The ‘Veronica Mars’ Movie Kickstarter And Why Fans Need To Start Thinking Of Themselves As Investors

The news yesterday that Warner Brothers had given Rob Thomas, the television writer who created Veronica Mars (he’s also an extremely strong young adult novelist whose work is well worth a look), permission to crowdfund a movie continuation of the show, was met with some disgruntlement that viewers were being asked to be the investors in a corporate product from which they’d recognize no profits, and, at the point of this writing $2.761 million in donations, more than enough to get the movie made. Willa Paskin is obviously correct that consumers’ ticket dollars already fund the production of movies. But in between her argument and the view of critics of the project lies an important point: if consumers are going to get asked like investors by mainstream media companies, they should think about what they want out of the bargain other than the simple creation fo the product.

The idea that investors deserve something more than the existence of whatever product or movie or show they’re funded is embedded in Kickstarter’s rewards system. If you give at different levels, you might get a t-shirt, tickets to a premiere party, or even an opportunity to name a character or appear in a film or game. Those rewards tend to be set by the people who are proposing the project, based on what they think they can manageably offer (though a considerable portion of crowd-funded projects ship their core products late, and some developers are running into problems when demand or unexpected costs for rewards means higher burdens for delivery than they expected). Where consumer choice enters into the process is the selection of the reward level, rather than the offerings themselves.

One thing that’s striking about the Veronica Mars Kickstarter is that you have to give at least $35, more than four times the cost of the average American movie ticket in 2012, to get a digital download of the movie. You have to give $750 to get a ticket to the premiere of the film in Los Angeles. If the Kickstarter was really inverting the process by which ticket sales fund the production of movies, going from taking the profits from one project and plowing them into the creation of another, to letting people put that ticket money up in advance, then the campaign would have to get tickets or downloads to all of its donors. It would be a method that would be fair to fans, who after all, want to see the thing they’re funding, and it might make a lot of sense for both the studios and for third-party retailers like Fandango. Nothing sells tickets like advance buzz, and getting people to commit to see the movie in advance is probably a good way to get them to bring their friends along as well. And while tickets and downloads require initial coordination with Fandango or iTunes, they’re less costly and work-intensive than say, printing and mailing t-shirts.

That’s a small example of the sorts of material things that fans could and should express that they want out of projects like this. But there are a lot of other ways to think about these kinds of investment opportunities. I might have been more excited, for example, to invest in buying back the rights to create new work in the Veronica Mars universe for Rob Thomas, if Warner Brothers could have been persuaded to sell it. I’d love to see a block of fan investors who prioritize projects that commit to work with union crews and pay actors union wages.

And I’ve written about this before, but I’d frankly love to see fans move beyond investing in single projects. Given all the discussion we have about the whiteness of movies and television, and, as Ta-Nehisi Coates and I have written, the lack of black investors who are willing and able to lose money financing projects, I’d be excited to see a crowd-funded film investment fund that only backs projects by creators of color or featuring non-white actors, perhaps that’s structured as a non-profit*. Ditto for an investment fund that could back projects by women. There’s nothing wrong with passionate attachment to single franchises, or single creators, but those aren’t the only ways that fans think about popular culture. And limiting our demonstrations of investment power to single artists or single projects ultimately limits our reach, and our ability to affect the culture. I don’t think fans are ever going to put together Megan Ellison money, for example. But I think ordinary viewers, over time, and perhaps through subscription, could put together enough to fund a series of projects that would be good enough to attract notice at places like Sundance and SXSW.

All of these approaches mean thinking through an awful lot of logistics and organizational questions. But those are all much less difficult to do than that getting fans to think of themselves not as supplicants but as an economic force. It’s easy to feel disempowered in the face of show cancellations and fired showrunners and huge delays in movie adaptations. But at a moment of extraordinary chaos in the television industry, and of new and emerging distribution models in both movies and television, this is the perfect moment for viewers with money to spend to assert ourselves, and not just to buy a speaking part in a Veronica Mars movie.

*

I should note have no objection to the idea of fans making money off such funds. I just think that a non-profit structure might help alleviate expectations for first-time investors, given the number of film and television projects that end up generating losses.

View the original article here

Obamacare Changes Start With Your 2012 Tax Return

For many Americans, the health reform law passed in 2010 will forevermore tie their health to their taxes.

And even though the big changes required by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care don't start until 2014, the tax impact starts now.

"We're undergoing some of the biggest changes to the tax code in 20 years," said Meg Sutton, senior adviser for tax and healthcare services at tax preparation firm H&R Block Inc. "People need to start understanding how it will impact them."

For starters, beginning in January 2014, every American will be required to have health coverage, and many will qualify for government help to pay for it. Whether or not you do will depend on the income you report to the Internal Revenue Service on your 2012 tax return.

