YOUR MONEY

Bitcoin – welcome to the real world

The dream of virtual currency, a currency all electronic that is instant in transactions, almost fee free and beyond the range of government interference – and one with total anonymity—has suffered major blows in the last few months as exemplified by the turmoil surrounding bitcoin.

Now, the final stake to the heart may well have come!

 Bitcoin has been banned as a banking currency first by China and then Russia, and more recently the major Mt. Gox exchange went bankrupt – freezing all accounts – when a massive hacker theft was revealed at its exchange as well as elsewhere.  The flaw – either in bitcoin’s encryption software code or exchange computer software – left accounts missing millions  and   without legally recourse!  

They just got ripped off!!!

The volatility in the value of a bitcoin has also been a yoyo ride and should have warned anyone that this was a silly idea—a bubble waiting to be burst!!! 

Now, the government of the United States has stepped in – more specifically, the IRS -  the TAXMAN – and declared bitcoin and virtual currency  subject to taxation. 

(G&M, March 26, 2014, B10, from the Wall Street Journal, “IRS determines bitcoin is not a currency, will treat it like stocks or other property” )

First, the IRS has ruled bitcoin and virtual currencies are NOT money but subject to the same rules and laws as stocks and property.

Under the latter classification, bitcoin and virtual currencies will be subject to:

·        Capital gains (profits/losses)

·        Mandatory transaction record keeping (for IRS audit purposes):  by individuals, exchanges and businesses that accept bitcoin ‘payments’.

·        bitcoin exchange charges and any bitcoin business ‘payment’ is deemed taxable income

·        Bitcoin ‘mining’ and validation/encryption services would be subject to “self-employment taxes”

·        Employees and  contractors paid in bitcoin must declare this as income at fair market value of the coinage (which is not easy with a fluctuating valuation)

·        Employers will be required to report such ‘wages’, withholding and payroll taxes – like any other business

·        Any bitcoin payment by a business over US $600 -- such as rent, salaries, wages, premiums and other compensation would require reporting to the IRS

·        Contractors would be required to file Form 1099

·        FAILURE TO REPORT AND COMPLY WITH TAX LAWS IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE!!

·        And, finally, the IRS ‘clarification notice’ will be retroactive to PRIOR YEARS!!!!!

 

If the U.S. does this today, expect every government and tax department around the world to jump in tomorrow.

The dream of money free of government interference: free of taxes, free of records and bookkeeping and kept anonymous (i.e., under-the-table black market thinking) is over!!!

 

Remember:  Al Capone, the famous American mobster,  ran wild in Chicago for all of the 1920s  and never served time in prison for alcohol smuggling, prostitution, gambling and outright mass murder – as in the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre, but he could not escape the IRS.

YOUR HEALTH

Another poor weight guideline

 

The Globe and Mail gave credibility to a new quick measure of ‘healthy’ weight when it published an article in its Health Advisor section, March 12, 2014, L5, by Gilles Beaudin, “Never mind the BMI ratio. It’s all about the waist.”
 

Mr. Beaudin is not a fan of the BMI  (nor am I as I have argued in previous blogs) but prefers to use belly fat as a weight/health guide -- with a new twist.

 
He concurs with the new medical emphasis on belly fat but finds the Health Canada guideline of staying under 94 cm for males and 80 cm for females a problem as it does not account for differences in height and overall body size.

 So he recommends dividing one's girth (measured just above the hips) by one's height In line with a 2011 review study.  The resulting number -- if  0.50 or less, indicates a healthy belly ratio. 

If someone has a girth of 42 inches and a height of 75 inches, 42/75= 0.56, the person is overweight.

 

Unfortunately,  this  guideline  is also flawed as it fails to take into account there are 3 different body/bone frames: thin, average and broad boned -- for men and for women (each of which has distinctive weight and muscle building issues).  

See http://www.muscleandstrength.com/articles/body-types-ectomorph-mesomorph-endomorph.html and http://teemajor.com/teemajorsblog/3-male-female-body-types-explained ).

      

 

 

Consequently, a muscular NFL lineman and a wirey sprinter -- because of their different bone structures -- would have radically different belly circumferences even if exactly the same height.

 

The above numerical example of  42/75 = 0.56 = overweight  applies to me, with my broad frame -- and only if I suck in my belly totally and make it concave.  Put simply, I would still be 0.56 and classified as overweight even without any belly!!!!

