New Penn Financial Introduces One-dollar Mortgage Closing

New Penn Financial Introduces One-dollar Mortgage Closing










Plymouth Meeting, PA (PRWEB) May 31, 2011

Along with today’s historically low rates, home buyers and homeowners have an additional money-saving opportunity. Leading mortgage lender New Penn Financial, LLC has implemented a one-dollar closing deal that is available now and will be offered for a limited time.

Approved borrowers pay just one dollar in closing costs, potentially savings themselves thousands of dollars. All fees associated with a mortgage closing have been eliminated, such as those for origination, underwriting, title insurance and appraisal. There are no points or hidden fees, either.

As part of the program, the company is also offering competitive fixed rates as low as a 4.25% (4.25% APR)*.

New Penn’s President and CEO, Jerry Schiano, said, “This promotion couldn’t come at a better time for many consumers who can now avoid upfront costs and still have a monthly payment that they can afford. Response to the program, which we just launched, has been strong. And response is coming from refinance customers, too, many of whom are paying down mortgages above 5 percent. We can definitely save them money.”

New Penn was founded in 2008 on the idea of combining low mortgage rates with exceptional customer service. The one-dollar closing deal is in keeping with the company’s brand promise.

About New Penn Financial: New Penn Financial, LLC is a leading nationwide lender that serves diverse consumers with a customer-focused, responsive and reliable lending approach. Providing borrowers with expertise and personal attention, the company offers some of the lowest mortgage rates available on a full suite of products and programs, which include fixed-rate loans, adjustable rate mortgage loans (ARMs), jumbo loans, FHA mortgages and more. Founded in 2008, New Penn is headquartered in Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania and operates regional offices across the country. The company is licensed to operate in 43 states. More information is available at http://www.newpennfinancial.com and on social media sites: http://www.twitter.com/newpennllc and http://www.facebook.com/newpennfinancial.

Important disclosures: *For first mortgage 15-year term fixed rate only. FICO > 700 and Loan Amount > $ 150k. Standard loan-to-values apply. Taxes and insurance escrow and daily interest are not included. Interest rate may be higher than that of other loan programs. Appraisal fee refunded at closing. Rates subject to change daily. Offer not available for NY borrowers. Example: on $ 200k loan, 180 monthly payments of $ 1,504.56. Payments don’t include amounts for taxes and insurance. Actual payment obligation will be greater. Equal Housing Lender. Corporate NMLS #3013.

CA – Licensed by the Department of Corporations under the California Residential Mortgage Lending Act. CO – To check the license status of your mortgage loan originator, visit http://www.dora.state.co.us/real-estate/index.htm. GA – Georgia Residential Mortgage Licensee. MS- Licensed by the Mississippi Department of Banking and Consumer Finance. NH- Licensed by the New Hampshire Banking Department. NJ- Licensed by the N.J. Department of Banking and Insurance. NY- Licensed Mortgage Banker — NYS Banking Department. OR- Oregon license number: ML-4667. PA- Licensed by the PA Department of Banking. VA- Virginia State Corporation Commission (license number: MC -5119).

# # #



















Vocus©Copyright 1997-

, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.







More Virginia State Tax Refund Press Releases

Prepare Your Virginia State Taxes Online Prepare tax return online

Prepare Your Virginia State Taxes Online www.stateincometaxvirginia.usPrepare tax return online and get maximum tax refund within 8 days in your bank account http
Video Rating: 0 / 5

E File Your Virginia State Taxes Online, www.stateincometaxvirginia.us Prepare Online Taxes. Prepare your state taxes online and get quick tax refund.
Video Rating: 0 / 5

Bond International Software, Inc. Releases Enhanced StaffSuite Software with User Defined Fields, Social Media Tracking and More

Bond International Software, Inc. Releases Enhanced StaffSuite Software with User Defined Fields, Social Media Tracking and More










Atlanta, GA (PRWEB) October 28, 2011

Bond International Software, the global leader in staffing and recruitment software, announced today the latest release of Bond StaffSuite which includes a number of significant enhancements to improve staffing operational efficiency, customer service, and contingent employee management.

Chief among a myriad of enhancements is the eagerly anticipated addition of fully-customizable user-defined fields (UDF’s) to StaffSuite. UDF’s enable a staffing company to record and track specialized data relevant to its unique operations. More than 300 UDF’s can now be added to StaffSuite and may be free form text, edit lists, dates, integers or money fields.

Additionally, new fields have been added to StaffSuite to enable the tracking of social media URL’s for customer companies, company representatives, and contingent employees or candidates/applicants. The StaffSuite user can jump directly from the URL or a relevant social media icon to the site.

Another significant enhancement to StaffSuite is the capability for registered contingent employees to access, download and print their Federal Tax W2 form online through the StaffSuite WorldLink Web portal. Employees who ‘Opt In’ to receiving online W2’s are not included in the W2 print file, thus saving printing, stuffing and mailing time and cost for the employing staffing firm.

A host of additional enhancements are also included in this StaffSuite release, including:


    Electronic invoicing for staffing customers
    Upgrading the Sovren resume parser to the latest version
    A number of Government Reporting functions
    Other enhancements to usability and data recording

Steve Taylor, President and CEO of Bond International Software, Inc., said “StaffSuite continues to prove itself in high-volume staffing companies nationwide. These latest enhancements are representative of our commitment to our customers to delivering staffing software functionality that brings results. And they further enable staffing firms to improve the efficient and profitable management of their business.”

About Bond International Software PLC (UK, AIM: BDI)

London stock market-listed Bond International Software (BDI) is a global provider of recruitment and human capital management (HCM) software and services. Bond is the largest, and most established, global specialist in staffing software worldwide and is a rapidly growing provider of web-based and multi-lingual e-recruitment and talent acquisition software to the corporate market. Bond also provides established HR and payroll software and outsourcing services directly to both the public and private sectors.

Established in 1973 and listed on the London Stock Exchange since 1997, Bond has over 35 years’ experience in the development and creation of products and services that have become industry standards. Headquartered in the United Kingdom, the Group also has offices in the United States, Australia, Canada, South Africa, Japan, Hong Kong and Peru – with a global team of nearly 500 employees, more than 3,500 customers and over 100,000 users. For more information please visit http://www.bondinternationalsoftware.com.

Bond International Software, Inc. is the U.S. operating company for Bond, with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia and offices in Richmond, Virginia and Bloomington, Minnesota. The Bond U.S. operations, with more than 100 employees, support nearly 800 customers and 20,000 users. For more information please visit http://www.bond-us.com.

For further information, please contact:

Tim Giehll

Chief Marketing & Strategy Officer

Bond International Software, Inc.

tim(dot)giehll(at)bond(hyphen)us(dot)com

1-800-456-5660 X240

http://www.bond-us.com

Source: Bond International Software, Inc.

###






















Vocus©Copyright 1997-

, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.







Liberty Tax Service Announces Ringgold, GA Winner Of My Refund Story Contest

Liberty Tax Service Announces Ringgold, GA Winner Of My Refund Story Contest












Virginia Beach, VA (PRWEB) April 11, 2011

Liberty Tax Service is proud to announce the fifth recipient of the “My Refund Story/Double My Refund Contest,” a national promotion running January 2011 through April 18, 2011. The national search was launched to find six of the most compelling and deserving stories from taxpayers receiving refunds this year.

David Gann, Ringgold, GA was one of the six entrants selected from more than 650 entries. April 12, 2011, Miss Lady Liberty 2011, Brittney Wojtaszek will fly to Ringgold, GA, to officiate and present the doubled Federal refund check. A professional film crew will accompany Miss Lady Liberty to record the story for release on the My Refund Story/Double My Refund website.

Gann, a Ringgold Special Education Teacher and Football coach, his wife and five children are getting by on limited incomes and their infectious zest for life. Also, a state-appointed guardian for two severely developmentally disabled adults, Gann’s family life revolves around the football season, golf season and everyone’s love of sports. Gann serves as an inspirational coach sharing much more than just his love for the sport with his players and students.

“During these challenging economic times, we are very excited to help find the most deserving recipients get some extra money at tax time,” added John Hewitt, CEO and founder of Liberty Tax Service.    

Gann filed his taxes at Liberty Tax Service at 6981 Nashville Street, Ringgold, GA. It was there former Ringgold student and football player told his high school coach about the online contest. “There simply isn’t a more deserving person to receive this award,” said Alex Davis, Liberty Tax Franchisee. Davis was coached by Gann while in high school.

Entrants go to http://www.myrefundstory.com to type in their story online. Entrants may also capture their testimonials on video, and upload them to the site. Contest details are posted on the website. Gann’s story will be posted at http://www.myrefundstory.com/winners. Gann is available to interview. B-roll and interview segments will be available. Contact Martha O’Gorman at (800)790-3863 ext. 8022.

About Miss Liberty Tax 2011

After a nation-wide search for “America’s Next Lady Liberty,” Liberty Tax Service announced in the fall that Brittney Wojtaszek of Las Vegas is representing the company as Miss Liberty Tax 2011. Liberty Tax Service “wavers” are famous reminders of tax filing, and recognized for their exuberance as unconventional brand builders. Miss Liberty Tax 2011 is an official corporate representative for a one-year assignment as the company’s top waver and good will ambassador.    

About Liberty Tax Service

Liberty Tax Service is the fastest-growing retail tax preparation company in the industry’s history. Founded in 1997 by CEO John T. Hewitt, a pioneer in the tax industry, Hewitt stands as the most experienced CEO in the tax preparation business, having also founded Jackson Hewitt Tax Service.    

Liberty Tax Service provides computerized income tax preparation, electronic filing, refund loans, and online filing through eSmart Tax. Each office offers customers audit assistance, a money back guarantee, and free tax return checking.

CONTACT: Martha O’Gorman

Chief Marketing Officer

(800) 790-3863

martha(at)libtax(dot)com

###






















Vocus©Copyright 1997-

, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.







Have Your Say on the Health Insurance Reforms in Virginia

There may be an overwhelming number of Virginians who are opposing the health reforms, but if you are flowing against the tide, then this one is for you people. Virginia may have appealed against the reforms, but if you are in favor of the Affordability Act, then make your voice heard.

If you are one of the those rare few in the state of Virginia who believe that the federally enacted health reform bill is good for your state and want to  show your support openly, then the state government’s web portal gives you the perfect platform to do so.

To begin with, you should have a clear idea of what good the reforms will do to the residents and the health insurance market in Virginia. So here is a look at what is in store.

•    Insurance companies cannot deny coverage to anybody on the basis of pre-existing conditions

•    Tax incentives to firms offering insurance to their workers

•    Tax credits on premiums

•    Creation of a state-based health Exchange so that residents can choose and buy comfortably and easily

]]>

•    Reduced drug costs and cost of catastrophic illness

Armed with all this knowledge, you are now ready to voice your support for the health insurance reforms to be implemented in its true sense. To make your opinion count as an informed resident of Virginia, you can choose any of the following platforms.

-    Phone call: they are the most effective way to make your voice heard. Give a call and to Senate switchboard. Many organizations sponsor toll free number to the Congressional switchboard. You can call up through those numbers as well.

