State laws that ban drivers from talking on hand-held cell phones seem to have no effect on crash rates, according to a study released Friday.
The Highway Loss Data Institute compared collisions of 100 insured vehicles per year in four different jurisdictions before and after bans on handheld cell phone use took effect. The study was done in New York, Washington, D.C., Connecticut and California.
Data were also collected from nearby states for comparison.
Monthly fluctuations in crash rates didn't change after bans were enacted, the study found. Crash rates compared to nearby places without handheld phone bans also didn't change.
Earlier studies by the Institute, which is funded by insurance companies, found four-fold increases in injury-related crash risk associated with cell phone use, so this result was surprising. Surveys of driver behavior following bans raised more eyebrows. They showed actual reduction in cell phone use, the Institute said.
"We're currently gathering data to figure out this mismatch," said Institute President Adrian Lund.
One possible reason, Lund suggested, is that drivers are simply switching to hands-free phone use. Still, some studies suggest that the risk of hands-free phone use while driving is little different from handheld phone use.
Institute spokesman Russ Rader suggested that laws attacking particular types of distraction may be ineffective because there are simply too many distractions available to drivers for laws dealing with just one to have much impact.
0:00 /1:08Toyota puts a brake on production
"Whatever the reason, the key finding is that crashes aren't going down where hand-held phone use has been banned," Lund points out. "This finding doesn't augur well for any safety payoff from all the new laws that ban phone use and texting while driving."
Friday, January 29, 2010
Monday, January 18, 2010
Profits and losses and banks. Oh my!
Better-than-expected results from big names JPMorgan Chase and Intel failed to inspire investors last week. Can this week's crop of marquee name companies recharge the rally's engine?
57 companies in the S&P 500 report quarterly results this week, highlighted by the financial sector. Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500), American Express (AXP, Fortune 500), Goldman Sachs (GS, Fortune 500), Morgan Stanley (MS, Fortune 500), Wells Fargo (WFC, Fortune 500) and a bunch of regional banks are all up at bat this week.
Better-than-expected results from big names JPMorgan Chase and Intel failed to inspire investors last week. Can this week's crop of marquee name companies recharge the rally's engine?
57 companies in the S&P 500 report quarterly results this week, highlighted by the financial sector. Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500), American Express (AXP, Fortune 500), Goldman Sachs (GS, Fortune 500), Morgan Stanley (MS, Fortune 500), Wells Fargo (WFC, Fortune 500) and a bunch of regional banks are all up at bat this week.
57 companies in the S&P 500 report quarterly results this week, highlighted by the financial sector. Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500), American Express (AXP, Fortune 500), Goldman Sachs (GS, Fortune 500), Morgan Stanley (MS, Fortune 500), Wells Fargo (WFC, Fortune 500) and a bunch of regional banks are all up at bat this week.
Better-than-expected results from big names JPMorgan Chase and Intel failed to inspire investors last week. Can this week's crop of marquee name companies recharge the rally's engine?
57 companies in the S&P 500 report quarterly results this week, highlighted by the financial sector. Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500), American Express (AXP, Fortune 500), Goldman Sachs (GS, Fortune 500), Morgan Stanley (MS, Fortune 500), Wells Fargo (WFC, Fortune 500) and a bunch of regional banks are all up at bat this week.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Flat start seen for stocks
U.S. stocks were headed for a flat open Thursday, as investors expressed caution after pushing the Dow Jones industrial average to a 15-month high.
Dow, Nasdaq-100 and S&P-500 futures were little changed. Mild gains in futures were erased following disappointing results from economic reports.
Futures measure current index values against their perceived future performance and offer an indication of how markets may open when trading begins.
Peter Cardillo, chief market economist for Avalon Partners, said the December retail sales report would set the tone for the day's trading.
"I think the real focus will be on whatever the consumer is doing post-holiday season," he said, before the release of the report.
Investors will also focus on the weekly jobless claims report and corporate earnings, said Cardillo.
The blue-chip Dow closed at its highest point since Oct. 1, 2008 on Wednesday, as investors bounced back from a one-day selloff.
Economy: Retail sales dropped 0.3% in December, according to the Census Bureau, which was much worse than expected.
Sales were expected to have risen 0.5% in December, according to a consensus of economist expectations from Briefing.com. That would compare to the upwardly revised gain of 1.8% in the prior month.
The Labor Department reported that weekly jobless claims rose more than expected. Initial jobless claims jumped to 444,000 in the week ended Jan. 9. That's more than the expected increase to 436,000, according to Briefing.com consensus.
