What Might Blow Our Minds In The Future?

[TripleB]

I read through a thread where Moda's mind was blown at the thought of 3% base rate IBonds. I concurred because the purchase limit was $80k per year at the time for married couples.

I wonder what will blow people's mind in 10 to 20 years? Things that we had today, that get removed in the future, and people wish they could still get. Here's some possibilities:

30 Year Bonds: A core part of the PP. I believe if interest rates rise, the government may stop issuing them in favor of shorter term debt. There was a period where government stopped issuing 30 years for a while in the recent past.

TIPS: Most PPers dislike them, but perhaps if inflation picks up, the government will stop issuing TIPS, or perhaps they will all have significant negative base rates of -2% or so.

HSAs: If healthcare reform goes through and isn't declared unconstitutional, it would make HSAs impossible to get if you are over 30, since the government stops allowing HDHPs for people over 30.

FSAs: Currently there is no maximum limit from the IRS as to what level of contribution is allowed. In 2013, if HC reform goes through, the limit is $2500. Perhaps it will eventually drop to $0.

CCFs: Future financial reform may ban commodity trading entirely, to include ETFs. Especially if inflation gets out of hand, and the government wants something to blame other than themselves (for printing new money).

High Yield Savings: Future financial reform may force banks to cut back on savings accounts rates even further.

Credit Card Rewards: 2 possible changes - IRS starts taxing rewards at fair market value; rewards go away because of future financial reform (it's already started and rewards are about 50% of what they were 5 years ago)

Foreign Stock Funds: Probably not too likely, but there might be a push towards "patriotism" where the government bans US citizens from investing in foreign companies. It's already a challenge to open a foreign brokerage/bank account.

Emerging Market Funds: Probably not too likely, but during the last EM "boom" of recent years, all the trading caused massive fluctuations in EMs causing Brazil to impose a 2% tax on foreign investments. It's possible that some EMs, in the event of another stock market bubble, might stop accepting foreign investment all together, and thus turn all existing ETFs into closed end funds. Let's say an EM discovers some ridiculous natural resource and their economy grows 30% per year for 20 years. That EM could close down foreign investments, and existing investors might be grandfathered into closed end funds that realize ridiculous returns that new investors are jealous of.

Some of these predictions are more likely rare possibilities than actual predictions. Just throwing some stuff out there for a fun discussion. What will be the 3% base rate IBond in 10 to 20 years? Something we take for granted now that will be highly sought after, and some of us will be grandfathered in?

[MediumTex]

The likely role of surveillance in our daily lives in the future would probably surprise people today.

[Reub]

I agree, MT. I don't even trust my "EZ" Pass.

[KevinW]

Along the same lines, as electronic transactions become ubiquitous and tax code expands, I think making transactions or owning property without a paper trail will become rarer and rarer.

Example: I used to buy used stuff off want-ads with paper bills, now I use eBay and Paypal.
Example: the controversy about the Dept. of Ag. requiring the Amish to microchip all their livestock.

There are still islands of off-the-grid transactions -- garage sales, bullion coins, informal labor exchange -- but I expect those to wink out one by one.

[MediumTex]

HSAs: If healthcare reform goes through and isn't declared unconstitutional, it would make HSAs impossible to get if you are over 30, since the government stops allowing HDHPs for people over 30.

This is a prediction, right?

Why would people over 30 not be permitted in HDHPs?

In my view, what is more likely is that we will ALL be in HDHPs in the future, since this will be the only kind of coverage that employers will be able to afford to offer.

[TripleB]

HSAs: If healthcare reform goes through and isn't declared unconstitutional, it would make HSAs impossible to get if you are over 30, since the government stops allowing HDHPs for people over 30.

This is a prediction, right?

Why would people over 30 not be permitted in HDHPs?

In my view, what is more likely is that we will ALL be in HDHPs in the future, since this will be the only kind of coverage that employers will be able to afford to offer.

Nope. Not a prediction. If you have a few free weeks to kill, go ahead and read the 1500 page Obamacare legislation. It's in there somewhere. It sounds like a lot of work to read through it all, but you will have accomplished something most of the congressman who signed it have not done

The "theory" being banning HDHPs for people over 30 is that healthy people buy HDHPs, leaving only sick people in the pool of regular insurance. This raises the cost of insurance for sick people because healthy people are not in their pools.

(Note: Technically it has to do with HDHPs not counting as "qualified" insurance for the purposes of the mandate, for people 30+)

So we force healthy people to buy full insurance, and thus make the pool less risky, and decrease the insurance rates for sick people (shifting the cost to healthy people who would then be overpaying for insurance).