-    Write in: A letter well written and properly drafted makes the most impact. To ensure that your letter reaches and reaches quick, fax it rather than sending it through the snail mail. You could e-mail your letter as well but then you need to draft the Subject line carefully so that the legislators take it seriously.

-    Letter to the Editor: You believe your voice is not enough and you want others to speak up their support for the reforms in health insurance as well. The best way to inspire others to pressure their legislators is to write in a letter to the Editor of a local newspaper. The letter would be a good way to discuss your views on health insurance in Virginia in public.

-    Go on-air: Contact a local radio station. Talk about how the reforms will help the health insurance sector. Motivate others to contact their representatives.  Talking to people through a broadcast will help in building a public opinion.

The reforms and the health insurance is a burning topic in Virginia. The opinion is divided and every voice counts. If you believe that the Act is a big boon to the health insurance sector in your sector, then speak up. If you believe otherwise and think that insurance is being thrust upon you, then speak up too.

The day when the health reforms will be implemented completely is fast approaching.  And the day comes nearer, doubts about the Act is also on the rise. The mandate is on and the every vote counts. Be heard.

Online Virginia State Taxes 2011, www.stateincometaxvirginia.us E file Your Federal Taxes Online and get fast tax refund from our web site.

Free Tax Calculator 2010 ? 2011 Online

Types of Tax Calculator

There are so many types of tax calculators are available in the market or online. Here we display about types of free tax calculator.

(1)    Tax Return Calculator

(2)    Tax Refund Calculator

(3)    Income Tax Calculator

(4)    Payroll Tax Calculator

(5)    Federal Tax Calculator

(6)    Tax Rate Calculator

(7)    IRS Tax Calculator

(8)    State Tax Calculator

(9)    Sales Tax Calculator

(10) Tax Withholding Calculator

(11) Tax Rebate Calculator

(12) Tax Deduction Calculator

 

This all types of tax calculators helps you to easily calculate your taxes like state taxes, federal taxes, tax refund, salary tax, Payroll taxes, IRS taxes and more.

]]>

 

Now a day’s it’s very easy to calculate your taxes. There are so many firms or companies provide tax calculators for calculate your income taxes online. Online tax calculation and tax filing is the best suitable way for you. E filing is the one of the most successful way for all because there are so many advantages of online tax filing like. You will get your refund fast, calculate your taxes fast, filing your taxes fast, no any software’s are required for filing,  no take more time, no need to go for paper filing, get fast approval, your refund direct deposit in your account and more.

 

Advantages of Online Federal Tax filing

Maximizes your tax deduction easily, Accurately values, provide step by step guidance, Free technical supports, Fast, easy and secure tax filing, 100 % accuracy guaranteed

 

Tax estimator is also work like tax calculator. It means tax calculator and tax estimator both meaning is equal. If you want to calculate your taxes via electronic procedure then do fast for that and get fast approval. April 15 is the last date for your tax filing. If you people want your state tax calculator then it’s also available on internet like Alabama state tax calculator, Washington state tax calculator, Virginia state tax calculator, Colorado state tax calculator, Montana state tax calculator and more for all 50 states.

 

Tax Calculation is not a big matter. Here we provide steps of tax calculation.

Fill your personal information

(1) Select your marital status – Single Or Married

(2) Enter Your earnings

(3) Enter your other taxable incomes

(4) Choose your contributions

(5) Enter your traditional IRA

Related Virginia State Tax Rates Articles

Greater Giving (formerly AuctionPay) Contract Analysis

Below is a copy of the entire Greater Giving (formerly AuctionPay) contract effective for the year 2008. There are great many areas of concern for nonprofits. My article relates to the copy of the Greater Giving contract found below my article.

A copy of Greater Giving’s Client contract was recently forwarded to me by a nonprofit. Greater Giving’s main focus, for those of you who do not know, is the business of providing point of payment processing (credit card terminals) to nonprofits and charities. Greater Giving also purchased an auction software company a few years ago, formerly known as Archetype (Archetype originally was available to their customers at a cost of 0 and the company’s technical support was totally free. It would appear that Greater Giving’s fees have gone up and they now charge a separate fee for their support, unlike Archetype.), and now they also sell this fundraising auction software to Greater Giving clients as well.

Long story short, I was asked to review this contract and Greater Giving’s sign up process by several of my charity auction clients, as I have recently been made aware of these client’s receiving what they have termed “threat messages/letters” from Greater Giving (formerly AuctionPay) when these nonprofit clients decided to move their business elsewhere. Greater Giving apparently had sent out notifications of breach of contract to these particular clients when those Greater Giving clients violated the terms of Greater Giving’s agreement(s) and contract(s). 

Greater Giving’s sign up process occurs online. In Greater Giving’s defense, there is a web page that offers the client the ability to choose either a one year or five year contract option. This decision performed by the charity auction client is made by checking a box, indicating that the agreed term will either be one year or five years. In defense of the charity or nonprofit, this form of web page and sign up form is separate from the web page containing Greater Giving’s contract. That makes this process more than a little nebulous and confusing since it is obviously separate from the contract page itself. By default Greater Giving has selected the five year box option, and the client must select the one year option to change Greater Giving’s default setting.

For the record, I am by no means advocating (promoting) nor am I denigrating (libel or slander) a charity or nonprofit’s choice to use or not to use Greater Giving. I am merely bringing forward the facts, as contained in Greater Giving’s contract and only offering my opinion (free speech). How the reader chooses to approach or use this information contained in this narrative is strictly their choice alone. If this information is helpful or useful to a nonprofit or charity in negotiating a contract with Greater Giving, then this will be an independent action and choice that is entered into strictly between Greater Giving and that particular charity. I am not an attorney. However I would recommend, and I have no doubt that Greater Giving would echo this statement, that you should consult with your attorney in seeking any legal clarification pertaining to this contract before signing it.

CONTRACT ANALYSIS:
This contract contains the normal boiler plate legalese, as do most contracts. Everything reads fine, but there are most definitely some points in this contract that unduly reward Greater Giving, even if they do not provide any services to their nonprofit clients. According to my nonprofit clients, this is where their concerns begin, and why they have received the legal notices that they have from Greater Giving. Please read on.

Section A2.2 clearly states that a nonprofit Greater Giving client would be responsible for payments (As much as ,670 on a one year contract down to a lesser amount of ,980 on a five year contract) specified in the Greater Giving contract Schedule B.1 even if they do not use Greater Giving’s services!

Section A2.8 clearly states that a nonprofit Greater Giving client will receive their event proceeds by the 5th day after the fundraising event’s conclusion. This money sits in an Greater Giving escrow account earning interest for Greater Giving during that period before it is deposit into the nonprofit’s account. To this day, I am still unclear why this Greater Giving business practice remains in effect! The rumor I have heard from other auction software companies is that Visa is looking into and investigating this particular Greater Giving business practice.  

Section A2.9 clearly states that a nonprofit Greater Giving client will be responsible for the payment of Greater Giving set-up fees (As much as ,670 on a one year contract down to a lesser amount of ,980 on a five year contract) even if they terminate their contract within 30 days of the client’s previous event.

Sections A3.4 & A3.5 subsection(s) a. & b. have always presented a concern to my clients. This goes back to the client concerns raised in Section A2.8 – This money sits in an Greater Giving escrow account earning interest during that period before its deposit into the nonprofit’s account.

Section A3.7 clearly states that a nonprofit Greater Giving client will be responsible for payments (As much as 5 on a one year contract down to a lesser amount of 5 on a five year contract) to Greater Giving even if you cancel Greater Giving’s Online Payments contract within the specified 30 days. The language in this clause is also quite nebulous.

Section(s) B.1, B.1.2 & B.1.3 is self explanatory!

Section B.1.4 clearly states that a nonprofit Greater Giving client will be responsible for payments (As much as 5 on a one year contract down to a lesser amount of 5 on a five year contract) to Greater Giving even if the client does not raise enough money to cover this expense. Here is a valid point of concern. Does Greater Giving have an ethical obligation to assess the nonprofits abilities and means in advance of their event? Perhaps Greater Giving should consider amending this clause?  

Section B.1.5 is self explanatory! As a professional fundraiser for the past seventeen years (well before the advent of Greater Giving) I would not grant anyone direct access to my bank accounts, providing them the ability to withdraw money as they wish.

Section(s) B.2, B.2.1 & B.2.2 is self explanatory!

Section(s) B.3, B.3.1, B.3.2 & B.3.3 is self explanatory!

Section(s) B.4 & B.4.1 is self explanatory!

The hypothetical Greater Giving service models I created below indicate a one year and five contract option and assumes gross revenue of 9,000 dollars earned at a fundraising auction event. All Visa and Amex charges are assumed to be consistent. Obviously, with a mix of both Visa and Amex charges involved, the grand total amounts would trend downwards.

One Year contract:
,670 in set up fees
1.3% of 9,000 =,887
6 terminals ( each) = 0
Subtotal from section B.2 = ,007
Visa, MC, Discover (1.75%) = ,232.50 Subtotal from section B.3 applies to both contract terms.
If Amex is used (2.25%) = ,727.50 Subtotal from section B.3 applies to both contract terms.
Possible grand totals = ,239.50 (if Visa et al.)
Possible grand totals = ,734.50 (if Amex)


Five Year Contract:

,980 in set up fees
1.3% of 9,000 =,887
6 terminals ( each) = 0
Subtotal from section B.2 = ,317
Visa, MC, Discover (1.75%) = ,232.50 Subtotal from section B.3 applies to both contract terms.
If Amex is used (2.25%) = ,727.50 Subtotal from section B.3 applies to both contract terms.
Possible grand totals = ,549.50 (if Visa et al.)
Possible grand totals = ,044.50 (if Amex)

Section(s) B.5 is self explanatory! Of course these amounts would be added to the grand totals indicated in the hypothetical Greater Giving service model above and increase upwardly from there.

Section B.5.1 A is a huge concern to nonprofit clients and Greater Giving partners alike!

From a fundraising auctioneer’s perspective I have grave concerns about Greater Giving’s an hour Professional Services not covered under Technical Support clause. Greater Giving cannot be all things to all nonprofit clients. Recently, Greater Giving is attempting to provide fundraising auction consulting to their (OUR) nonprofit clients. Greater Giving is NOT a fundraising, charity or benefit auctioneer, nor are they an event planner or special events company. Yes, Greater Giving has built their success by relying on EXTENSIVE input and information received from individuals in all these aforementioned fields. To this day, I remember my original conversation with Gary Brashear (former AuctionPay V.P.) and Angela Jackson (former AuctionPay Marketing Mgr.) in 2003 quite well in my providing both of them with marketing information, such as utilizing web sites like AuctionZip, etc.

Now Greater Giving is competing directly with all of us! They are now circumventing us, bypassing our far more superior fundraising consulting services that we have to offer our clients, so that they can attempt to sell these services to their (OUR) nonprofit clients. The sad fact is that Greater Giving is using this same information that we have previously, graciously, shared with Greater Giving and successfully provided to our clients, before the existence of Greater Giving, to derive even more revenue for their company! Greater Giving may refer to some of you as Partners (Auctioneers, event planners, special events managers, etc.) until you become no longer a necessary component of a bigger machine. This will happen if they continue down this path! Greater Giving should seriously reconsider their position when it comes to providing fundraising consulting, and auctioneers (Partners) should be asking Greater Giving these relevant questions.