0:00 /3:25The fine art of racking up air miles
Banks: A panel investigating the financial crisis holds a second day of hearings in Washington. On Wednesday, four top bank chief executives told the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission that they had made mistakes but that they didn't realize the error of their ways ahead of the financial crisis of 2008.
Earnings: Chipmaker Intel (INTC, Fortune 500) is slated to post its quarterly financial results after the closing bell.
The company is expected to report a surge in fourth-quarter earnings to 30 cents per share from year-earlier income of 4 cents, according to a consensus of analyst opinion from Thomson Reuters.
World markets: A rally in Asia lifted the Nikkei 1.6%. Major European indexes also rose slightly in midday trading.
Cash and bonds: The dollar rose was mixed against major international currencies, rising against the euro and the yen, but falling versus the pound. The price of the 10-year note rose, lowering the yield to 3.76%.
Oil and gold: The price of oil edged up 27 cents to $79.92 a barrel. The price of gold rose $2.10 cents an ounce to $1,138.90.
Dow, Nasdaq-100 and S&P-500 futures were little changed. Mild gains in futures were erased following disappointing results from economic reports.
Futures measure current index values against their perceived future performance and offer an indication of how markets may open when trading begins.
Peter Cardillo, chief market economist for Avalon Partners, said the December retail sales report would set the tone for the day's trading.
"I think the real focus will be on whatever the consumer is doing post-holiday season," he said, before the release of the report.
Investors will also focus on the weekly jobless claims report and corporate earnings, said Cardillo.
The blue-chip Dow closed at its highest point since Oct. 1, 2008 on Wednesday, as investors bounced back from a one-day selloff.
Economy: Retail sales dropped 0.3% in December, according to the Census Bureau, which was much worse than expected.
Sales were expected to have risen 0.5% in December, according to a consensus of economist expectations from Briefing.com. That would compare to the upwardly revised gain of 1.8% in the prior month.
The Labor Department reported that weekly jobless claims rose more than expected. Initial jobless claims jumped to 444,000 in the week ended Jan. 9. That's more than the expected increase to 436,000, according to Briefing.com consensus.
0:00 /3:25The fine art of racking up air miles
Banks: A panel investigating the financial crisis holds a second day of hearings in Washington. On Wednesday, four top bank chief executives told the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission that they had made mistakes but that they didn't realize the error of their ways ahead of the financial crisis of 2008.
Earnings: Chipmaker Intel (INTC, Fortune 500) is slated to post its quarterly financial results after the closing bell.
The company is expected to report a surge in fourth-quarter earnings to 30 cents per share from year-earlier income of 4 cents, according to a consensus of analyst opinion from Thomson Reuters.
World markets: A rally in Asia lifted the Nikkei 1.6%. Major European indexes also rose slightly in midday trading.
Cash and bonds: The dollar rose was mixed against major international currencies, rising against the euro and the yen, but falling versus the pound. The price of the 10-year note rose, lowering the yield to 3.76%.
Oil and gold: The price of oil edged up 27 cents to $79.92 a barrel. The price of gold rose $2.10 cents an ounce to $1,138.90.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Gas prices near $3
Gas prices continued to climb higher, rising for a fifth consecutive day and coming closer to $3 a gallon.
The average cost of a gallon of regular gasoline rose slightly on Sunday to $2.747, from $2.743 the day before, according to motorist group AAA. Nationwide, gas prices have increased eight cents over the last five days.
Prices were highest in the state of Alaska, at $3.373 a gallon, AAA reported. They were cheapest in Wyoming, at an average $2.494 a gallon.
The national average gas price is now higher than it was at any point in 2009. But prices are still down $1.45, or 35%, from the record high price of $4.114 that AAA reported on July 17, 2008.
Gas prices have been rising recently as the price of crude oil has pushed higher. Last week, oil averaged about $82.30 a barrel, barely below a 14-month high.
Oil prices have been supported by frigid temperatures across much of North America and Europe, which has increased demand for heating fuels. Some analysts say pump prices could top $3 a gallon in the weeks ahead if crude prices rise near $90 a barrel.
The average cost of a gallon of regular gasoline rose slightly on Sunday to $2.747, from $2.743 the day before, according to motorist group AAA. Nationwide, gas prices have increased eight cents over the last five days.
Prices were highest in the state of Alaska, at $3.373 a gallon, AAA reported. They were cheapest in Wyoming, at an average $2.494 a gallon.
The national average gas price is now higher than it was at any point in 2009. But prices are still down $1.45, or 35%, from the record high price of $4.114 that AAA reported on July 17, 2008.