Socialism at it's best. Almost silly to discuss because it's going to be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. If not, we are virtually guaranteed a republican president in 2012 who will shut it down with a majority congress. The republicans could put a retarded hamster on the ticket for 2012 and they would beat Obama.

[MediumTex]

HSAs: If healthcare reform goes through and isn't declared unconstitutional, it would make HSAs impossible to get if you are over 30, since the government stops allowing HDHPs for people over 30.

This is a prediction, right?

Why would people over 30 not be permitted in HDHPs?

In my view, what is more likely is that we will ALL be in HDHPs in the future, since this will be the only kind of coverage that employers will be able to afford to offer.

Nope. Not a prediction. If you have a few free weeks to kill, go ahead and read the 1500 page Obamacare legislation. It's in there somewhere. It sounds like a lot of work to read through it all, but you will have accomplished something most of the congressman who signed it have not done

The "theory" being banning HDHPs for people over 30 is that healthy people buy HDHPs, leaving only sick people in the pool of regular insurance. This raises the cost of insurance for sick people because healthy people are not in their pools.

(Note: Technically it has to do with HDHPs not counting as "qualified" insurance for the purposes of the mandate, for people 30+)

So we force healthy people to buy full insurance, and thus make the pool less risky, and decrease the insurance rates for sick people (shifting the cost to healthy people who would then be overpaying for insurance).

Socialism at it's best. Almost silly to discuss because it's going to be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. If not, we are virtually guaranteed a republican president in 2012 who will shut it down with a majority congress. The republicans could put a retarded hamster on the ticket for 2012 and they would beat Obama.

Do you have a cite for that?

I see where the exchanges will be doing what you describe, but as far as what employers are offering, I don't see that they will be prohibited from offering HDHPs to all of their employees.

What if an employer's current HDHP/HSA arrangement is grandfathered for purposes of health care reform?  Would the employer not still be permitted to offer it?

[moda0306]

TripleB,

You are much more convinced that Obama will be beat than I am.  I think Romney is only a couple ticks higher than him in a "potential matchup," and usually those ties break to the sitting president.

Anyone but Romney (except Huntsman who appears to have no chance) will fall flat on their face, IMO, in terms of acting presidential up to the election.

Add in the fact that his jobs plan is extremely popular with the population and unpopular with congressional Republicans and you've got a "do-nothing congress" appearance factor that will help him out.

[TripleB]

I see where the exchanges will be doing what you describe, but as far as what employers are offering, I don't see that they will be prohibited from offering HDHPs to all of their employees.

What if an employer's current HDHP/HSA arrangement is grandfathered for purposes of health care reform?  Would the employer not still be permitted to offer it?

No idea. I don't think anyone knows. For the most part, the government is making this up as they go along. For example, the reform required a certain medical loss ratio (the MLR is a comparison of how much money the insurance premiums are as compared to the medical payouts. So if 85 cents in claims are paid out on $1 of premiums, the MLR = 85%).

McDonalds and a few other companies got waivers for the MLR provision, because they claimed the high turnover of employees caused administrative costs to be very high, and thus produced an artificially lower MLR. These waivers came on a case by case basis when the large companies threatened to remove all health insurance from employees if they were not granted.

Welcome to America where the law applies too everyone equally*

*see local congressman for details, some exclusions may apply.

[longeyes]

Mutant retarded hamsters will be running the economy, probably better.

[Indices]

Obama will win in a landslide. Does anyone really think conservative Christians are going to get behind a mormon? I'm not even a liberal and it should just be obvious that the Republicans are on their way out in 2012. The economy was even worse in the 30s and they re-elected Roosevelt three times. And Romney is a firm believer in socialist medicine as well, he is lying if he says otherwise (see Massachusetts).

[MediumTex]

It would blow my mind if Mitt Romney was elected to anything.

I've never seen a weaker candidate.

If you look back to 2008 and the amount of money he spent relative to the number of votes he got, it's clear that when people actually got in the voting booth, they simply didn't have any reason to vote for him.

It might be different for Romney in 2012, but an Obama/Romney race would seem to me to be like a prize fight in which both fighters are trying to take a dive.

The fact that one of those guys would definitely wind up as President sort of makes me sad, because this country really needs good leadership right now.

[Benko]

Perhaps this is obvious, but inability/unwillingness of congress to deal with US debt?

Should we start printing our "welcome to Greece" bumper stickers now?

[AdamA]

Should we start printing our "welcome to Greece" bumper stickers now?

No.  We need every last printer available to print US dollars.