Fewer than one-in four Americans understood that when H&R Block did a survey last fall, but an estimated 26 million people could be affected when they begin to turn to new health exchanges to buy their coverage for next year. Block is making a point of counseling their clients on whether they will qualify for subsidies.

Some people who are on the border may be able to reduce their 2012 income by making a last-minute retirement account contribution, for example, so they can get the extra help.

CARROTS AND STICKS

The new law's individual mandate depends on income-dependent subsidies and penalties to make it work.

This will primarily affect people who don't have insurance or buy their own and are likely to look to new state exchanges for their policies. When they choose their plans, they will receive tax credits if the cost of the coverage is deemed too high relative to their income.

Those who don't buy coverage for 2014 will face penalties of $95 or 1 percent of household income, whichever is greater. That will increase each year to $695, or 2.5 percent, in 2016.

Subsidies will be available for families who earn as much as 400 percent of the federal poverty rate - roughly $45,000 for an individual or $92,000 for a family of four. For example, a family of four making $70,000 could expect a government tax credit of $5,504, which would cover about 45 percent of its insurance costs. That's according to the Kaiser Family Foundation's Health Reform Subsidy Calculator. (here )

GETTING INCOME RIGHT

Some taxpayers may run into trouble this year by underestimating their income and receiving a larger subsidy than they are ultimately eligible for, says Mark Steber, chief tax officer for Jackson Hewitt. "They will owe a large payment back to the IRS" down the road.

The formula for calculating subsidy eligibility adds some foreign income and tax-exempt interest income to adjusted gross income, so people may have little taxable income but still make too much to qualify for the subsidies. There's another wrinkle: Even if you do everything right in 2012, you could end up owing some subsidy back on your 2014 taxes if you earn more then. But you won't have to worry about that until 2015.

Make no mistake, though — the government wants to sweeten the pot for those buying insurance on their own as much as it can. Self-employed workers can still deduct the cost of their policies. And while workers may start seeing how much their companies are spending for their healthcare on their 2012 W-2 forms, that amount won't be considered taxable income.

WRITE-OFFS WILL GET TOUGHER

The tax code will get less generous when it comes to writing off healthcare expenses other than insurance. The 2012 tax year is the last one for which medical costs over 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) can be deducted. Starting in 2013, that figure jumps to 10 percent. (An exception is individuals or spouses who turn 65 before the end of 2013, who will retain the 7.5 percent floor through the 2016 tax year.)

Finally, all employees will also find contributions to pre-tax health flexible-spending accounts capped at $2,500 this year. Working spouses, however, can each open an FSA with their respective employers, which would allow them to put aside a total of $5,000.

NEW TAXES, TOO

Other provisions of the Affordable Care Act will add to some taxpayers' burdens.

High-income earners now pay an additional 0.9 percent Medicare payroll tax on income over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. That comes on top of the previous Medicare tax of 1.45 percent.

Also starting in 2013, high earners pay a 3.8 percent Medicare tax on interest, dividends, capital gains, rent and royalty income.

And while employers have been withholding the extra payroll taxes from high-earning workers since January 2013, some people will now have to file estimated taxes as well, says Mark Raschiatore, partner at accounting firm CliftonLarsonAllen.

Those who have high investment income, or couples who together earn more than $250,000 but aren't having the extra 0.9 percent taken out of their paychecks should consider paying extra taxes quarterly to the IRS, lest they end up owing extra - and penalties when they file their 2013 taxes.

There is a lot to learn. Most filers should use the next several months to educate themselves on — and budget for — changes ahead in 2014, says Sutton. It'll be good preparation for reading all the small print on health exchanges.

View the original article here

Head Start Teachers Name Obamacare As Biggest Problem

Head Start teachers and administrators told The Daily Caller that their most pressing concern is not budget impacts from sequestration but changes coming from President Barack Obama’s health-care law.

In 2014, the impact of 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act “is probably going to be a 9 percent [cost] increase, and significantly more the next year,” said Nancy Nordyk, director of the Head Start program in southern Oregon.

Rising healthcare costs will likely force Oregon to reduce some Head Start workers’ hours so they’re not eligible for the medical program, said Nordyk, who spoke to TheDC during a national Head Start conference held just outside D.C. in Maryland.

In one conference session on the pending healthcare bill, “some of the [managers for regional Head Start] organizations [said] ‘We don’t know what to do,’” said Elizabeth Steinberg, the CEO of Community Action Partnership in San Luis Obispo, Calif.

The worried managers come from “all over the country,” said Steinberg, whose Head Start program has 387 children.

The growing worry about Obamacare’s impact on Head Start has been obscured by the White House’s periodic efforts to portray the program as the victim of Republicans’ recent approval of sequestration, a slight reduction in the rate of federal spending growth that is erroneously described as a spending cut.

