Consumer Law & Policy Blog

Income Taxes and Same-Sex Couples

Unless you took an extension, your federal tax return is due today. This article by Tara Bernard explains how same-sex couples face serious tax disadvantages compared to opposite-sex couples. That's because the federal government will not recognize same-sex couples as married (even when they are married under state law).  Bernard's article reviews "Unequal Taxation and Undue Burdens for LGBT Families," a new report from the Movement Advancement Project, Family Equality Council, and the Center for American Progress.

Here's an executive summary of the report:

Unequal Taxation and Undue Burdens for LGBT Families provides a groundbreaking, in-depth look at the income tax inequities faced by LGBT families, illustrating how many tax exemptions, credits and deductions designed to help families ease the financial burdens of raising children are unavailable to families with LGBT parents. The report also documents how, because LGBT families are denied federal recognition of their marriages and denied joint filing status due to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), they face higher taxes on family health insurance benefits and additional gift and estate tax liability—and must misrepresent and “carve up” their families when filing taxes with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Unequal Taxation and Undue Burdens for LGBT Families also outlines recommendations for amending and repealing archaic and discriminatory tax laws that harm children who have LGBT parents.

Click on the chart below for illustrations showing the financial impact of the differential treatment between same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

Romneycare/Obamacare

Perhaps the most devastating piece yet on the parent-child relationship between Romneycare and Obamacare. The video focuses on two advisors to Romney who helped craft Romneycare and then went to Washington to do the same thing for the Obama Administration.

 

Women Still Earn Far Less Than Men

Tomorrow, April 17, is Equal Pay Day. As explained in this Miami Herald op-ed, in the U.S., women earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men. The cumulative effect of this wage gap is devastating:

The ability of women to retire is affected. The Center for American Progress estimates that a typical woman would lose $434,000 over a 40-year period due to the wage gap. Economist Evelyn Murphy, president of The WAGE Project, estimates that the wage gap costs the average American full-time woman worker between $700,000 and $2 million over the course of her lifetime. Lower lifetime earnings mean lower Social Security benefits for women.

President Obama's statement on Equal Pay Day stressed both progress and continuing inequality:

When the Equal Pay Act was signed into law in 1963, women earned 59 cents for every dollar earned by men. Though women today are more likely than men to attend and graduate from college, women still earn an average of only about 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. Even when accounting for factors such as experience, education, industry, and hours, this wage gap persists. Over the course of her lifetime, this gap will cost a woman and her family lost wages, reduced pensions, and diminished Social Security benefits. Though we have made great strides, wage discrimination is real and women are still more likely to live in poverty. These inequities remind us to work even harder to close the gaps that still exist.

w.miamiherald.com/2012/04/16/2747082/women-still-earn-less-than-men.html#storylink=omni_popular#storylink=cpy

Big Donations Equal Greater Access to President Obama's White House

As described in this story in Sunday's New York Times, big donors to President Obama have far greater access to the White House than do small donors. Here's a key passage:

More broadly, the review showed that those who donated the most to Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party since he started running for president were far more likely to visit the White House than others. Among donors who gave $30,000 or less, about 20 percent visited the White House, according to a New York Times analysis that matched names in the visitor logs with donor records. But among those who donated $100,000 or more, the figure rises to about 75 percent. Approximately two-thirds of the president’s top fund-raisers in the 2008 campaign visited the White House at least once, some of them numerous times.

Federal Regulator Proposes to Require Vehicle Brake Override Systems

We have blogged several times on the controversy over whether certain Toyotas had a tendency to suddenly accelerate. The relevant government regulator -- the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHSTA) -- said the problem wasn't cars that accelerated out of the blue, but drivers who unintentionally accelerated when they meant to hit the brakes. We blogged specifically on lawsuits claiming that cars should be equipped with "brake overrided" technology that shuts down the accelerator when the brakes are applied.

Now, as described in today's Washington Post, NHTSA is proposing that brake override technology be required in all new cars and light trucks. But the required technology would only deal with situations where the brakes and accelerator are "on" at the same time, and that's not very often according to safety advocates:

But safety and industry experts said the proposal doesn’t address the larger issue of drivers who mistakenly press down on the accelerator when they mean to apply the brake. Such “pedal misapplication” is a much larger problem, said Clarence Ditlow, executive director of the Center for Automotive Safety. Relatively few drivers apply both the brake and accelerator at the same time, and cases of accelerators becoming jammed are not common, he said.