Also, as everyone knows, one's girth changes and enlarges after a big meal or when constipated.

 

So sorry Mr Beaudin, your refined girth guide is also seriously flawed. It ignored body frame variables.

 

The simplest and only reliable test of belly fat is the old high school gym guideline. Stand straight (in front of a mirror is helpful);  spread your thumb and index finger apart fully; place them on your bare skin a few inches to the side of your belly button with the thumb at or above the bellybutton height and the index finger well below it (i.e. the love handle zone). Then gently pinch your waist. 

 

Focus only on the bulge’s height and ignore how much the bulge sticks out as loose skin -- especially among older people -- will allow even skinny people to have a lot hang out.

 

 Lean teenagers and athletes will usually end up with under a ½ inch in height.

 If the bulge height is about 1 inch, you have some extra fat.

 If you end up with 2 inches or more in height, you have a fair bit of excess fat. And depending on your height and body frame you may not be obese, just overweight, but attention must be paid.

 

The pinch test is a general guide but works on anyone, even Sumo wrestlers and Olympic weight lifters who have huge --all muscle-- bellies.

 

And remember: life insurance actuarial studies have shown for decades that an extra 10% in weight extends your life expectancy as it is a ‘safety cushion’  when illness or injury lead to weight loss. The extra weight protects you from crossing the tipping point as too skinny is as deadly as obese.

 

On me, at 75 inches tall and broad framed, that extra 10% shows up on the pinch test at about 1 inch or the width of my thumb.

If the pinch test shows excessive fat for your body, increase your level of exercise with brisk walking, biking, swimming, sports and home or club exercise machines. You can jog as well though it is notorious for shin splints and leg joint damage.

And review your eating habits:  avoid late meals and junk food snacking; eat breakfast,  a small lunch and a small dinner.   And watch the over 100 calories in a normal serving of regular pop, beer, liquor and wine, and the whopping calories in mixed alcohol drinks.

 

 

YOUR HEALTH

More bad news?  SUGAR

The Globe and Mail, March 6, 22014, A10-11, had a double page article on new U.N. World Health Organizations guidelines on sugar intake.   The WHO  advises daily maximum of ‘added sugar’ be limited to 10% of calories or 50 grams (under 12 level teaspoons) for an adult,  and recommends for ‘best health’ and reduced chance of heart disease death, the amount be reduced to 5% or 25 grams (under 6 level teaspoons) per adult.

Governments and industry are being ‘encouraged’ to drop to at least the 10% limit and even better, 5%.

The current 2002 guideline from The U.S. Institute of Medicine – which Health Canada follows – is a maximum of 25% added sweeteners or 125 grams per adult (= 30 teaspoons).

NOTE:  Added sugars are any sweetener added in making prepared foods and drinks or added by you: such as honey, syrup, fruit concentrate or fruit juice, brown or white granular sugar.

 

Using the 5% target (see chart below from G+M data ) means:

1. one 100g ice cream is an adult’s full day limit!!!

2. one Orange Gatorade bottle is 1 and 1/3 day’s limit!!!!!

3.  one Mars bar is 1 and 1/4 days limit!!!!!

4. one can of sugared pop is more than 1 and ½ day’s limit!!!!!!

5. one blueberry muffin is 62% of a day’s limit!!!!

6. having two (2) Greek yogurts at 100 g each is a full day’s limit!!!!

 

	grams	Compared to adult        5%  25 g limit
Regular can of pop	40g	60% over
Orange Gatorade bottle	34g	36% over
Tall vanilla latte	27 g	8%
Blueberry muffin	15.5 g	62%
Greek yogurt  100 g	13 g	52%
2 slices Wonder whole wheat bread	3 g	12%
Ketchup – 1 tbsp	4 g	16%
Ice cream 100 g cone	25 g	At 100% max
Mars bar	32 g	28% over
McDonald’s Big Mac	9 g	36%

 

As you can see from the table and my highlighted items, this target of 5% added sugar is a killer to our normal diet patterns – even for people who are ‘health food’ fanatics!!!

Yes, natural sugars in fruits and vegetables and dairy products are ALLOWED by WHO,               but almost none for food processing and your taste buds!!!

 

Personally, I think this is insane and poor research!!!!!!

The Western diet since at least the end of World War II (1945) has been awash with added sugar in our snacks, cakes, and drinks but surprisingly LIFE EXPECTANCY has been zooming higher and higher.