There are certain states (Massachusetts and Virginia) in which it is illegal for professional fundraisers to charge a commission or percentage as a fee for services provided. Greater Giving is truly entering into dangerous territory with their current payment structure in place if they will now be providing fundraising consulting services in violation of these state laws. Greater Giving (original conversations with former AuctionPay employees Gary Brashear and Angela Jackson) followed my lead (I was the first auctioneer member in the U.S. to join AFP) in joining AFP. It is interesting that Greater Giving’s fee structure (percentage based) does violate AFP’s Code of Ethics, and this is especially true if fundraising consulting will now be provided by Greater Giving.

Let us not forget that there are also states in this nation that require professional fundraisers to register and become licensed as “Fundraising Counsels” if they are collecting fees in providing fundraising consulting to their nonprofit clients. I don’t believe that Greater Giving maintains such state required licenses.

Section C.1
clearly states that a nonprofit client is responsible for providing all notice to Greater Giving in writing and delivering such notice by these methods (“registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, or overnight delivery with verification of receipt by the addressee, at the addresses set forth on the signature page hereof.”) only! However, Greater Giving may deliver all notice to their nonprofit clients by the methods stated above or SIMPLY BY EMAIL!

Section C.2 is self explanatory and also creates a potential concern if overlooked by the nonprofit. Perhaps automatic renewal is not always a good idea?

Section C.8 is self explanatory and also creates a potential concern if overlooked by the nonprofit. Greater Giving appears to receive payment from the nonprofit no matter what the circumstances indicate!

Section C.13 is self explanatory and also creates a potential concern if overlooked by the nonprofit. Greater Giving, there again, appears to receive payment from the nonprofit no matter the circumstances indicate!

Section C.17 is self explanatory! Subsection (vi) is a bit hypocritical though when you or the nonprofit clients consider Section B.5.1 A, and my commentary concerning Greater Giving’s direct competition with auctioneers, event planners and special event managers who provide their clients with fundraising consulting.

BELOW IS A COPY OF THE AUCTUAL GREATER GIVING CONTRACT.

 

Auctionpay Services Agreement

Auctionpay has developed and owns a set of proprietary products and services to assist nonprofit organizations in managing benefit events, raising funds, and processing payments at events and online. These products and service modules are collectively referred to as the “Services” in this Agreement.

The following Agreement defines the relationship between your organization and Auctionpay Inc., a Delaware corporation, and consists of three schedules:

Schedule A: “Responsibilities” defines the responsibility of each party to the Agreement applicable for each of the selected Auctionpay proprietary Services.

Schedule B: “Pricing” specifies the fees associated with each of the Auctionpay propriety Services you select.

Schedule C: “General Terms and Conditions” defines the general terms and conditions that apply to this Agreement.

You must read, agree with and accept all of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. This version of the Agreement has been established on August 1, 2008.

For the purposes of this Agreement, the date you place your order for software and services is the effective date of this Agreement (“Effective Date”) and the term of this Agreement is either a 1-year term or 5-year term as you indicate in your order (“Term”).

Schedule A: Responsibilities

This Schedule defines the responsibilities of each party under this Agreement for each of the selected Services. Only the sections for the Services that you order apply. In the case of the Complete Event Suite, the sections for Auctionpay Event Software, Auctionpay Event Software Online Edition, Auctionpay Event Payments, and Auctionpay Online Payments services will apply.

A1. Auctionpay Event Software

A1.1 Auctionpay is providing you with a copy of the Auctionpay Event Software and is licensing you to use the current version of the software. You agree to use the software only as allowed in, and in accordance with the terms of, the End User License Agreement included with the software, and the terms and conditions of the End User License Agreement are hereby incorporated into this Agreement. You will receive only a limited, non-transferable, non-exclusive right to use the current version of the software.

A1.2. The first year of technical support and product upgrades is included in the price of the software. However you will be required to renew your annual software upgrades and support every year in order to receive new software releases and software support after the first year. The cost for continued support and upgrades is as provided in Schedule B hereto.

A1.3. If you request any services beyond standard technical support, e.g. database migration from other systems, data entry, or data clean-up, then you will be charged at the then-current rate for Auctionpay services as shown hereto in Schedule B or communicated to you when requesting the services.

A1.4. If you are purchasing the Online Edition add-on for the Auctionpay Event Software, Auctionpay will provide you with access to its Auctionpay Event Software hosted and maintained on Auctionpay’s servers during the Term of this Agreement.

A2. Auctionpay Event Payments

A2.1. You intend to conduct fundraising events (the “Event” or “Events”), and at these events accept credit or debit card payments (the “Event Charges”) from your patrons.

A2.2. You agree to use Auctionpay Event Payments for at least one Event during each twelve month period during the Term of this Agreement at which you accept credit cards as a form of payment. However, if you choose not to conduct an Event in any twelve month period during the Term of the Agreement, this shall not constitute a breach of the Agreement. If you do not conduct an Event in a twelve month period during the Term of the Agreement, any fees are still due as defined in Schedule B.

A2.3. Prior to utilizing Auctionpay Event Payments, you will provide us with information for a checking account (the “Settlement Account”) to which we will deposit all funds due to you, subject to the fees and timing specified in this Agreement.

A2.4. We will provide Auctionpay Event Payments, including the number of payment terminals or card swipes you request (the “Equipment”) not later than three (3) calendar days prior to the commencement of the Event. We will ensure that all Equipment is operating and will provide our standard instructions as to the proper operation of the Equipment.

A2.5. Upon receipt of the Equipment, you are responsible for any loss or damage to the Equipment until the Equipment is returned to Auctionpay. You are not responsible for any damage resulting from shipping provided you follow the instructions and use the packaging provided by Auctionpay. Except as otherwise set forth in the Agreement, you will have no rights with respect to the Equipment, and you acknowledge that all right, title and interest in such Equipment remains with Auctionpay.

A2.6. Within four (4) business days of the Event, you will submit all Event Charges by following the settlement instructions provided by Auctionpay, and you will initiate return of the Equipment to Auctionpay. Failure to return the Equipment within this time will result in late fees of .00 per unit per week.

A2.7. You are responsible for retaining signed credit card receipts from the Event, as well as the final credit and settlement reports generated by Auctionpay Event Payments, for no less than three (3) years from the date of the Event for the purpose of resolving any cardholder disputes that may arise.

A2.8. By the 5th business day after you submit the Event Charges, Auctionpay will transfer funds for all Event Charges approved by Auctionpay (the “Approved Event Charges”), less Auctionpay’s fees as set forth in this Agreement, to the Settlement Account you designate.

A2.9. If for any reason you are not satisfied with Auctionpay Event Payments, you have 30 days after the date of your first Event to deliver written notice to Auctionpay of your desire to cancel the remaining term of the Agreement for Auctionpay Event Payments service, without further liability to Auctionpay (except for return of Equipment and payment of the setup fee and any remaining fees payable as of the date of termination). If you cancel Auctionpay Events Payments and you purchased it as part of the Complete Event Suite, your other Service continues for the remaining Term.

A3. Auctionpay Online Payments

A3.1. By purchasing the Auctionpay Online Payments services, you intend to accept credit or debit card payments over the Internet (“Online Charges”) from your patrons for Event registrations, donations, online auctions, or other purchases or payments. We will process all approved charges received through Auctionpay Online Payments. You are solely responsible for collecting payment of any remaining charges that are declined or otherwise cannot be processed.

A3.2. Auctionpay Online Payments allows you to create secure, customized web pages (the “Pages”) for your use in processing Online Charges. The initial setup of Auctionpay Online Payments will include up to 10 Pages that you can create and reuse for multiple purposes. Your use of additional Pages beyond this limit will be billed to you at the then-current published rates for Auctionpay Online Payments. If you request that Auctionpay sets up Pages for you, You will be billed at the then-current rates for the additional services which are currently 0 to set up one standard page for you. Auctionpay Online Payments includes annual Internet transfers up to 50 Gigabytes. If more bandwidth is consumed by visitors to your Pages, you will be billed at the then-current rates for additional bandwidth. This section does not apply if you purchased just the Virtual Terminal Only.

A3.3. You will use Auctionpay Online Payments on an exclusive basis during the Term of this Agreement to handle Online Charges.

A3.4. Prior to utilizing Auctionpay Online Payments, you will provide us with information for a checking account (the “Settlement Account”) to which we will deposit all funds due to you, subject to deduction for Auctionpay’s fees and subject to the timing specified in this Agreement.

A3.5. We will transfer funds for all approved Online Charges, less Auctionpay’s fees as set forth in this Agreement, to the Settlement Account you designate. Funds will be transferred according to the following schedule:

a. Approved Online Charges submitted between and including the 1st and 15th calendar day of each month will be paid by the 5th business day following the 15th of the month, less Auctionpay’s fees.

b. Approved Online Charges submitted between and including the 16th and last calendar day of each month will be paid by the 5th business day of the following month, less Auctionpay’s fees.

c. Approved Online Charges from online auctions conducted using Auctionpay or cMarket Online Auctions software will be paid no later than five business days following the submission, less Auctionpay’s fees.

A3.6. You will use Auctionpay Online Payments only in accordance with the conditions, rules, and regulations as may be established or specified by Auctionpay from time to time and as may be set forth in any manuals, materials, documents, or instructions furnished to you by Auctionpay, including in accordance with the terms of use published on the Auctionpay Online Payments website that you log into. We reserve the right to make changes in the manner of operation for Auctionpay Online Payments. We will provide notice of fee changes via e-mail or through online notices.

A3.7. If for any reason you are not satisfied with Auctionpay Online Payments, you have 30 days from the Effective Date to cancel the remaining Term of this Agreement for Auctionpay Online Payments by delivering written notice to Auctionpay of your desire to cancel the remaining Term of the Agreement, without further liability to Auctionpay (except for payment of the setup fee any remaining fees payable as of the date of termination). If you cancel Auctionpay Online Payments and you purchased it as part of the Complete Event Suite, then the other Services continue for the remaining Term of the Agreement.

Schedule B: Pricing – Effective August 1, 2008

B1. Setup, License, Support, Hosting, and Renewal Fees:
Products Services Initial Setup, Hosting and Support Fee Annual Support, Hosting, & Upgrade Fee After 1st Year
Complete Event Suite ,595 – 1-Year Term = ,295 & 5-Year Term = 5
Event Payments 5 – 1-Year Term = 5 & 5-Year Term =
Event Software ,195 – 1-Year Term = 5 & 5-Year Term = 5
Online Edition Add-on 5 – 1-Year Term = 5 & 5-Year Term = 5
Online Payments 5 – 1-Year Term = 5 & 5-Year Term = 5
Virtual Terminal Only 5 – 1-Year Term = 5 & 5-Year Term =

B1.1 Initial Setup and License Fee for Complete Event Suite, or Event Payments will be deducted from the Event Charges for your first Event under this Agreement. However, if you do not conduct an Event or process sufficient funds to enable Auctionpay to collect fees due and payable within six months of the Effective Date of this Agreement, you will be invoiced the total amount, which will be immediately due and payable.