Gas prices have been rising recently as the price of crude oil has pushed higher. Last week, oil averaged about $82.30 a barrel, barely below a 14-month high.
Oil prices have been supported by frigid temperatures across much of North America and Europe, which has increased demand for heating fuels. Some analysts say pump prices could top $3 a gallon in the weeks ahead if crude prices rise near $90 a barrel.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Tax showdown ahead on health reform
Democrats in the House and Senate are on the same page when it comes to health reform. They want it.
They even agree on some of the biggest ticket items in bills that they will be combining when they return from their holiday in January.
But there are a couple of areas where the head-butting could be fierce. Key among them: Taxes.
Here are a few of the ways the two chambers differ in their thinking:
Tax the rich
The House and Senate both have provisions that would tax high-income households more to pay for reform. But they do so very differently.
The House leans on them heavily. It would impose a 5.4% surtax on a taxpayer's adjusted gross income over $500,000 ($1 million for couples filing jointly). The surtax would go into effect in 2011 and is estimated to raise $460 billion by 2019. The income thresholds would not adjust for inflation, so over time the tax would capture more and more taxpayers.
Critics of the surtax say it would not help reduce health care costs or spending, goals that have taken a backseat to insuring more Americans.
The surtax isn't likely to make it into a final piece of legislation because it doesn't have sufficient support in the Senate, where there are no votes to spare.
But in an apparent nod to the House's preference to tax the rich, the Senate bill would impose a higher Medicare tax on an individual's income over $200,000 ($250,000 for couples). The increase would start in 2013, and is estimated to raise $87 billion by 2019.
Currently, the Medicare payroll tax is 2.9% on all wages -- with the worker and his employer each paying 1.45%. Under the Senate bill, these high-income workers would pay 1.54%.
Supporters of the tax increase say it would help the long-term funding of Medicare. But the Congressional Budget Office put the kibosh on that argument. You can't use the tax to help pay for health-care reform and long-term Medicare needs -- that's double-counting, the CBO said.
Critics of the payroll tax hike say, that like the House surtax, it won't curb health costs or spending.
Tax pricey health plans
If your company picks up most of your health-insurance tab, many think that benefit should be taxed at least somewhat, especially for very generous plans. Critics worry about the consequences of hiking taxes on workers.
The Senate tries to sidestep the issue by focusing the tax on insurers. Its bill would impose a 40% tax on insurers for the portion of employer health plans that exceed $8,500 for individual coverage and $23,000 for family coverage.
Higher thresholds would apply to plans that provide coverage to high-risk professions and to workers over 55.
The measure would go into effect in 2013 and would raise an estimated $149 billion by 2019.
Opponents maintain the tax would still ultimately be borne by workers, as insurers pass along the higher costs.
Supporters say the tax holds the promise of reducing the growth in health spending over time. Their reasoning: As the cost of plans grow more expensive, employers will instead opt for lower-cost options to avoid the tax.
And, the economic theory goes, once employers start spending less money on healthcare they will use the money saved to pay workers higher wages. The workers will then owe income tax on those higher wages, providing revenue to help pay for health reform.
Tax those who fail to get coverage
Both the House and Senate bills have measures that would subsidize the cost of insurance for low- and middle-income families. But both also require that most Americans obtain coverage.
Those who fail to acquire adequate coverage under the House bill would be subject to a tax equal to the lesser of 2.5% of one's modified adjusted gross income, or the national average premium for single or family coverage, whichever is relevant.
Those who are claimed as dependents on a taxpayer's return would not be subject to the penalty themselves. But their parent or guardian would be responsible for providing them coverage. Parents may include their children up to age 26 on their insurance policy under the House bill.
The measure would go into effect in 2014 and raise an estimated $33 billion by 2019.
Under the Senate bill, those who fail to have adequate coverage would have to pay a penalty that would increase over time. "Generally, the penalty would start at $95 in 2014, $495 for 2015 and $750 for 2016 with indexing for inflation [thereafter]," according to a CCH Tax Briefing paper.
The measure, in conjunction with a penalty on employers who fail to meet the requirements under the bill to help workers get coverage, is estimated to raise $36 billion by 2019.
Tax George Hamilton wannabes, others
For those who would rather look good than avoid skin cancer, they would face a 10% excise tax on indoor tanning services under the Senate bill. The provision would go into effect in 2011 and raise an estimated $2.7 billion by 2019.