Today the blended male-female Canadian life expectancy is 81 years, up from 71 years in 1961 and  up from 69 years in 1951! (See http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-003-x/1995003/article/2451-eng.pdf).

So how is it we are living longer and healthier lives while consuming deadly levels of sugar?????

It makes no sense, and consequently I suggest the WHO and the study on which the 5% or even 10% recommendations are based are FAULTY and should be ignored.

YOUR HEALTH

Obesity confusion

Obesity – excess weight and fat so you cannot see your feet when standing or do up your shoe laces or are breathless after climbing  a 20 steps -- is NOT good and a serious health risk. As highlighted by the body part diagrams in a Time magazine article, March 3, 2014, pages 42-43, excess body fat build up and related cholesterol damage almost every internal organ, cause throat airway constriction and depression!!!                     

Yet, as the battle over weight and obesity rages on and governments panic, the data is becoming more and more confusing and contradictory:

 
  §   According to the Time magazine clip, page 11, March 10, 2014, the obesity rate among  American children ages 2 to 5 has DROPPED by 43% in the last 10 years.  It even included a graphic package of “slim-fit diapers” to highlight the point.

 

  §   According to the Time magazine article, March 3, 2014, pages 40-44,  17% of American            children ages 2 to 19 are obese today.

 

  §   According to the same article, white Americans males and females are equal in obesity at 16% and 15% respectively, but among blacks 17% of males are obese and a whopping 23% (or 50% greater number)of females.  As for Hispanics, the numbers are almost reversed with 24% of males obese and only 17% of females.

 

To me, the radically different male and female numbers among blacks and Hispanics suggest that there are genetic, ethnic and gender factors at play and not just ‘junk’ diet issues.

 

And how in the world are infants and toddlers getting less obese while the obesity numbers that include them are soaring?

 

Remember, obesity rates since 1980 have tripled (according to Time) and this coincides with the mass use of the BMI as the standard for determining what is ‘healthy’, ‘overweight’ and ‘obese’; and as any reader of this blog knows, it is highly flawed and never meant as to be used for populations under age 18 (as they were not used in the original data samples) and do not reflect ethnic biological differences as the date was predominately white Americans.

 

So, what do you think?   

 

Do you trust the ‘professional numbers’?

 

More importantly, do 17% of or more of the people you see under age 20 look obese to you?

 

That would be 1 in every 6 young people!

The Charge of the Light Brigade – Canada style

F-35  Lightning II – the merry-go-round revs up again

Yesterday was a very odd day.  Canada celebrated the return of the last Canadian troops and the end of the Afghanistan mission, some 12 years after 9-11.  The return was marked by a nationally broadcast ceremony where Prime Minster Harper lauded the mission’s efforts to free a foreign land from the tyranny of Taliban rule and fundamentalism, and hailed as another great moment in Canadian history: in the defense of freedom and democracy.

Meanwhile, half-way across the world, Vladimir Putin, like a Czar of old, praised the rigged and forced referendum in Crimea (as the parliament, airports and military bases were surrounded by disguised Russian troops), and announced that Crimea, a part of independent Ukraine since the breakup of the USSR some 20 years ago, is now to become again part of ‘mother Russia’.

And finally last night, on CBC’s The National newscast, a length segment was aired on the new government open procurement policy and how it will be applied in opening up competition to the fighter plane – F-35 Lightning II program.

The segment, for all intents and purposes, was an anti-F-35 attack and both in allotted time and detailed information, promoted the French Dassault  Aviation's Rafale jet fighter as the preferred replacement, with some time and lip service given to the other new contender, the U.S. Boeing Super Hornet.

Put simply, the segment argued as follows:

1. the Rafale and Super Hornet are far cheaper than the F-35  - which is undoubtedly true

2. both have seen actual combat in Afghanistan and elsewhere  unlike the F-35 – which is also true

3. The French and Boeing promise to create thousands of high tech jobs in Canada as much of the components of their planes will be manufactured or assembled in Canada.

The CBC segment gave the French contender a substantial boost when it highlighted the recent purchase of some 126 Rafales by India, with 108 to be built in India and having 70% of the manufacturing jobs done “by Indians”.

4. Both the French and Boeing are willing to share all the technologies used in these planes and such access would greatly aid Canadian aerospace companies in the future.