B1.2 The Annual Support, Hosting and Upgrade Fee becomes due and payable within 30 days of each anniversary date of the Effective Date of this Agreement.

B1.3 Initial Setup and License Fee and the Annual Support/Hosting Fee for Event Software and its Add-ons will be invoiced and are immediately due and payable.

B1.4 Initial Setup and Hosting Fee for Online Payments will be deducted from your Online Charges. However, if you do not process enough payments to cover this fee within 90 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, you will be invoiced the total amount, which will be immediately due and payable.

B1.5 If fees are due and payable, Auctionpay may deduct the fees from the Client’s Settlement Account.

B2. Service Fee for Auctionpay Event Payments:

B2.1 The Service Fee for the Auctionpay Event Payments service is based on the total of Approved Event Charges processed through Auctionpay Event Payments services for each Event. Service Fees for the Auctionpay Event Payments services are deducted from the proceeds of your Event Charges.
Total Approved Event Charges for Each Event Service Fee Number of Terminals Included
Less than ,000 – 5 fee Up to 3 terminals
,000 – ,999 1.99% Up to 4
0,000 – 9,999 1.60% Up to 6
0,000 – 9,999 1.30% Up to 6
0,000 – 9,999 1.10% As needed
0,000 and above 0.90% As needed

B2.2 Additional terminals are per Event. Round-trip ground shipping is included. For Events outside the Continental US, additional shipping fees will apply.

B2.3 For events where you expect to collect more than 0,000, our Client Service Team will work with you to determine the number of terminals needed based on the specifics of your Event, not to exceed 10 terminals per event.

B3. Credit Card Processing Pass-Through Fee for Auctionpay Event Payments:

B3.1 All approved Event Charges will be subject to the following pass-through fee to cover the cost of processing the transactions, in addition to the Service Fees listed above. Pass-through fees are deducted from the proceeds of your Event Charges.
Type of Credit Card Event Payments
Visa, MasterCard or Discover 1.75%
American Express 2.25%

B3.2 The above rates for Visa, MasterCard and Discover Event Payments Charges apply to card swipe transactions. An additional processing fee of 0.75% will apply to all Visa, MasterCard and Discover Event Charges keyed manually.

B3.3 Credit Card Processing – Pass-through fees may be adjusted from time to time to reflect increases in Visa, MasterCard and/or American Express processing rates. Auctionpay will provide 30 days advance notice of any fee increases by email or posting on its web site.

B4. Credit Card Processing Fee for Auctionpay Online Payments:

B4.1 All approved Online Charges processed through the Auctionpay Online Payments services will be subject to the following processing fees. Processing fees for Auctionpay Online Payments services are deducted from the proceeds of your Online Charges.
Type of Credit Card Processing Fee
Visa, MasterCard, Discover or American Express 3.45% plus .35 per transaction

B4.2 Credit Card processing fees may be adjusted from time to time to reflect increases in Visa, MasterCard, Discover and/or American Express processing rates. Auctionpay will provide 30 days advance notice of any fee increases by email or posting on its web site.

B5. Service Fee for Other Auctionpay Services:

B5.1 A Service Fee will apply to other services provided by Auctionpay. Service Fees are deducted from the proceeds of your Event or Online Charges or will be invoices and are immediately due and payable.

]]>

Service Provided Service Fee
Publishing 5 additional pages in Auctionpay Online Payments 0 per year
Annual Internet transfers (bandwidth) above 50GB 0 per year for each additional 50GB of transfers during the year. Professional Services not covered under Technical Support per hour

B5.2 These fees may be adjusted from time to time. Auctionpay will provide 30 days notice of any fee increases by email or posting on its web site.

Schedule C: General Terms and Conditions

C1. Notices. Except where other means of notice are expressly permitted herein, all notices you send to Auctionpay under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, or overnight delivery with verification of receipt by the addressee, at the addresses set forth on the signature page hereof. Except where other means of notice are expressly permitted herein, all notices Auctionpay may send to you under this agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered by e-mail or other electronic means, by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, or overnight delivery with verification of receipt by the addressee, at the address you set forth in your order. All notices shall be deemed given upon receipt.

C2. Renewal. The Term of this Agreement shall automatically be renewed for a new Term of the same duration unless one party informs the other not less than 30 days before the end of the preceding Term of its decision not to renew the Agreement

C3. Terms and pricing. Subsequent to any Term, Auctionpay may change its fees, pricing, and payment terms upon sixty (60) days prior written notice to you in which case you shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement by written notice to Auctionpay within thirty (30) days of receiving notice from Auctionpay of such changes. Auctionpay may terminate this Agreement at any time and without notice to you if you file a voluntary petition in bankruptcy, any document or pleading seeking any reorganization, liquidation, or dissolution under any law is filed against you and you admit or fail to contest the material allegations of any such pleading or document filed against you, an order for relief is filed against you under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code or similar foreign law or a receiver is appointed for a substantial part of your assets and is not dismissed within sixty (60) days, you make an assignment for the benefit of creditors or similar disposition of assets, or you cease to conduct normal and customary business practices (without a successor continuing such business practices).

C4. Confidentiality. You agree to maintain in confidence all Confidential Information provided to you by Auctionpay and agree not to use or disclose such Confidential Information, except to your own authorized employees, officers, or agents, or to persons specifically authorized by Auctionpay. “Confidential Information” includes, but is not limited to programming material, reports, or other documentation that may embody proprietary information of Auctionpay, or any other confidential, proprietary, or trade secret information disclosed by Auctionpay to you involving Auctionpay’s business, financial, technical, and other information that is not (a) disclosed in public materials or otherwise in the public domain through no fault of yours; (b) lawfully obtained by you from a third party without any obligation of confidentiality; (c) lawfully known to you prior to disclosure by Auctionpay; (d) independently developed by you; or (e) required or reasonably advised to be disclosed by law.

C5. Default. In the event either party (the “Defaulting Party”) shall fail to perform its obligations under this Agreement and such default shall continue for ten days after written notice thereof (a “Default”) from the party not in breach of this Agreement (the “Non-Defaulting Party”), the Non-Defaulting Party may declare the Defaulting Party in breach of this Agreement and pursue all remedies available at law or equity

C6. Damages. The parties agree that actual damages are as of the Effective Date, and upon a breach of this Agreement by you would be difficult to calculate hereunder, and the parties agree that the liquidated damages provided in this section are in all cases reasonable. If suit or action is instituted to enforce or interpret the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party, in addition to costs and damages and including attorneys’ fees incurred prior to the filing of lawsuit or arbitration claim, such sums as a court or arbitrator shall determine to be reasonable at the arbitration, trial and appeal.

C7. Governing law; Jurisdiction; Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed and enforced in accordance with, the internal laws of the State of Oregon without regard to its conflict of laws provisions. If any action is brought arising out of or related to this Agreement, the parties (i) expressly and irrevocably consent to personal jurisdiction and exclusive venue of the federal courts sitting within Multnomah County, Oregon, unless no federal subject matter jurisdiction exists, in which case the Parties consent to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue in Multnomah County Circuit Court; and (ii) expressly waive all defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens with respect to the federal and state courts sitting within Multnomah County, Oregon.

C8. Early Termination Fee. If you terminate this Agreement before the end of its Term other than upon Auctionpay’s Default, Auctionpay shall be entitled to receive, as liquidated damages, the following: (a) for Auctionpay Event Payments, an amount equal to the minimum Service Fee (as specified in Schedule B) for an Event under this Agreement multiplied by the number of years remaining in the Term of the Agreement; (b) for Auctionpay Online Payments, an amount equal to the annual support and hosting fee (as specified in Schedule B), multiplied by the number of years remaining in the Term of the Agreement.

C9. Limitation of Liability; Warranties. (A) AUCTIONPAY SHALL NOT HAVE ANY LIABILITY HEREUNDER FOR (A) ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES OR (B) MONETARY DAMAGES OF ANY KIND IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNTS PAID TO AUCTIONPAY PURSUANT TO THIS AGREEMENT, REGARDLESS OF THE BASIS OF THE CLAIM AND EVEN IF AUCTIONPAY HAS BEEN ADVISED OR IS AWARE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING IN THIS AGREEMENT TO THE CONTRARY, THE REMEDIES SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT SHALL APPLY EVEN IF SUCH REMEDIES FAIL OF THEIR ESSENTIAL PURPOSE. SOME STATES DO NOT PERMIT THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, THUS THE ABOVE LIMITATION OR EXCLUSION MAY NOT BE APPLICABLE TO YOU. (B) EXCEPT AS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AS EXPRESSLY SET FORTH HEREIN, AUCTIONPAY MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES OR GUARANTEES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, TITLE OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT. SOME STATES DO NOT PERMIT THE LIMITATION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES, AND THUS THIS LIMITATION MAY NOT BE APPLICABLE TO YOU.

C10. Independent contractor; indemnification. You and Auctionpay agree that in providing the Auctionpay Services under this Agreement, Auctionpay is an independent contractor of yours and is not to be considered a partner with, or employee of, you. Each party (the “Indemnifying Party”) agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the other party (the “Indemnified party”) from and against all losses, liabilities and expenses (including attorneys’ fees and collection costs) resulting from any breach of any warranty, covenant or term of, or any misrepresentation, by the Indemnifying Party under this Agreement, or arising out of the Indemnifying Party’s employees’ gross negligence or willful misconduct in connection with the Auctionpay Services provided under this Agreement.

C11. Resolution of Patron Disputes and Chargebacks. If a customer of yours (“your Patron”) disputes the validity of a charge initiated by you, Auctionpay will notify you and request supporting documentation from you required to validate the charge, which may include the signed credit card receipt from the Auctionpay Event Payments services, the transaction number from the Auctionpay Online Payments services transaction, an invoice or other statement showing the items purchased and the total amount due from the Patron, or any combination of the foregoing. If you do not respond to the request for supporting documentation or do not present the required documentation to Auctionpay within seven business days, or if the disputed amount becomes a Chargeback (as defined below), Auctionpay will deduct the Chargeback amount and associated fees from your Settlement Account.

C12. Refunds, Chargebacks, and Declines. You shall be responsible for all charges, fees, costs, expenses and damages, including interest charges, attorney fees and the loss of the Event Charges or Online Charges arising out of or related to, and will indemnify Auctionpay as a result of, any Refund, Chargeback or Decline. For purposes of this Agreement the following definitions apply: “Refund”: Your Patron requests that some or all of your Patron’s Acquisition Funds be returned in exchange for return of the goods or services acquired from you; “Chargeback”: Your Patron, through its card-issuing bank, questions or disputes the validity of a charge initiated by you; “Decline”: Your Patron’s card-issuing bank declines to otherwise process your Patron’s acquisition of the goods and services from you (e.g., your Patron has exceeded the credit limits on the card). In case of a Refund or Chargeback, Auctionpay will deduct the amount and associated fees from your Settlement Account.