The Senate bill includes another revenue raiser affecting individuals that is not included in the House bill. Currently, you can deduct medical expenses that exceed 7.5% of adjusted gross income. The Senate bill, would raise that threshold to 10% for anyone under 65 starting in 2013, and would apply to seniors 65 and older by 2017.
The measure would raise an estimated $15.2 billion by 2019.
They even agree on some of the biggest ticket items in bills that they will be combining when they return from their holiday in January.
But there are a couple of areas where the head-butting could be fierce. Key among them: Taxes.
Here are a few of the ways the two chambers differ in their thinking:
Tax the rich
The House and Senate both have provisions that would tax high-income households more to pay for reform. But they do so very differently.
The House leans on them heavily. It would impose a 5.4% surtax on a taxpayer's adjusted gross income over $500,000 ($1 million for couples filing jointly). The surtax would go into effect in 2011 and is estimated to raise $460 billion by 2019. The income thresholds would not adjust for inflation, so over time the tax would capture more and more taxpayers.
Critics of the surtax say it would not help reduce health care costs or spending, goals that have taken a backseat to insuring more Americans.
The surtax isn't likely to make it into a final piece of legislation because it doesn't have sufficient support in the Senate, where there are no votes to spare.
But in an apparent nod to the House's preference to tax the rich, the Senate bill would impose a higher Medicare tax on an individual's income over $200,000 ($250,000 for couples). The increase would start in 2013, and is estimated to raise $87 billion by 2019.
Currently, the Medicare payroll tax is 2.9% on all wages -- with the worker and his employer each paying 1.45%. Under the Senate bill, these high-income workers would pay 1.54%.
Supporters of the tax increase say it would help the long-term funding of Medicare. But the Congressional Budget Office put the kibosh on that argument. You can't use the tax to help pay for health-care reform and long-term Medicare needs -- that's double-counting, the CBO said.
Critics of the payroll tax hike say, that like the House surtax, it won't curb health costs or spending.
Tax pricey health plans
If your company picks up most of your health-insurance tab, many think that benefit should be taxed at least somewhat, especially for very generous plans. Critics worry about the consequences of hiking taxes on workers.
The Senate tries to sidestep the issue by focusing the tax on insurers. Its bill would impose a 40% tax on insurers for the portion of employer health plans that exceed $8,500 for individual coverage and $23,000 for family coverage.
Higher thresholds would apply to plans that provide coverage to high-risk professions and to workers over 55.
The measure would go into effect in 2013 and would raise an estimated $149 billion by 2019.
Opponents maintain the tax would still ultimately be borne by workers, as insurers pass along the higher costs.
Supporters say the tax holds the promise of reducing the growth in health spending over time. Their reasoning: As the cost of plans grow more expensive, employers will instead opt for lower-cost options to avoid the tax.
And, the economic theory goes, once employers start spending less money on healthcare they will use the money saved to pay workers higher wages. The workers will then owe income tax on those higher wages, providing revenue to help pay for health reform.
Tax those who fail to get coverage
Both the House and Senate bills have measures that would subsidize the cost of insurance for low- and middle-income families. But both also require that most Americans obtain coverage.
Those who fail to acquire adequate coverage under the House bill would be subject to a tax equal to the lesser of 2.5% of one's modified adjusted gross income, or the national average premium for single or family coverage, whichever is relevant.
Those who are claimed as dependents on a taxpayer's return would not be subject to the penalty themselves. But their parent or guardian would be responsible for providing them coverage. Parents may include their children up to age 26 on their insurance policy under the House bill.
The measure would go into effect in 2014 and raise an estimated $33 billion by 2019.
Under the Senate bill, those who fail to have adequate coverage would have to pay a penalty that would increase over time. "Generally, the penalty would start at $95 in 2014, $495 for 2015 and $750 for 2016 with indexing for inflation [thereafter]," according to a CCH Tax Briefing paper.
The measure, in conjunction with a penalty on employers who fail to meet the requirements under the bill to help workers get coverage, is estimated to raise $36 billion by 2019.
Tax George Hamilton wannabes, others
For those who would rather look good than avoid skin cancer, they would face a 10% excise tax on indoor tanning services under the Senate bill. The provision would go into effect in 2011 and raise an estimated $2.7 billion by 2019.
The Senate bill includes another revenue raiser affecting individuals that is not included in the House bill. Currently, you can deduct medical expenses that exceed 7.5% of adjusted gross income. The Senate bill, would raise that threshold to 10% for anyone under 65 starting in 2013, and would apply to seniors 65 and older by 2017.
The measure would raise an estimated $15.2 billion by 2019.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