 

What did the CBC segment leave out?

1. The Boeing Super Hornet and French Rafale are very OLD designs. The Super Hornet was first test flown in 1995 and went into service in 1999!!!  (See Wikipedia)

The Rafale went into service in France in 2001 but is an even OLDER design as it was first test flown in 1986!!!!!!!!!!!!  (See Wikipedia)

·       The F 35 is the only existing 21th century state-of-the-art fighter plane in the world, and Russia, China and even Japan are working on copying it for themselves.

2. Neither the French nor Boeing models are stealth technology and would almost be sitting ducks in future aerial warfare in any NATO or self-defense combat against an enemy with modern state-of-the-art radar and anti-aircraft ground launched missiles.

That is partly why EUROPE and the USA military are staying out of Syria and refusing to apply a “no fly zone” to protect Syrian resistance and civilians from government air attacks.   

·       Only stealth technology will do!!!   And the F-35 is the only candidate.

3. Bring either French Rafale or Super Hornet knowhow to Canada will NOT make Canada leading edge in aerospace technology.  The idea is simply a bad  joke.  Yes, the technologies are not restricted by ‘secrecy’ rules, but that is because they are OLD, generally known or matched by plane systems already available to Canada as a NATO member.

The Canada Arm used on the Space Shuttles, our contributions to the International Space Station as well as our world class Bombardier commercial aircraft attest to Canada’s already world class level of aviation technology.

·       Only the F35, which has as part of its ‘deal’ some 600 Canadian supplier contracts already in place, will bring anything new and worth knowing.

So, in the end, Canada’s combat readiness for future, 21^st century warfare is in jeopardy.  While the Russians, Chinese and even Japanese pursue building stealth fighters with new systems to match the F-35, with NATO committed to a single common fighter – the F-35, and with F-35s already delivered to and in training by American and British air forces, Canada is now being encouraged to opt out!

As the CBC acknowledges on its website, France is “aggressively” promoting the Desault Rafale and emphasizing “jobs, jobs, jobs”. ( “F-35's French rival pitches 'Canadianized' fighter jet” http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f-35-s-french-rival-pitches-canadianized-fighter-jet-1.2577234)

Put simply, the newscast, focusing on the latest spin to the issue and using the information made available by the French in particular, did not present a balance story nor give Canadians all the facts so we and our elected representatives can make “informed decisions”.

                                                                    = = = = = = = = = =

I always thought military objectives – winning battles and wars – by having the best technology and weapons, were supposed to be the priority.

If the world were at peace and all Canadian military aircraft had to do was patrol our borders and wave ‘hello’ to foreign boats and planes, then cheap, old aircraft and technologies would do.

But that is not our world.  The Russian bear is growling, the Islamist fundamentalists are still alive and on the move in Africa and in the Arabian Peninsula, and may yet return to power in Afghanistan.

 YOUR HEALTH

Employee Health and Safety Warning  for bank tellers, food store cashiers and super-busy retailers  -   BPA

The Globe and Mail, February 27,  L11A reprinted an article from Reuters news service, reporting a study which shows there may be a health risk to people who are almost constantly touching receipts that are produced by thermal printers.

The active chemical in the treated paper is BPA (bisphenol A) – a chemical being banned in baby bottles and can lining -- which when TOUCHED can be absorbed through the skin.

BPA has an effect similar to the hormone ESTROGEN and has been linked to reproductive disorders and brain anomalies in fetuses and a higher risk of child obesity – according to this article.

Put simply, the study done by the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical center show that people who touch  or pull thermal receipts from their printers for 2 hours  have significant amounts of BPA in their urine.

Only wearing nitrite gloves (as other types were not tested yet) and frequent hand washing blocked BPA absorption.

LISTEN UP: WALMART, TARGET, COSCO, LABLAW, METRO, NO FRILLS, SOBEYS.

LISTEN UP: Tim Hortons, Second Cup, Starbucks

LISTEN UP all busy retailers.

 

PS: I have been telling my various banks for years that PASSBOOKS are better and easier for customers to track their dealings instead of keeping hundreds or thermal paper strip receipts that may be almost a foot long for even two or three single line transactions.  They also are not permanent as one telller recently told me, as the ink evaporates after 6 months or so in her experience.

So, to reduce health risks to your front line tellers and make life better for your customers, go back to passbooks using plain paper and no BPA!!!