C13. Find a Cure Clause. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, if (a) your fundraising supports medical research, and (b) the organization which benefits from your fundraising is successful in finding a cure for a medical condition or disease during the Term of the Agreement, and, therefore, (c) you choose to no longer conduct fundraising activities, and (d) you provide written notice of such event to Auctionpay, you shall have the option to terminate the remaining term of this Agreement without further liability to Auctionpay (except for the payment of any amounts payable to Auctionpay on the date you provide notice to Auctionpay of termination).

C14. Fulfillment Responsibility. You shall be solely responsible for fulfillment of any products or services purchased through transactions processed through Auctionpay’s products and services, and you shall be solely responsible for establishing the portion, if any, of any donations or payments that may be treated by the provider of any products and services used or proposed to be used as auction items as a charitable donation for purposes of U.S. income tax law.

C15. Privacy and Security. Privacy and security are of utmost importance to Auctionpay. Auctionpay will not use your information or product/service donor information in any way whatsoever, except as otherwise permitted under this Agreement, as necessary to carry out is obligations hereunder, and except as required by law or court order, and shall take reasonable steps to protect information, including deleting credit card information from credit card processing terminals and encrypting credit card information for Internet transactions. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Auctionpay reserves the right to use data obtained from the performance of its obligations hereunder, in an aggregated format, for research, quality assurance, and statistical purposes. All information individually identifying you or your patrons will be removed for the analysis and shall be reasonably reviewed by Auctionpay prior to disclosure to third parties or publication to preserve anonymity before publishing.

C16. Web Services Availability. Like all web services, Auctionpay’s web sites delivering the products and services may be temporarily unavailable from time to time due to required maintenance, telecommunications interruptions, or other disruptions. Although Auctionpay will make every reasonable effort to minimize such downtime, Auctionpay does not guarantee 100% availability of its products and services. In addition, Auctionpay does not represent and warrant the availability of any other website used to verify transactions.

C17. Representations and Warranties of the You. You represent and warrant to Auctionpay as follows:

(a) You are authorized to enter into this Agreement, which shall be binding on your organization in accordance with its terms, and the execution and performance of this Agreement by you will not infringe the rights of others or violate any other agreement under which you are obligated;

(b) Your information and activities (including the transmission and receipt of payments) through Auctionpay’s products and services shall not:

(i) be false, inaccurate or misleading;
(ii) be fraudulent or involve the sale of counterfeit or stolen items;
(iii) consist of providing cash advances from credit cards to patrons or others through the Auctionpay software and/or services
(iv) be related in any way to gambling and/or gaming activities, including but not limited to payment or the acceptance of payments for wagers, gambling debts or gambling winnings, regardless of the location or type of gambling activity (including online and offline casinos, sports wagering and office pools), with the exception of payments for gaming transactions that are expressly authorized by law in the jurisdiction of both the sender and the recipient of the payment;
(v) infringe on any third party’s copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret or other property rights or rights of publicity or privacy;
(vi) violate any law, statute, ordinance, contract or regulation (including, but not limited to, those governing financial services, consumer protection, unfair competition, antidiscrimination, or false advertising);
(vii) be defamatory, trade libelous, unlawfully threatening or unlawfully harassing;
(viii) be obscene or contain child pornography;
(ix) knowingly contain any viruses, Trojan horses, worms, time bombs, cancelbots, easter eggs or other computer programming routines that may damage, detrimentally interfere with, surreptitiously intercept or expropriate any system, data or other personal information;
(x) create liability for Auctionpay or cause Auctionpay to lose (in whole or in part) the services of Auctionpay’s internet service providers or other suppliers;
(xi) involves the preparation and/or distribution of “junk mail”, “spam”, “chain letters”, “pyramid schemes” or the like;
(xii) would encourage conduct that could constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability or otherwise violate any applicable local, state, national or international laws or regulations;
(xiii) involves the unauthorized entry to any machine accessible via the Services or
(xiv) be for another organization other than your organization that is party to this Agreement. If you use, or attempt to use the Services for purposes other than authorized by Auctionpay, including but not limited to tampering, hacking, modifying or otherwise corrupting the security or functionality of the Services, this Agreement will be terminated and you will be subject to damages and other penalties, including criminal prosecution where available.

C18. Miscellaneous. This Agreement, including the attached schedules, constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Services to be provided by Auctionpay to you. This Agreement supersedes all prior communications, representations or agreements, whether written or oral, between the parties. This Agreement may not be amended except in a writing signed by both parties. Performance hereunder may be waived only in writing by each party and the waiver of one provision by any party shall not constitute a waiver by that party of any other provisions hereof or of strict compliance in the future of the performance so waived. The parties’ rights and obligations, which by their nature would continue beyond the termination of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, obligations with respect to indemnification and confidential information, shall survive such termination. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason, the remaining provisions shall continue to be valid and enforceable. You may not assign or transfer this Agreement to any third party without Auctionpay’s prior written consent, except in connection with the merger or sale of all or substantially all of the assets or stock of your organization, provided the assignee agrees in writing to be bound by this Agreement. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding on the respective successors and assigns, if any, of the parties hereto. All terms survive termination of the agreement.

 

More Virginia State Tax Refund Articles

Anti Poverty

                       


Anti Poverty in USA

                  


                          Even the wealthiest nation in the world like the United States does not escape the problem of poverty. This paper takes a critical look at poverty and anti-poverty policies in the United States. In this paper, I have argued that poverty is caused by several factors. This paper also discusses the liberal and conservative perspectives for reducing poverty in America. The conservatives have focused on individual factors such as wide wage gaps, breakdown of family, racial factors and other reasons while the liberals have focused on the structural transformation of the American economy to explain the persistence of poverty.  Since 1960, both the federal and state governments have been responding with policies that address the problem with mixed results. In this paper, I have analyzed the policies and have also recommended the possible ways to deal with this intractable nature of poverty.


                   According to Sen (1981), ‘the poor are those people whose consumption standards fall short of the norms, or whose income lie below that line’. The word “poverty” suggests destitution, an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. Over thirty-six million Americans live below the official U.S. poverty line (Blank, 2007). This means a family of three earns less than less than $ 16,000 or a single individual earns ,300 per annum (Blank, 2007, p. 17). Millions more struggle each month to pay for basic necessities, or run out of savings when they lose jobs or face health emergencies. Job cuts, high rates of unemployment, foreclosures and high food and gas prices continue to stimulate policy formulation designed to improve the condition of the poor.


                     Poverty is integrally associated with misery and suffering. The lost potential of children in poor households and the lower productivity and earnings of poor adults are all intertwined with poor health, increased crime and broken neighborhoods. Childhood poverty typically leads to poor health care and high crime neighborhoods. Persistent childhood poverty is estimated to cost the United States 0 billion each year, or about 4% of the nation’s gross domestic product (Blank, 2007, p.1).


                    One in eight Americans lives in poverty and poverty in the United States is far higher than in many developed nations (Rebecca Blank, 2007, p1). Inequality has reached record high. The richest 1 percent of Americans in 2005 held the largest share of the nation’s income (19%) since 1929 (Rebecca Blank, 2007, p. 2). At the same time the poorest 20% of Americans held only 3.4% of the nation’s income (Rebecca Blank, 2007, p.2).


                    Colorado in spite of being surrounded by the beautiful Rocky Mountains and experiencing a cool, mountain climate has many homeless people. Scholars have identified that, a growing number of single parent households, a shortage of jobs for lower wage workers and a low rate of high school graduation have contributed to the growth of poverty in Colorado. The Colorado poverty rate has increased from 9.2% in 2000-2001 to 10.6% in 2005-2006 while the poverty rate of United States has increased from 11.5% in 2000-2001 to 12.5 % in 2005-2006 (Center on Law and Policy, 2006, p.1).  Most of these ill-fated poor people suffer from mental and health problems. 

Causes of Poverty


                        Policy analysts are trying to explore numerous perceived direct and indirect causes of poverty in the United States to formulate effective policies to alleviate poverty. The work of scholars such as Corley (2003), Sowell ( 2004), Iceland (2006), Jencks (1992), James Tobin (1993) and others have shown that the intractable nature of poverty is a result of not any one factor but of the interaction of a variety of causes. The breakdown of family and other social causes as well as the structural changes in the economy, have all contributed to society’s failure to eradicate poverty inspite of ardent efforts by policy analysts.


                   Individual Explanation of poverty mainly stresses the attitudinal or motivational factors and human capital factors. Thus lack of motivation among indigents causes poverty. Generous welfare programs sometimes affect the mind-set of recipients and they prefer to stay at home and enjoy the benefits rather than work outside. Murray (1984) argues that individuals prefer to remain on welfare because of insufficient motivation to come out from public welfare programs.


                  Formulation and proliferation of policies to alleviate poverty has been a major concern of the United States Government since 1960. Educational attainment is necessary to get a high paying job. Elementary school education, as well as lack of adequate skills and motivation among indigents to come out of the situation is the major causes of poverty. People well equipped with technical skills get high salaried jobs while people who are school drop outs get low pay on an hourly basis. During the 1960s when the then- President of United States Lyndon Johnson began to implement the United States ‘war on poverty’, he placed great emphasis on education (Jencks, 1992). The Lyndon Johnson administration even invested in programs like Head Start and occupational training to upgrade the skills of the poor and also to prevent future generations from working in low-paying jobs. Scholars like Sowell (2004) and Corley (2003) have emphasized individual level factors as the central causes of poverty. They argue that a person’s compensation is based on his or her educational qualification and marketable skills. Sowell (2004) argues that the lack of appropriate skills has affected the ability of many indigents to climb out of poverty. He also argues that there has been an increase in the poverty rate of unskilled Americans, who have lost jobs to Asian immigrants. Corley (2003) also supports the above argument and regards ‘lack of educational attainment’ as one of the entrenched sources of poverty. Low quality education from poorly funded inner-city schools results in few marketable skills which leads to low-wage jobs and other miseries associated with it such as less ability to pay for housing, food, clothing, medical care, bad neighborhoods, funding problems for schools, and increased risk of serious illness (Corley, 2003). 


                          Many scholars have argued that structural changes are the primary reason for the persistence of poverty in the United States. Structuralists emphasize issues such as joblessness, discrimination in education, institutional racism and economic transformations in explaining the causes of poverty. Scholars argue that the inability to provide decent paying jobs for some American families and the ineffectiveness of American public policy to reduce poverty are basically the result of structural failures and processes. Poverty is rooted in the structure of American society. Rank, 2004 supports the above view and argues that lack of human capital tends to place individuals in a vulnerable state when events and crises occur. The incidence of these events like loss of a job, family break-up and ill-health often result in poverty. These ill-fated people unable to handle these situations often end up in paying more. Scholars also argue that the acquisition of human capital is strongly influenced by the impact of social class on this process (Rank, 2004). Apart from poor family, race and gender also play a role in the acquisition of human capital (Mark Robert Rank, 2004).