Administration officials announced April 29 that the Head Start funding would face a 5.27 percent budget cut in 2014.

“I know that there hasn’t been a lot of coverage of the [sequester] impacts on real people, on the families who had to be engaged in lotteries to see whether their child, on a Friday, was still going to be in Head Start on Monday,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said in a press conference in April.

However, in multiple interviews during a reception Thursday at the ritzy Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center, Head Start teachers and administrators told TheDC they’re coping with the cuts.

Sandra Deveux, a teacher in Florida’s Brevard County, said her program trimmed $220,000 from its budget by cutting contracts and counseling. So far, she said, there been ”no cuts in employees, no cuts in services.”

“No layoffs yet,” said Shelvy Deskins, a teacher from southern Virginia’s Buchanan county. “Everything for the children, we have to keep,” she said.

Theresa Baker, a parent on a Head Start unit at Jefferson County, Kentucky, said her district may close some classrooms just before the end of the financial year in August. “Everything is under a microscope… we’ve become very very frugal,” she said, adding that her district will likely trim costs by scaling back home-visits to children enrolled in the program.

In Oregon, the Head Start region has scheduled a three-week “summer furlough,” will close one class 12 days early, and will delay opening the 2014 school-year for kids aged four and five, said Nordyk. Her head Start unit has 1,215 students and 300 staff.

However, many attendees at the National Head Start Association’s 40th annual conference said they’re coping with the sequester. “We’re going to make it,” said Weldon Beard, director of the Head Start program in Nacogdoches, Texas.

View the original article here

House Republicans Start New Congress By Telling The Same Old Lies About Wall Street Reform

The new chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), this week released a statement announcing that “the work of our committee and subcommittees has perhaps never been more important to hard-working taxpayers.” However, Hensarling made it clear that he doesn’t have much interest in abandoning the playbook of former Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-AL), as the statement went on to say “during the past few years, we’ve seen a mind-numbing, innovation-choking, job-killing flood of federal red tape…And we’ve observed how Congress enshrined a ‘too big to fail’ bailout scheme into law.”

But there is no “too big to fail bailout scheme” in the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, which was signed by President Obama in 2010. The law lays out a clear process, called resolution authority, for unwinding a troubled financial firm without resorting to the sort of bailouts used in 2008. The law, in fact, explicitly bars the use of the process to bail out a firm. Former Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) — whose name graces the Wall Street reform law — called the process “death panels” for banks.

But House Republicans love to perpetuate the myth that Dodd-Frank enshrines bailouts. In fact, recent House Republican budgets have called for the repeal of resolution authority, even though that would set the country back right where it was in 2008: with little choice but to bail out failing firms or risk a financial calamity. As economist Mark Thoma explained:

The resolution authority in Dodd-Frank is intended to fix this problem [of bailouts] by putting into place a procedure that is similar to what is done with ordinary banks. Resolution authority allows government regulators to take control of the banks, fix the problems, and then return them to the private sector. But, and this is important to recognize, Dodd-Frank also prevents the type of bank bailout that was done during the financial crisis.

Thus, the authority for the type of bailout that we saw during the crisis no longer exists. If if we now remove resolution authority there will be just one choice if a too big to fail firm gets in trouble — let it fail. That, and the cascading shadow bank failures that would follow, would be a disaster.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, responded to Hensarling’s statement by saying, “our colleagues in the majority made a claim which misrepresents the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act…Dodd-Frank specifically ends too-big-to-fail by prohibiting the bailout of a failing financial institution. In fact, it mandates the orderly liquidation of such an institution, in which its executives are dismissed and its shareholders are wiped out.”

Outgoing Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said in an interview that he believes “efforts to water down the Dodd-Frank financial reform law have largely fallen by the wayside.” But that hasn’t stopped House Republicans from employing the same rhetorical pot shots that they were using even before the law passed.

View the original article here

Firearms Training CEO, Who Threatened To ‘Start Killing People’ Over Gun Debate, Loses Gun Permit

Tactical Response CEO James Yeager

James Yeager, CEO of Tennessee-based Tactical Response, delivered a frightening rant last week on YouTube, declaring that gun owners “load your damn mags” and “get ready to fight,” because if gun violence prevention “goes one inch further, I’m going to start killing people.” His followup video was not any better: Yeager clarified he does not “condone anyone committing any kind of felonies, up to and including aggravated assaults and murders, unless it’s necessary. Right now, it’s not necessary.” There was no retraction.

As a result, Yeager has had his handgun permit suspended because of “material likelihood of risk of harm to the public.” Tennessee Department of Saftey and Homeland Security Commissioner Bill Gibbons said, “Mr. Yeager’s comments were irresponsible, dangerous, and deserved our immediate attention. Due to our concern, as well as that of law enforcement, his handgun permit was suspended immediately.”

HT: Raw Story

View the original article here