Yonkers already has crushing taxes, including high property tax rates, an 8.375% sales tax and an income tax surcharge (page 25). There seems to be little space for revenue increases. It is the cost side of the budget that needs to be addressed. I wrote previously about how unions were crushing Yonkers with a $70,996 starting salary for firefighters. In contrast, the starting base salary for a New York City firefighter is about $39,400. The per capita income for Yonkers residents is $29,191 (as of 2010), according to the U.S. Census. Yonkers cannot afford this kinds of public worker compensation, and it is way out of line with surrounding communities.
Source: reuters.com
Video: How much does it cost to file bankruptcy – South Jordan Bankruptcy Attorney
Poultry Feed Costs, AB 32,Voter Passed Condo’s for Chickens Put Zacky Farms in Bankruptcy
12 days of christmas america anarchy antonio villaraigosa barack obama boondoggle chaos corruption depression economy EPA Families funny GOP great republicans humor jobs Kate Smith labor day los angeles Mackinac Center nudity Obama obama christmas carol occupy oakland occupy wall street political spoof politics recession regulation republican ronald reagan san francisco SEIU social liberalism spending the beatles the Government Can Tim Hawkins TNCR Union Dues urine testing voter fraud welfare waste welfarism
Source: capoliticalnews.com
Pinnacle Airlines In Bankruptcy Court To Reject Labor Contracts Of Some
2,700 Pilots
Contact Us Return To News
Source: avstop.com
Bankruptcy costs and America’s household debt crisis
Raising bankruptcy fees – as the Bankruptcy Act did in 2005 – lowers threshold B and raises threshold A. The net result is to reduce the overall number of bankruptcies, but doing so both by inhibiting relatively-wealthier households and by constraining the poorest. Lawmakers did not seem to have taken into account the latter effect when enacting the Bankruptcy Act. While the Act focused on moral hazard as the culprit for rising bankruptcy rates, it failed to take into account the explosion of consumer credit in America since the 1980s. Mian and Sufi (2011) report that the household debt-to-income ratio more than doubled from 0.9 in 1980 to 2.0 in 2009. Against the backdrop of this dramatic rise in household debt, raising the costs of filing is an ineffective strategy for curtailing consumer bankruptcy. The recession has caught many households in a rising tide of unemployment and foreclosure, and high bankruptcy fees prevent them from obtaining much-needed relief.
Source: voxeu.org
A123’s Bankruptcy: Facts, Reax and Predictions : Greentech Media
That makes it a big political story, with partisans on both sides denouncing and defending the Department of Energy’s $249.1 million grant to A123 (about $132 million spent so far, mainly to build its flagship factory in Livonia, Mich.). We’ve already seen the inevitable comparison to bankrupt solar company Solyndra, which took a $535 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy only to go under last year. DOE-backed flywheel energy storage maker Beacon Power and thin-film solar startup Abound Solar have since declared bankruptcy as well.
Source: greentechmedia.com
Government criticizes bankruptcy lawyers’ rising fees
In June, members of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) U.S. Trustee Program met to discuss proposed guidelines that would increase government oversight of Chapter 11 filings. The group proposed guidelines that would require law firms working on bankruptcy cases to disclose their billing rate and fee applications, stop rounding up billable hours and work within budgets.
Source: insidecounsel.com
What does it Cost for a Bankruptcy?
The Cost Varies Some people will call around to find the least expensive attorney and make their decision based only on cost. But, determining which is the right attorney for your situation should not be based on cost alone. No reputable attorney can quote you a fee over the phone without meeting with you personally to assess your individual circumstances. Sirody, Freiman and Associates offers affordable fees and usually payment plans can be arranged. We realize that most of our clients are strapped for cash, and we will work with you to make bankruptcy an affordable option.
Source: freshstartlaw.com
Minnesota Bankruptcy Lawyer
Filing for bankruptcy may seem like a Catch 22 situation – you need to pay to go broke. However, it is important to remember that, in exchange for the attorney fees and court fees, you will be absolving your debts and starting fresh. You will not have to give in to constant financial worry, stress and fear that comes with looming debt. You will not have to accept creditor harassment and wage garnishment. In most instances you will be able to keep your assets such as your home and car and walk away from the non secure debts that have been dragging you down. In other instances you will be able to consolidate your debt into one easy stress-free payment. For the first time in a long time, you will feel financially free.