                          Globalization, the expansion of credit markets leading to greater indebtness and foreclosures leading to recession in 2008 all point to the growth of poverty.  Iceland (2006) primarily focused on economic factors and has argued that poverty is also the product of deindustrialization. As the U.S. shifts from a manufacturing, industrial society to a service-oriented, high-tech society, many of the blue-collar jobs that required little education but paid well are disappearing or are being outsourced. Rural areas, such as Appalachia, suffer losses of mining jobs, and cities such as Detroit lose many manufacturing jobs to automation or overseas factories. Some people are unable to follow the jobs or commute to work are left in neighborhoods without employment or tax-basis to support needed social functions, such as schools, public transportation, police departments, and so forth. Others simply cannot find jobs because of the shift towards a service-based economy; in economic terms these people are structurally unemployed due to the changing skills needed. Tobin (1993) supports the above viewpoint and emphasizes on the disappearance of jobs in the 1900s as the main reason for the country’s failure to eradicate poverty. Recent employment data shows that the US housing slump and the crisis in America’s credit markets are threatening to increase poverty levels. Isidore (2008) mentions that the job losses  are widespread, with the battered construction sector losing 51,000 jobs and manufacturing employment falling by 48,000 in the year 2008 . Retail employment dropped by 12,000 jobs, and business and professional service employers cut staff by 35,000. The unemployment rate jumped to 6.1% in September from 4.9 % in January (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008).


                         Kelso (1994), argues that over the last forty years, there has been a major shift of American firms first to the west and then to the south. Part of this shift was due to the rise of the Cold War and the decision of the government to enlarge U.S. military power (kelso, 1994). He argues that as America elected to invest more in defense and in the aerospace industry, cities like Seattle and Los Angeles on the West Coast began to boom while the growth of a high technology and information based technology led to the growing affluence of California and the San Francisco Bay area. Later with the expansion of inter-state highway system and growth of jobs, markets were created in the south.


                         Iceland (2006) also argues that although the service sector of the economy has generated millions of jobs, but again polarized earning distribution based on educational attainment separates better paying jobs from poorer paying jobs. He supports a Marxian analysis of class conflict and exploitation and emphasizes on business owners favor hiring inexpensive labor to maximize profit. This also accounts for the inflow of cheap labor to the United States from Mexico and other countries. Greater access to credit has put cars, computers, credit cards, and even homes within reach for many more of the working poor. But this remaking of the marketplace for low-income consumers has a dark side. Roubini notes that, “Having access to credit should be helping low-income individuals, but instead of becoming an opportunity for upward social and economic mobility, it becomes a debt trap for many trying to move up (Grow and Epstein, 2007).


                          Inspite of public assistance and wide initiatives taken by both Federal and State governments, poverty still exists. Meticulous analysis of the situation and effective formulation of policies is needed to solve the problem of poverty in the United States. Scholars like Rank (2004), Blank (2007) and others have shown that the United States Government spends fewer funds addressed towards poverty than any other industrialized country. Thus a major structural failure is found at the political level (Rank, 2004). Most European countries provide a wide range of insurance programs, unemployment assistance, and wide universal health coverage along with considerable support for child care (Rank, 2004). Such social programs are far more generous than those in the United States (Rank, 2004). While, low-income families in the United States work more than those in other countries, they are still not able to make up for lower governmental income support relative to their European counterparts (Blank, 2007, 141-142).


                          The gross disparities among impoverished people in the United States along racial lines have led many scholars to speculate that institutional racism is responsible for much of the poverty in the United States. Racial discrimination in employment and   education contribute to the growth of poverty. Some scholars like Massey and Denton (1993) interpret the statistics in terms of institutional racism while others like Kelso (1994) interpret the statistics as evidence of deficiencies and suffering of blacks.   In spite of efforts to remove racism, slavery and Jim Crow segregation, Massey and Denton (1993) argue that racial segregation still exists and that the fundamental cause of poverty among African Americans is segregation. They argue that segregation has created and perpetuated a black underclass by limiting educational and employment opportunities. Massey and Denton (1993) have shown that Blacks were shown homes in racially mixed areas or areas adjacent to predominantly black areas.


                           Also, changing patterns of family formation are more pronounced among racial and ethnic groups. Family patterns are also one of the causes of poverty in the United States. There is a wide gender gap in wages. In 2004 the median income of FTYR male workers was ,798, compared to ,223 for FTYR female workers (DeNavas-Walt et al, 2005) Pearce (1978) argues that ‘poverty is rapidly becoming a female problem’. Iceland (2006) supports this statement and showed that in 2000, the female poverty rate (12.5%) was 26% higher than the male poverty rate (9.9%) (Iceland, 2006). According to Iceland, women have fewer economic resources than men, and they are more likely to be the head of single- parent families. It also leads to the greater likehood that single, divorced or widowed women will be poorer than their male counterparts because of less social security income or other retirement income in addition to higher female life expectancies. Women’s lower wages, lower retirement benefits and the increasing number of single mothers have led some scholars to talk about the “Feminization of Poverty.”

Federal policies


                       After the Second World War, by 1963, creation of jobs by President John F. Kennedy’s tax policies could not remove the problem of poverty. Poverty was still recognized as a major national problem. President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty led to a host of programs that included Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and others. These entitlements eventually consumed half the federal budget and could not alleviate poverty. The U.S. economy had been devastated by the recession of 1979-83 when the United Statess manufacturing infrastructure was shattered by the Federal Reserve’s skyrocketing interest rates causing unemployment to shoot up by sixty-five percent in four years (Cook, 2007). By the end of the 1980s the economy was in another recession, leading to the election of Bill Clinton who in 1992 replaced the incumbent George H.W. Bush. The investment boom of the 1990s was fueled by foreign capital lured in by the Treasury’s strong dollar policies. Jobs were created as the dot.com bubble expanded, trade barriers fell, and utility trading giants like Enron took off. NAFTA was enacted to promote free trade, welfare-to-work brought low-income women into the job market, and the Earned Income Tax Credit was extended. The party ended when the stock market crashed in December 2000 and millions of people lost their retirement savings and other investments. Recession was returning even as George W. Bush was being declared president by the U.S. Supreme Court in December 2000. The economic crisis deepened after the September 11, 2001 attacks when .4 trillion in wealth vanished during the worst five days of the stock market since the Great Depression (Cook, 2007). Cook (2007) argues that today, poverty is becoming a national catastrophe. Cook (2007) argues that from 2002 through 2006 the economy was floated by the housing bubble, with many lower income people getting into homes of their own through the proliferation of sub prime mortgages. With the financial woes in late 2008, many American citizens are left with inflated home prices and no way to pay for them.


]]>

                      The 1960’s policy initiatives and declaration of ‘unconditional war on poverty’ by the then president Lyndon Johnson marked a discrete change in the federal government’s willingness to intervene for the purpose of improving the economic situation of poor Americans. Despite the billions of dollars spent on programs like CETA (Comprehensive Employment Training Act), The Manpower Development and Training Act, Head Start, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the government efforts to deal with the origins of poverty have met with minimal success. During this period, implementation of the Social Security old-age program insured virtually all retired workers against the risk of outliving their savings. The Social Security Act of 1935 sought to protect the incomes of those who did not work because of age or a poor economy by establishing a federal framework for unemployment insurance, old-age benefits, and assistance to women. In early 1964, the two most pressing priorities of President Johnson’s antipoverty agenda involved passing a massive tax cut designed to stimulate the economy and organizing a task force to shape the ‘War on Poverty’. The Economic opportunity Act (EOA) signed by Johnson created a long list of programs designed to help individuals develop marketable skills, political power, and civic aptitude. But this anti-poverty legislation oversaw other programs like Community Action Program, Job Corps, VISTA, Head Start (1965), Legal Services (1965) which were not included in its framework. While extensive programs like the Food Stamp Program, Medicare for elderly, Medicaid applied to qualified poor residents, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act for poor students overshadowed the EOA. The Higher Education Act eased the financial burdens of millions of college students. The Civil Rights Act opened up new spaces in the American marketplace, while the Voting Rights Act did the same for the political marketplace. The Fair Housing Act established an important base of law to combat housing discrimination. As a result the EOA slowly lost importance. Again, Murray (1984) argues that welfare benefits had soared so high so as to make living in poverty a meaningful option for the poor. Even Burton (1992) has supported the above viewpoint and argues that the programs have done more to cause poverty than to alleviate it.


                          When Nixon assumed power, he tried to deal with poverty in a more direct way than emphasizing social programs. . Although President Nixon expressed dislike for much of the War on Poverty, his administration responded to public pressure by maintaining most programs and by expanding the welfare state through the liberalization of the Food Stamp program, the indexing of Social Security to inflation, and the passage of the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program for disabled Americans (Rank, 2004). The Nixon administration also endorsed a “New Federalism” in which the federal government shifted more authority over social welfare enterprises to state and local governments. His plan to implement the ‘Family Assistance Plan’ (FAP) consisted of various income provisions, work provisions, and training provisions for those below the poverty line (Rank, 2004). It failed to pass the Senate much like the ‘Programs for Better Jobs and Income’ initiated by President Carter in later years.                                       Welfare reform continued as a focus of federal policy debates even after the legislative defeat of FAP. Even though a cash ‘Negative income Tax’ (NIT) for all poor persons never passed, the Food Stamp program provided a national benefit in food coupons that varied by family size, regardless of state of residence or living arrangements or marital status. The number of AFDC recipients increased from about 6 million to 11 million and the number of food stamp recipients, from about 1 million to 19 million during the Nixon administration (Danziger, 1999, p. 8). Danziger (1999) also argues that as higher cash and in-kind benefits became available to a larger percentage of poor people, the work disincentives and high budgetary costs of welfare programs were increasingly challenged. The public and policy makers came to view increased welfare recipients as evidence that the programs were subsidizing dependency and encouraging idleness.


                        Despite the failure to enact a guaranteed income program, both the number of recipients and the amount of money spent on welfare programs increased substantially during the 1970’s (Rank, 2004). Rank (2004) has given an overview of Reagan’s policies and noted that Reagan emphasized individual action unhampered by government interference, rejected the social engineering of the 1960’s and also supported federalism, that is, returning power to the states rather than centralizing them within the federal government. Reagan tried to address the problem and set the tone for welfare reform that occurred in 1990 during his successor’s administration. The Reagan administration thought eligibility for welfare benefits had increased so much, that many persons who were not “truly needy” were receiving benefits. The Reagan Administration opposed simultaneous receipt of wages and welfare benefits. Rather, it proposed that welfare become a safety net, providing cash assistance only for those unable to secure jobs.


                    The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), enacted in 1975, provides families of the working poor with a refundable income tax credit (i.e., the family receives a payment from the Internal Revenue Service if the credit due exceeds the income tax owed). Thus the EITC raises the effective wage of low-income families, is available to both one- and two-parent families, and does not require them to apply for welfare. The maximum EITC for a poor family was 0 in 1975 and rose to 0 by 1986 (Danziger, 1999, p. 14). The 1986 Tax Reform Act increased the EITC so that by 1990 a low-income working parent received a maximum credit of 3 (Danziger, 1999, p. 14). The number of families receiving credits increased from between 5 and 7.5 million families a year between 1975 and 1986 to more than 11 million by 1988 (Danziger, 1999, p. 14). Danziger, 1999 argues that as the expanded EITC supplements low earnings, it became easier for policy makers to emphasize welfare reform policies that could place recipients into any job, rather than training them for “good jobs.” Thus he argues that if a nonworking recipient took a low-wage job, a substantial EITC could make work pay as much as a higher-wage job would have paid in the absence of an EITC.


