I’m speaking specifically of the alternative minimum tax exemption for 2008 and several tax benefits that expired at the end of last year. While Congress talks of $700 billion bailout packages, the rules for all of our 2008 tax returns haven’t actually be set. Before the end of the year, Congress needs to pass new legislation to extend several deductions and credits and set the alternative minimum tax exemption. Those deductions include itemized deductions for state and local sales tax and qualified higher education expenses.

We’re starting to get down to the wire. While everyone’s waiting for the election results, I’m starting to worry about my income taxes.

Post from: EveryJoe

In Other Political News…

There’s one particular line of the letter that just sticks with me:

The United States is currently spending 50 percent less on energy research and development than during the 1970s’ oil embargo. We spend less than four billion dollars a year on clean energy R&D, which is less than we spend in three days on imported oil today.

There’s little question that the U.S. needs a new energy policy, but what’s the best step to take? Both candidates like the idea of cap-and-trade systems, but that’s not going to change the actions of the average American. Anybody out there have a plan?

Post from: EveryJoe

The Energy Tsunami Headed Our Way

Image details: Two male doctors putting together a statue of a DNA strand served by picapp.com

In high school, I had to read Kurt Vonnegut’s classic short story, “Harrison Bergeron.” For those of you who haven’t read it, allow me to provide the premise — I’ll try not to spoil it because I think it’s worth reading.

Essentially, the story is set in a dystopia, where equality is not only encouraged, but required. The best and brightest are made equal with the rest of society through a series of handicaps — distracting noises for intelligent people, weights for strong people, ugly masks for pretty people.

I bring up “Harrison Bergeron” because of several articles that crossed my desk this weekend, that imply a certain level of enforced equality. While we aren’t taking things to such an extreme (yet), I do think it’s worth questioning each step we take towards imposing equality: in my opinion, diversity should be greatly valued as well.

Last week, the Senate voted to pass H.R. 493 — the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. This piece of legislation effectively states that an employer cannot discriminate against an employee (or potential employee) on the basis of their genetics. And yes, I’m in favor of preventing discrimination to the furthest extent that we can. But I think that caution is in order: genetics are about more than the color of your eyes or the shape of your ears. Genetics can affect your allergies, your tendencies toward certain diseases and a multitude of other factors that honestly affect your ability to do your work.

I don’t think it’s ridiculous for a florist to ask applicants whether they are allergic to flowers or pollen — depending on the severity of a person’s allergies, working at a florist’s day in and day out could put their health at risk.

What do you think? Is a flat out ban on asking a potential employee about their genetic information called for? Is it reasonable to allow employers to ask questions that could protect both themselves and their employees?

Post from: EveryJoe

The Depth of Anti-Discrimination Laws