reaching unintended consequences.

How much can you expect to pay for health insurance? If you get yours through your job, it depends on several factors including the size of your company and the age of its workforce. On average, workers with employer-based health insurance paid $6,106 per year toward family coverage and $1,327 for individual coverage, according to KFF. People at smaller companies typically have higher premiums and bigger deductibles.

The federal government defines a high-deductible health plan as one with a deductible of at least $1,400 for an individual and $2,800 for a family.

High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) often — but not always — come with a health savings account (HSA) where people can store money tax-free to pay for medical expenses.

“ ‘Medical debt really can be the gift that keeps on giving.’”


— Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at KFF

HDHPs have lower premiums, but are they more affordable in the long run than traditional health plans? ValuePenguin compared HDHPs vs. traditional plans in three scenarios and found that the HDHP plan holder would end up paying more overall than the traditional plan holder if they had medical expenses of $5,000 or $10,000 in a year.

However, the HDHP holder had lower overall costs than the traditional plan holder if their medical expenses were $1,000. “But banking on such an outcome — and such low need for medical care — can be a gamble in an unpredictable world,” ValuePenguin wrote.

The verdict

If you can pay the higher monthly costs, avoid a high-deductible health plan.

My reasons

“It’s very difficult to accurately predict what your healthcare needs are going to be for the coming year. And for that reason, it’s a good idea to sign up for the most comprehensive plan option that you can afford,” said Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at KFF. Buying the cheapest option can open you up to the possibility that something is going to happen — you’ll get hit by a car, find a lump — and then “you’re going to find out the hard way how much your plan doesn’t cover and what you’re going to owe out of pocket,” Pollitz said.

As the KFF survey found, medical debt is common even among people with health insurance, she noted. “There are lots of reasons for that, but high deductibles are one culprit,” Pollitz said.

That debt can have serious long-term consequences, including wrecking your credit score or forcing you to cut back on other household expenses including essentials like groceries, utilities, and rent. You may even get into a situation where doctors refuse to treat you if you’re not paying your bills on time, leading you to delay needed health care. “Medical debt really can be the gift that keeps on giving,” Pollitz said, referencing the ongoing negative impacts on people’s finances.

Is my verdict best for you?

On the other hand, HDHPs with health savings accounts attached to them can make good financial sense for “one group,” Pollitz said: people who are “wealthy enough to need a tax-preferred savings mechanism” and can afford to pay whatever health costs may arise. “Partners in law firms usually sign up for them, but the associates and secretaries usually would prefer not to,” she added.

Health savings accounts (HSAs) are a great way to grow wealth over time, said Eric Roberge, a certified financial planner and founder of Beyond Your Hammock, a Boston-based fee-only financial planning firm. “You get to contribute pre-tax dollars, and any growth on the money you invest within the HSA is tax-free as well,” he told MarketWatch. “If you withdraw money and use it on qualified medical expenses, that is also tax-free. It’s the only account that provides this triple tax advantage.” After age 65, you can use your HSA money for anything, not just medical expenses, but you will have to pay taxes on the withdrawals.

A high-deductible health plan with an HSA can work well if you are young, and healthy and don’t incur a lot of medical costs. But if you use medical services frequently or have a lot of high-cost prescriptions, for example, this might not be the best option, because the cost of the high-deductible health plan might not be worth the access to the HSA, Roberge noted. “For folks who can manage their healthcare bills without issue while they’re earning an income from their job and don’t usually have a lot of medical costs each year, opting for the HDHP can not only save you on premiums each year, but it also gives you a chance to grow wealth for the long-term in a highly tax-advantaged way via an HSA,” Roberge said.

Source link

#Financial #Faceoff #opt #highdeductible #health #plan #monthly #costs