                         The Family Support Act (FSA) of 1988 expanded the scope of the AFDC program for two-parent families, instituted transitional child care and Medicaid for recipients leaving welfare for work, and added funds and required states to establish programs to move greater numbers of welfare recipients into employment. When the welfare rolls jumped in the late-1980s and early-1990s, from about 11 to about 14 million recipients, dissatisfaction with welfare again increased ( Danziger, 1999).    


                        President Nixon identified the two main economic problems, inflation and unemployment, that justify the need for economic recovery to the American worker. Reagan has emphasized despair caused by unemployment combined with high inflation. Reagan’s rhetorical construction of welfare recipients and the welfare system was aimed at reducing anxiety among Americans caused by increasing taxes, inflation and the continuous fear of losing jobs. To end this victimization, Reagan proposed a plan for economic recovery (Rank, 2004). Apart from cutting government spending, specifically spending on social programs, Reagan also proposed to have State governments assume control of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and the food stamps program in exchange for the Federal Government control of Medicaid. Although this proposal failed to reach the Congressional floor, his presentation of the proposal to exchange AFDC and food stamp program with Medicaid made poverty a local concern (Mark Robert Rank, 2004).  


                       Liberals and conservatives still disagreed on other goals of welfare-to-work programs. Liberals thought welfare reform should expand opportunities for welfare mothers to receive training and work experiences that would help them raise their families’ living standards by working more and at higher wages. Conservatives emphasized work requirements, obligations welfare mothers owed in return for government support whether or not their families’ incomes increased (Mead, 1992). 


                       In later years President Clinton’s approach also emphasized empowerment as a way of helping welfare recipients and to accumulate more savings without being penalized and expanding the earned income tax credit (Blank, 2007). By the mid-1990s, the focus of policy concern shifted from fighting poverty to reducing welfare dependence. President Clinton’s signing of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (the PRWORA) ended the entitlement to cash assistance and dramatically changed the nature of the social safety net. The Act created the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Program (TANF). TANF began on July 1, 1997, provides cash assistance to indigent American families with dependent children through the United States Department of Health and Human Services (The Center for American Progress Task Force on Poverty, 2007).  Danziger, 1999 argues that each state can now decide which families to assist, subject only to a requirement that they receive “fair and equitable treatment.”  In instituting a block grant program, the PRWORA granted states the ability to design their own systems, as long as states met a set of basic federal requirements. The bill’s emphasis on ending welfare as an entitlement program, places a lifetime limit of five years on benefits paid by federal funds, and also aims to encourage two-parent families and discourages out-of-wedlock births. In granting states wider latitude for designing their own programs, some states have decided to place additional requirements on recipients. Although the law placed a time limit for benefits supported by federal funds of no more than 2 consecutive years and no more than 5 years over a lifetime, some states have enacted more stringent limits. All states, however, have allowed exceptions with the intent of not punishing children because their parents have gone over the time limit. Federal requirements have ensured some measure of uniformity across states, but the block grant approach has led individual states to distribute federal money in different ways. Certain states more actively encourage education, others use the money to help fund private enterprises helping job seekers. The PRWORA offers no opportunity to work in exchange for welfare benefits when a recipient reaches her lifetime limit of 60 months of federally-supported cash assistance. But the reform has certain limits. States may not use federal block grant funds to provide more than a cumulative lifetime total of 60 months of cash assistance to any welfare recipient, no matter how willing she might be to work for her benefits, and they have the option to set shorter time limits. States can grant exceptions to the lifetime limit and continue to use federal funds for up to 20 percent of the caseload. The extent of work expectations has also been increased. Single-parent recipients with no children under age one will be expected to work at least 30 hours per week by FY 2002 in order to maintain eligibility for cash assistance (Danziger, 1999, p 20). States can require participation in work or work-related activities regardless of the age of the youngest child. Thus PRWORA emerged from research that sought both to reduce poverty and welfare dependency (Danziger, 1999).  In the 1990s, following Clinton’s call to “end welfare as we know it,” policy makers escalated their demands for recipients to work and reduced government obligations toward and funds to serve them (Danziger, 1999).


                     When Bush took office in 2001, the U.S. was experiencing a national surplus, unemployment and poverty had been on the decline for years, and the economy was booming. Now, almost six years later, poverty is on the rise, healthcare coverage is on the decline, and the country is faced with the largest national deficit in history. Lower middle class families are slowly slipping below the poverty line and the poorest are becoming even more destitute. Most of these families are headed by women.


                      President Bush has extended the TANF. There has been a general economic stimulus policy initiative during the Bush administration but nothing targeting low income Americans has been enacted. President Bush signed the economic stimulus package (H.R. 5140) into law with the hope that it will provide a much-needed boost to the lagging economy. The package includes tax rebates for individuals, tax breaks for businesses, and a temporary increase of the Federal Housing Administration loans from 7,000 to 9,750 (White House report, 2008). More than 130 million people are expected to get tax rebates ranging from 0 to ,200 per household for individuals earning ,000 or less and couples earning up to 0,000 (White House report, 2008). While the stimulus package will provide much needed financial help to millions of people, it fails to target those most in need as it will not include an extension of unemployment benefits, energy assistance, food stamp benefits, or fiscal relief to states for Medicaid.                       


                  From the above analysis, the question arises whether poor are responsible for their own condition. The above analysis implies that recipients become dependent and lethargic due to vast welfare measures. Scholars such as Murray (1984) and Kilty and Segal (2006) have emphasized on individual factors. They argue that welfare measures and lack of spirit and motivation among indigents contribute poverty. Danziger, 1999 argues that during the Nixon era increased welfare measures encouraged idleness. Kilty and Segal, 2006 also argues that poor people can come out into a state of self-sufficiency from dependency by learning proper work attitude and skills. Kilty and Segal, 2006 argue the importance of welfare reform and a ‘tough love’ approach would ultimately help the poor by making them conscious of their condition and forcing them to take their own responsibility. Bill Clinton’s emphasis on ‘personal responsibility’ and measures to ‘end welfare as we know it’ in 1992 all supports the above argument.


                     Due to the implementation of TANF, the numbers of people on welfare have decreased. As a result more funds are accumulated. In 1996 the number of ADFC recipients was 12,644,076 while in 2001, the number of TANF recipients was 5,91, 811 and the poverty rate also reduced from 13.7 to 11.3 ( Kilty and Segal, 2006) and while in 2008 it is 1,628,422  ( US Dept of Health and Human Services). The share of single mothers on welfare (based on administrative caseload counts divided by population numbers) rose from 38 percent in 1969 to 48 percent in 1980, but had fallen to 30 percent by 1998 ( Kilty and Segal, 2006). These caseload changes are widespread, with every state in the country experiencing substantial caseload decline. This decline has been widely hailed by politicians as an indication that policies designed to reduce dependence on public assistance and move less-skilled adults into the labor market have been extremely effective ( Blank, 2007). But however Blank argues that declines in welfare do not affect the poverty rate. The poverty rate in 2007 was 12.5 percent, increasing slightly from its level of 12.3 percent in 2006. The poverty rate increased for four straight years from 2000 to 2004. In 2007, the poverty rate was 1.2 percentage points higher than it was in 2000 (Blank, 2007).     

States welfare initiatives


                      Most states took a significant decision about reform, and this decision was sensible in light of state goals and experience. A few states did not seriously make reform policy. New York was so deeply divided that it took no serious decisions about AFDC (Mead, 2002). Alabama and Missouri were pushed into reform by federal action and appeared to have little welfare policy of their own (Mead, 2002). In several other Southern states (Florida, North Carolina), policymaking appeared to be casual and personalized, with the governor or legislators offering reform plans with, apparently, little inquiry or evidence behind them( Mead, 2002) . Texas policymaking was incoherent as the state claimed to pursue work first but based its policy on an experimental program and focused far more on education and training (Mead, 2002). States have always emphasized on reform. But sometimes lower contribution towards these plans result in total failure of the program. Mead (2002) argues that in Florida and Georgia, however, officialdom was dragged into reform but showed little commitment to it. In Arizona and California, the agency or major localities had been heavily committed to a skills-oriented approach to welfare and resisted the shift toward work first. In Texas, welfare reform was a lower priority to administrators than rebuilding non-welfare employment programs and other initiatives. In Colorado and New Jersey, local agencies had a history of defiance toward the state government, and this prevented them from fully endorsing reforms decided in the capital. Mead (2002) argues that inspite of establishment of Employment Service (ES), a federally-funded job placement agency, and training programs under the federal Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), poverty rate did not improve. After national welfare work programs were first enacted in 1967, the ES engaged in welfare practices. But because the ES’s routine stressed serving job seekers who came to it voluntarily, it generally performed poorly with welfare clients (Mead, 2002). These jobseekers came to it on a mandatory basis, as a condition of receiving aid. To succeed with them, the agency had to enforce work but also support employment with special services. The ES often found both these roles uncongenial (Mead, 2002). The ES was denoted to the role of contractor to welfare and later in 1988 the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) merged the ES, JTPA, and other non-welfare work programs. But this merging also created confusion. The problems included lack of clear procedures to refer clients to WIA, to serve them there, or to report results back to welfare. The states that lacked coordination and inadequate management information systems (MIS) were Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia, Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee.      


                         Colorado’s public reform has been associated with decline in poverty rate. By the close of 2000, Colorado’s unemployment rate dropped to 2.6 percent, personal income showed steady gains, state welfare cases declined dramatically, and State legislators wrestled with an estimated 3 million revenue surplus (Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute, 2001). But inspite of all the above facts poverty still persists as expenses like child care, out-of-pocket medical expenses and geo-graphic differences in housing costs increased. The increases occurred even after adjusting for income support such as tax relief, food stamps and school lunch programs, housing subsidies and energy assistance. A report published in 2001 by the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute determined that a single parent with two small children living in Denver County would need to earn an annual salary of approximately ,924 in order to meet their basic needs such as housing, food, health care, childcare and transportation without public or private assistance. Even child poverty rate is high in Colorado. About 180,000 children, 15.7 percent of the state total was living in poverty in Colorado in 2006, a 73 percent increase since 2000 (Frosch, 2008). The state of Colorado purchases childcare for income eligible families through the Colorado Child Care Assistance Program (CCCAP). The state allows individual counties to set the purchase price of childcare and make payments to providers from a combination of parental fees and federal, state and county funds. However, the Colorado Office of Resource and Referral Agencies (CORRA) found in a 2001 study that the average county payment fell below 75 percent of market value (Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute, 2001, pp 9). As a result counties forced providers to subsidize the cost of service to low-income families, which many were simply unwilling to do when limited slots could be filled with families that could afford to pay full rates. Other providers that chose not to simply refuse service to CCCAP families saved money by limiting the number of children on CCCAP that they would accept, cutting programs, or reducing workers’ wages. All of these actions limited availability and sacrificed quality of care to low-income children. Poverty still exists in Colorado despite initiatives to alleviate poverty as too many working families lives with incomes below the poverty line and more families earn wages simply too low to afford their basic needs. The Colorado government started the Common Good Caucus in 2007 to develop a 2009 agenda, emphasizing on K-12 education and determined to bring technologies out of the laboratory and into the marketplace by investing .5 million dollars in bioscience industry, supporting the Clean Energy fund to reduce high family utility costs , creating the Colorado Solar Incentive Program with million to provide rebates for photovoltaic and solar thermal systems to help Coloradans join the new energy economy and cut their utility bills ( State Rep. Kerr Andy, 2008). Poor people cannot pay the full cost of heating and lighting their homes. Governments and social service agencies have long assisted low-income ratepayers in paying their bills through such programs as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), charitable fuel funds, levelized billing, discounts, home weatherization, energy efficiency, energy usage education and debt management. If all Americans live in weatherized and energy efficient homes and have the income to pay their full share of utility bills, all other ratepayers would save nearly billion in poverty costs, including fuel assistance, lifeline and other rate assistance, weatherization and efficiency costs, the costs of late payments and service disconnections (Oppenheim and MacGregor, 2007).      


