My April newsletter has important information about why it's generally not a good idea to make your children joint owners of your assets as an estate planning method.  You'll find it in the publications section at deconcinimcdonald.com.

​If you are an Arizona property owner, don’t forget that your property tax payment for the second half of 2015 must be postmarked no later than May 2, or delivered to the County Treasurer’s office by 5 p.m. that day.  Here’s the law on it:

That’s pretty clear, isn’t it?  The first half of your property taxes must be paid by November 1 of the tax year, and the second half must be paid by May 1 of the following year, unless the taxes for your property are $100 or less, in which case you have to pay the whole amount by November 1 of the tax year.
But there’s an exception: when November 1 or May 1 falls on a weekend or holiday (like this year) the payment isn’t delinquent as long is it is delivered or postmarked on the next business day.  So your second half 2015 payment isn’t delinquent yet.  You have until 5 p.m. on Monday, May 2.
You’ll find more information, including a link to a page for making your payment online (if your property is in Pima County) at the Pima County Treasurer’s web site.

Universal Basic Income (“UBI”) is a seductive, dangerous, hopelessly idealistic notion.  No matter what the amount of the guaranteed income, there would be people whose circumstances would still leave them in substandard conditions, and it would not cancel out the natural impulse to want to help those in such circumstances.  It also wouldn’t achieve the utopian equality that some people can’t resist pursuing because there will always be variations in ability and motivation that will result in unequal outcomes.  
Proponents say “UBI” would be a practical alternative to the current welfare system.  You really think it wouldn’t be “adjusted” to help some more than others once the proponents realize that it won’t produce equal outcomes?  Forget it.  The proponents fail to account for the effects of human nature.  

Let that statement sink in for a minute:
"Americans will collectively spend more on taxes in 2016 than they will on food, clothing, and housing combined."
That statement was made in a report published by The Tax Foundation titled "Tax Freedom Day 2016 is April 24."
It's bad enough that Americans have to work from January 1 to April 24 just to pay the nation's taxes.  That doesn't even include borrowing by the federal government, which would push the date all the way to May 10.  That's more than a third of the year, folks.
But just think about the statement:
"Americans will collectively spend more on taxes in 2016 than they will on food, clothing, and housing combined."
How can that possibly be true?  If it is true, how could higher taxes possibly be the answer to the country's problems?  In my opinion, the answer to that question is obvious: if government consumes more  than food, clothing, and housing combined, higher taxes cannot be the answer to the country's problems.

Whatever happened to the First Amendment and the concept of a marketplace of ideas?  The thinking was that the best way to sort out competing ideas was to let people say what they want and hear what they want, then decide for themselves what to believe, right?
Yet in two contentious public policy debates going on now, it appears that government officials are trying to shut down opposing viewpoints.  I guess it is easy to say for someone who tends to agree with the opponents of the government on the particular issues, but don’t the people who agree with the government realize that what the government is doing is attempting to shut down competing ideas because, according to the government, those ideas are wrong?
That’s what the Inquisition did to Galileo, wasn’t it?  How’d that turn out?

You have probably heard of:
TANSTAAFL = there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch (or TINSTAAFL = there is no such thing as a free lunch, if you want to be grammatically correct).
The supposedly up-and coming response to which is:
UBI = universal basic income.
The riposte to which is:
TWOMAL = the world owes me a living.
Hat tip to Beldar for that last one.  I hadn’t seen that acronym before.

Just take a look at the photo and the brief explanation at this link.  It’s that time of year.

Congressman Levin has introduced legislation to raise the federal estate tax.  The bill is called The Sensible Estate Tax Act of 2016.  I probably don’t need to waste a lot of time on it because it’s obviously not going to become law anytime soon, but I can’t help thinking:
Simplifying the federal tax code would be sensible.  This legislation wouldn’t do that.
A unified estate and gift tax exemption is sensible.  This legislation would do away with that.  
A tax increase might make sense if the additional revenue was used to pay down the federal debt.  The proponents of this legislation don’t intend to do that.
So, what is it that’s “sensible” about this proposed legislation?

In light of the discussion that’s going on about changing the portrait that appears on the face of either the $20 or $10 bill, did you know that Andrew Jackson’s portrait has appeared on the $20 bill since only 1928?  Before that, the $20 bill displayed the portrait of Grover Cleveland.
In some circles, Grover Cleveland may be best known as the namesake of Grover Cleveland Alexander.  Surely you have heard of him.  He’s a charter member of my sports name hall of fame, along with, among others, Junior Ah You.

I used to prepare my own tax return using just the Form 1040 instruction book and the paper form.  I did it in pencil first, then wrote a final one in ink.  I did it that way for many years.  Sounds hopelessly old fashioned now, doesn’t it?
Why did I quit doing it that way?  Because it just became too time consuming.  It wasn’t that my financial picture became more complicated.  The steps required to complete the forms kept multiplying, as the Form 1040 instruction book kept growing.
I decided to try tax preparation software.  Boy, am I glad I did.
Senator Warren apparently thinks that the solution to the problem of people like me giving up on preparing tax returns without help is to have the government compete with the purveyors of tax preparation software.  She’s introduced legislation titled the Tax Preparation Simplification Act of 2016.
The irony of that title is apparently lost on the Senator and her colleagues.  If they could eliminate just one word from that title, and pursue that as their goal, they would have the right idea.