Source: mnbankruptcylaw.com
A123 Bankruptcy Casts Doubts on EV Goals
The theory was that the federal government could guide an entire US electric vehicle (EV) industry into existence by orchestrating a constellation of grants, loans and loan guarantees to manufacturers and infrastructure developers, along with generous tax credits for purchasers. That vision was attractive, because EVs have the potential to be an important element of a long-term strategy to counter climate change and bolster energy security. However, yesterday’s bankruptcy of battery-maker A123 Systems, Inc. provides a costly reality check. Along with the earlier bankruptcy of another advanced battery firm, Ener1, and disappointing battery-EV sales, it raises new doubts concerning both the government’s model of industrial development and the achievability of President Obama’s goal of putting one million EVs on the road by 2015. A123 was built around a novel lithium-ion battery technology developed at MIT. For a time they were the darling of the advanced battery sector, with a market capitalization above $2 billion following its 2009 initial public offering. That IPO came on the heels of A123′s receipt of a $249 million stimulus grant from the Department of Energy and $100 million of refundable tax credits from the state of Michigan. Subsequently, though, they experienced low sales and a costly battery recall that contributed to their signing a memorandum of understanding with China’s Wanxiang Group to sell an 80% interest in the company for around $450 million. Instead, it now appears that Johnson Controls, a diversified company that was the recipient of a $299 million DOE advanced battery grant of its own, will end up acquiring A123′s assets for around $125 million. Johnson is apparently providing “debtor-in-possession” financing for A123′s Chapter 11 process. It’s not clear whether Johnson would be able to draw down the unused portion of A123′s federal grant. Because of the government’s close involvement with A123, and in particular its structuring of aid to A123 in a manner that left taxpayers without any call on the firm’s assets ahead of suitors like Johnson Controls or Wanxiang, this event is inherently political. I was a little surprised it didn’t come up in last night’s presidential debate. If it does become a “talking point” in the next two weeks, however, I’d prefer to see the conversation focus on the real issues it raises. The reasons for A123′s failure appear very different from those behind the much-discussed failure of loan-guarantee recipient Solyndra. While the latter ultimately called into question the judgment of officials who loaned money to Solyndra when that company’s business model was already doomed, A123 highlights the much deeper challenges involved in attempting to conjure an entire industry out of thin air. The earlier failure of GM’s electric vehicle effort in the 1990s, the EV-1, demonstrated the chicken-and-egg nature of EV sales: Vehicle sales depended on recharging infrastructure that in turn depended on robust vehicle sales to justify infrastructure investment. But at least GM could begin then by relying on a mature lead-acid battery industry. Those batteries turned out to be inadequate to meet consumers’ expectations of range and recharging convenience, which led to the creation of another chicken-and-egg dependence for the new EV industry: carmakers needed a reliable supply of advanced batteries from producers who couldn’t invest in the capacity to make them, without knowing that vehicle sales would consume enough batteries to turn a profit. So in 2009 the administration set out to short-circuit all those inter-dependencies by simultaneously funding the key elements of these loops, including advanced battery makers. It makes me wonder if anyone involved had any direct manufacturing experience–a natural doubt considering that the entire US auto industry was restructured in 2009 by a task force without a single member who had worked in any manufacturing business, let alone the auto industry. The main causes of A123′s failure appear to have involved basic manufacturing issues of capacity utilization and quality control. The company wasn’t selling enough batteries to cover its costs, and too many of the batteries it sold came back in an expensive recall. They weren’t the first business to experience such growing pains, but their challenges were compounded by the burden of a manufacturing line that had been sized to meet the demand of an EV market that hasn’t yet materialized. US EV sales through September amounted to just 31,000 vehicles, or less than 0.3% of total US car sales. The picture looks even worse if you subtract out sales of GM’s Volt and Toyota’s plug-in version of its Prius, the gasoline engines of which provide essentially unlimited range, circumventing the limitations of today’s batteries. I think there’s a strong argument that the government’s assistance to A123 was actually a key factor in leading them to bankruptcy, by prompting A123 to grow much faster than could have been justified to its bankers or private investors. Perhaps it’s some consolation that A123′s technology has apparently been snapped up by a competitor, rather than going the way of Solyndra’s odd solar modules. Yet that outcome hardly justifies the casual dismissal of A123′s fate by a DOE spokesman as a common occurrence in an emerging industry. That sort of talk merely perpetuates the perception of cluelessness fostered by Energy Secretary Chu’s failure to hold anyone accountable for the Solyndra debacle. Yes, companies in emerging industries fall by the wayside, but the preferred response would be to examine what happened and apply the lessons learned to the rest of the “venture capital portfolio” with which the administration’s industrial policy has saddled the DOE. With EV sales still low and several key EV makers experiencing delays and productionproblems, a thorough public review of the entire EV strategy is in order.
Source: theenergycollective.com
City bankruptcies target retiree health care costs
Firefighter: “Taxpayer, we live in a world that has fires, and those fires have to be extinguished by men and women with hoses. Whose gonna do it? You? You, other Taxpayer? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for lower taxes, and you curse our chili cookouts. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That our obscene salaries, overtime, benefits, and pensions, while immoral, probably saved my vacation home in Lake Tahoe. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, provides jobs for those who clean my houses and wash my cars. You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at unemployment and foreclosure support groups, you want to be, you need to be me, because you’re unemployed and your house is in foreclosure. We use words like overtime orgy, pension spiking, free taxpayer-paid gas for our personal vehicles. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending our obscene salaries, overtime, benefits, and pensions. You use them as a cry for mercy. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a taxpayer who rises and sleeps under the unaffordable illusion of public safety that I provide, and then questions the compensation I extort from you to provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a ladder, and rescue a kitten stuck in a storm drain. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to.”
Source: calpensions.com