                                      


Recommendations  

              From the above analysis it is clear that poverty remains pervasive due to the economic system, social stratification and welfare measures. According to Iceland (2003) on one hand, economic growth and technological changes contribute to increase in wages and overall standard of living. Economic growth accompanied by rising education levels improves the condition of people. On the other hand, the market economy often exerts a contrary effect on poverty levels (Iceland, 2003). To maximize profits, businesses usually seek to pay low wage to workers which increase inequality and poverty. Again policy may increase or decrease the harmful effects of inequality. Combining the factors emphasized by both liberals and conservatives, poverty is multifaceted. I believe that a strong national effort would alleviate poverty. Employment opportunities for all so that that worker and their families can avoid poverty, meet basic needs and save for the future. Increasing hourly wages would definitely improve the condition of these people. A smaller share of unemployed low-wage workers, receive unemployment insurance benefits. I believe that states (with federal help) should reform “monetary eligibility” rules that screen out low-wage workers, broaden eligibility for part-time workers and workers who have lost employment as a result of compelling family circumstances. Workers should use this period of unemployment and the money received from the Unemployment Insurance System and upgrade their skills and qualifications. Thus adults should have opportunities throughout their lives to connect to work, get more education, and live in a good neighborhood and move up in the workforce.


                         Child care assistance to low-income families and emphasis on K 12 education would definitely reduce the rate of poverty in the United States.                          Low-income youth hardly attend college than their higher income peers. Pell Grants play a crucial role for lower-income students. Simplification of the Pell grant application process, and encouragement of institutions to do more to raise student completion rates would definitely improve the condition. Expansion of Pell Grants would make higher education accessible to residents of each state. The states at the same time should also develop strategies to make postsecondary education affordable for all residents. Expansion of the Saver’s Credit would encourage saving for education, homeownership, and retirement. As a result all Americans would have assets that would allow them to weather periods of volatility and to have the resources that may be essential for upward economic mobility. Apart from Saver’s credit, expansion of Earned Income Tax Credit would raise incomes and helps families build assets. Thus there should be opportunity for all so that children grow up in conditions that maximize their opportunities for success.


          


  


                           

                       

                                   


                            

                            


                      


                             


References:

Blank Rebecca (2007); Poverty to Prosperity; Center for American task force on Poverty;


www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/04/pdf/poverty_report.pdf – Similar pages

Colorado Statewide Homeless Count (2007), School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado, denver.www.dola.state.co.us/cdh/Publications/Winter_2007_Statewide_PIT.pdf – Similar pages

Cook Richard (2007), Poverty in America


www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5905 – 61k – Cached – Similar pages

Corley Mary Ann (2003); Poverty, Racism and Literacy; ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult Career and Vocational Education

Danziger Sheldon (1999), Welfare Reform Policy from Nixon to Clinton, Institute for  for Social Research, University of Michigan.

De Navas-Walt, et al., “Income, Poverty and Health Insurance in the United States: 2005.

Diana Pearce Diana Pearce (1978) “The Feminization of Poverty: Women, Work, and Welfare,” Urban and Social Change Review.

Iceland John (2006); Poverty in America; University of California Press

Isidore Chris (2008); the Trillion-Dollar Mortgage Bomb,


money.cnn.com/2008/04/21/news/economy/fannie_freddie/?postversion=2008042103 – 66k –

James Tobin (1993); Poverty in Relation to macroeconomic Trends, Cycles and Policies; Cowles foundation discussion paper.

                  

Related Virginia State Tax Refund Articles

Taking A Stand – Health Care, Education, And Economy

I believe with strong leadership, hard work and a dedication to problem solving, we can improve the lives of our society and create a new vision for Northern Virginia.

The Economy

There is an enormous need to improve the economic climate within our communities throughout northern Virginia. Thousands of families throughout NOVA are struggling to afford the expenses associated with life, including childcare. To help families within NOVA I support President Obama’s strategy to expand the child and Dependent Care Tax Credit to help provide relief for parents and care givers. Currently only 35 percent of the first ,000 incurred from childcare expenses by a family with one child and a family with two or more children the first ,000. The credit is not refundable, therefore upper-income families unreasonably benefit while families that earn less than ,000 a year obtain less than a third of the tax credit. I advocate reforming the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit to ensure low-income families to receive more credit for their child care debuts.

Additionally, it is imperative that we create training programs for clean technologies.

I advocate for additional funding to expand federal job training programs to include green technologies training, like advanced manufacturing and weatherization training. This type of job training program will help fuel our economy and create sustainable green jobs.

I support President Obama’s plan to help expand lending to small business through tax cuts and assistance to community banks. The program is designed to have billion in returned cash for the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) made available to help smaller banks lend to local businesses. Small businesses are the fabric of our economy it is imperative that we provide financial support to create jobs, ignite entrepreneurship and innovation.

Health Care

The Healthcare system in this country is broken and I will fight to fix the system. The United States pays more than any other industrialized country, yet lacks national coverage for all Americans. At the same time, healthcare is inextricably linked to our future fiscal health. Therefore, in order to reduce costs and improve quality for all Americans, three principles must be met in any legislation that passes congress: (1) national coverage; (2) ending insurance company abuses; (3) providing choice and competition in the market.

To meet these principles healthcare reform must contain several different provisions. First, we must find a plan to increase the number of Americans with healthcare. If done properly, it would expand the insurance pool, include more Americans and reduce the costs of premiums. Second, Americans must be protected from the worst insurance company abuses by ending their practices of denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions, capping total coverage, and dropping or reducing coverage when people get sick and need it the most. Additionally, reform should mandate how much of a patient’s premium must go toward their care, as opposed to the marketing, profits and salaries for insurance companies.

]]>

To provide choice and competition into the market reform should include a national exchange, whereby individuals and small businesses can join together to expand the insurance pool for cheaper insurance. Included within this exchange should be a national option. A national option would be non-profit and have the ability to provide comprehensive care for the best price. Including an American option in the exchange would keep private insurers costs from rising and keep them honest.

To keep health insurance affordable our system must shift to preventative care. For example, if more mobile clinics were put in impoverished and rural community’s potential medical issues could be identified early and treated. This would help to combat the high volume of patients visiting hospitals and help reduce cost. Additionally, we should provide tax credits to small businesses to help healthcare become affordable care. To combat the high volume of patients we should provide more mobile clinics in impoverished communities. Tax credits should also be made available to individuals and families that make below the poverty level. Lastly, waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicare system must be rooted out to keep the long-term stability of our Medicare system for seniors.

Implementing these reforms must be done in order to meet the challenges of our nation. The costs of healthcare are driving more Americans into bankruptcy and making our businesses less competitive to foreign competitors. These reforms would reduce our deficit and begin to get our fiscal house in order. I will be a strong believer in healthcare reform.

Education

Our education system has many issues and in need for solutions to combat challenges that Americans are faced with everyday. Our children are falling behind in comparison to other developing nations. To provide our children with a bright future the United States must be at the forefront of innovation. First, we must support children with special needs and invest in early childhood education, because the period before a child enters into kindergarten is the most critical to their educational development. To attain this goal we must dramatically increase funding for Head Start and other Parent Readiness programs that have proved effective in getting our children ready for their education. Funds must be allocated properly to ensure that classrooms are managed efficiently and effectively.

Second, we must improve our K-12 education system. I talked to many parents across northern Virginia and listen to their concerns about the increasing dropout rate and if American students are being prepared to compete with the world. To achieve this goal, funding must be provided in order to bring technology and up-to-date textbooks into the classrooms. Additionally, we must rebuild crumbling schools and reward teachers based on merit and provide incentives to attract quality teachers. I support the President’s Race To The Top Program and will advocate to reform the No Child Left Behind Act to support schools that need improvement. Additionally, I believe that our school days and hours should be extended, so that our children are getting not only high quality education, but as much education throughout the year as our global competitors.

Third, we must expand access to higher education. The high school education that gave our parents and grandparents a career is simply not enough in today’s fast-developing world. Today, in order to purchase a home, support a family and retire comfortably, a college education is a necessity. Unfortunately, college and other advance training has become unaffordable for many Americans that is why I support expanding Pell grants and tax credits to families to help pay for education.

Expanding these programs will be costly, but they are worth the investment. I believe that government has the responsibility to invest in its future leaders, inventors and communities. We cannot compete globally if we are not developing better products and technologies. Failure is not an option we must improve our educational system, as a member of Congress I will push to refocus our Nation’s effort to strengthening our intellectual capital.

I believe with the right values, dedication, leadership and communication a new vision for Northern Virginia is possible. Let’s make it happen.

Related Virginia State Tax Refund Articles

Sanira Bookkeeping & Financial Services

Sanira Bookkeeping & Financial Services thebookkeepingservices.com Virginia Beach, VA 401(K) Plans , Accelerated Check Refund , Accounting , Accounting Software , Accounts Payable & Receivable , Amended Tax Returns , Asset & Portfolio Management , Assisted Direct Deposit , Auditing , Bank Reconciliations , Bankruptcy Assistance , Bookkeeping , Budgeting & Forecasting , Business Asset Auditing , Business Consulting , Business Planning , Business Services , Business Tax Returns , Business Valuations , Certificates of Deposit , Check Reconciliation , Consultations , Corporate Tax Returns , E-File Status Checking , Electronic Tax Filing , Estate & Probate Settlements , Estate Planning , Extensions & Late Filing , Family Businesses , Federal Tax Returns , Financial Planning , Free Consultations , Individual Retirement Accounts , Individual Tax Returns , Investment Planning , Mergers & Acquisitions , Money Market Funds , Multistate Tax Returns , Non-Profit Auditing , Nonprofit Organizations , Out-of-State Returns , Payroll Administration , Payroll Tax Returns , Personal Bookkeeping , Pick-Up & Delivery Services , Prior Year Tax Returns , Roth Individual Retirement Accounts , Small Business Services , State Tax Returns , Tax Consulting , Tax Forms , Tax Planning , Tax Problem Resolution , Tax Return Preparation , Timekeeping , Training , Utility Bill Auditing , W-2′s , Year-Round Services