The agency is still studying the pedal misapplication problem: "NHTSA has been working on regulations to address the placement of gas pedals relative to brakes to prevent such mistakes, but there has been no indication when a proposal might be offered."

Car Design Impairs Proper Use of Child Safety Seats

As Jerry Hirsch of the LA Times explains:

Child safety seats are difficult to properly install in cars, according to an insurance industry research group, because of the design of most passenger seats. Joint research conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute found that just 21 of 98 top-selling 2010 and 2011 model year vehicles have seat designs that are easy to use with child restraints.

Read the research on this topic on the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's website.

The Moral Implications of Payday Loans

At Credit Slips, Nathalie Martin has this post on high-interest loans to poor people.  Here's the first paragraph of the post:

Those of us struggling with the issues raised by payday and title loans are consistently told to take morality out of the equation when considering these loans. Thus, it was refreshing to hear a recent presentation by Professor Alex Mikulich of the Jesuit Social Research Institute at Loyola New Orleans entitled “From the Peril of Predatory Lending to the Hope of Economic Justice: A Religious Social Ethical Perspective.” Rather than avoiding morality questions, Professor Mikulich focused exclusively on them in his eye-opening presentation at a recent Family Impact Seminar. He noted that the loans create many unjust results, and then explained that the literal translation of the word usury in Hebrew is to “take a bite out" of the poor.   He distinguished usury from mere  “interest,” which Professor Mikulich defines as part of a mutually beneficial relationship that is good for the community as a whole.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Launches On-Line College Cost Comparison Tool

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has just launched a beta version of a college cost comparison tool. It is aimed at allowing consumers to make comparisons of the costs of various colleges based on each consumer's financial circumstances. Use the tool, and then let the CFPB know what you think.

Register now for Teaching Consumer Law Conference

On May 18th and 19th, the Center for Consumer Law at the University of Houston Law Center will hold its sixth bi-annual Teaching Consumer Law Conference.

            This year’s theme is “Teaching Consumer Law in an Evolving Economy.” This is the only conference devoted exclusively to the teaching of consumer law, and is designed for those currently teaching consumer law, as well as anyone who is interested in teaching or just wants to know more about consumer law issues. More than 30 presenters will discuss issues ranging from Fringe Banking, Debt Collection and Advertising, to Foreclosure, Payments and Arbitration. There also are several presentations discussing consumer law from an international perspective. Presenters include law faculty, adjunct faculty, and practicing attorneys. There also is ample time to socialize, and an opportunity see the Houston Astros take on the Texas Rangers.  For more information and a registration form, click here. 

 

Barney and the Nudes

by Jeff Sovern

Recently I was at the home of a family with a two-year old.   Because the two-year old likes Barney, the family played videos of Barney songs on YouTube.  Next to the videos appeared a series of ads. Among these ads were pictures of singles in revealing clothing.  Occasionally, an ad cycled in of a barely-dressed woman.  Those clicking on the woman were treated to pictures of various other women, at least one of whom was unclothed.  Barney's take: "Every one is special." 

Of course, the two-year old can't read and the ads have no meaning for children that age.  But they might have meaning for children only slightly older, and they probably watch YouTube videos too.  Beneath the ads appears a legend indicating that YouTube is not responsible for them.  But someone is, and it is hard to believe that whoever runs the ads is unaware of the possibility that they will be displayed next to children's programming, nor that YouTube has no power to enter into contracts to prevent such advertising during children's programming.

Society provides a variety of special protections for children.  Some of these are enacted into law, like the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. Others have come through self-regulation.  As a result, for all the problems with the ads shown during children's television shows, you will not see nudes during those ads.  I am not up on the laws governing internet ads accompanying programming to children, though I know that the Supreme Court has invalidated some such laws on first amendment grounds. But regardless of the legal background, you would think YouTube--which is owned by Google of "Don't be evil" fame, would take steps to prevent such advertising from being shown during videos of interest principally to children.