Home » 2010 » June (Page 7)

Medical Billing As A “Work From Home Job” Vs. “Business Ownership”

Medical Billing as a “JOB-Working from home” Vs. “Business Ownership”

As someone who is very involved in the industry today, and follows all news and forums related to the medical billing industry, one constant question seems to continuously come up… “I have completed a course in medical billing and/or coding and I cannot seem to find a job.” Or I hear/see someone saying they have taken or want to take a course in medical billing and then work from home.  Let’s take a realistic look of the probability and job market of a position as a work at home employee for a medical practice.

In today’s economy the unemployment rate is soaring. Businesses in general are making cut-backs in staff, salaries and benefits. Healthcare providers have been feeling these economic crunches for years with cut-backs in Medicare, Medicaid and other insurance carriers. The healthcare crisis in the U.S has been a long-standing issue among providers for quite some time. What benefits will a physician see by hiring someone (as employee) to oversee their revenue and cash-flow? NONE. In fact it will cost the provider MORE and here is why:

Taxes – As an employer, the physician is still libel to pay both state and federal income tax Software/Business Supplies, Equipment – your employer (physician/provider) will be responsible for all equipment/supplies, such as computer, practice management software, internet connection, claim forms, coding books, postage, envelopes, phone lines and fax line. As your “Employer” he/she must legally own these supplies/equipment Liability & Accountability – When you go to work in an office there is a procedure in place, whether it’s punching a clock or just beginning your day at the place of your employment. Asking an employer to just “trust” that you will be there for the hours you are being paid for is asking for instant trust/faith. Add to that the liability that comes with the duties of a medical biller and patient privacy along with HIPAA rules and regulations and you have an employer who has now doubled his liability with someone NOT working within his office. In turn the employer (provider) needs to have additional insurance to protect themselves from errors & omissions. Continued education – This is an ever-changing industry with constant requirements for keeping up on both state and federal mandates in a highly regulated industry. As an employer, he/she would be responsible for such things as seminar attendance, continued education and certification up-keep, coding books, publications, etc.

Now, let’s take another approach and examine the benefits a provider/physician would see if they were to hire a “Third Party Billing Company”:

Everything above that was noted as being the reasons why a physician would NOT hire an employee to work from home…becomes MOOT.

As a business owner you would be responsible for all of the above items.

We cannot say there are NO work-at-home positions out there, because that wouldn’t be honest. But realistically the provider / physician who has an employee working from home MOST LIKELY:

Has a history and good standing with the employee Has extenuating circumstances behind the reasons for allowing the employee to work at home

The fact of the matter is that these circumstances are few and far between.

What’s in it for me if I did start my own business?

GOOD Question, let’s now discuss the BENEFITS of being your OWN business, benefits that are not only for YOU as a business owner, but your “CLIENT” the healthcare provider by reducing his overhead costs, increasing his revenue, and at the same time MAKING YOU MONEY!

Make your own hours – This is probably one of the best perks to being in business for yourself. You can take on as many clients as you want in order to maintain the hours you want to work, what’s better is that you can arrange your schedule around another job, a hobby, or your family. Be your own Boss – Who wouldn’t want to be their own boss? Enough said on that top topic! Set your own Goals – Whether you want to supplement a spouse’s income or grow your business, you get to decide this. If your goal is to be a single business owner/operation you can plan to take only as many clients as you want. If you want to grow your business to create more free time for yourself you can do that as well. Create your own Salary – Another great perk… you decide how much you want to make. You create your fees according to what you want to make and also keeping in mind your competitive market. Creative Freedom – I love this one. A medical billing clerk that works a 40 hour week usually does the same thing day in and day out. As a business owner you can be creative with your job description and the services your business will offer. To be competitive you can offer other services to healthcare providers that ultimately result in an increase in revenue for both YOURSELF and YOUR CLIENT! There are so many additional services a billing company can offer that will not only profit the healthcare provider but provide additional revenue and job stability to the business owner! Security/Stability – This perk will depend on YOU. If you create a goal and a good business plan for success and you maintain a good reputation with your clients, you will have security and along with security you will create the sense of accomplishment most successful business owners strive for. There will always be a need for doctors, people will always be sick and need medical care and with that you can build the success of your business around those securities.

To start your own business you need to first be committed, goal oriented, creative and yes there has to be start-up funds. The success of your business will be what you want out of it and what you put into it.

Now let’s be realistic. One thing I pride myself on is my honesty, pride, and integrity for this industry. It’s one of the reasons I wanted to write this MUCH needed article to hopefully shed some light on the truth behind some of those ad’s that advertise you can make money from home in your pj’s just as soon as you purchase their package! Does that mean all business opportunity packages are bad? No, not at all. A business opportunity can be exactly that… an “Opportunity” to be your own business and it can be profitable The key is to choose the right solution for you, and then going after your goal. Research is vital. Being realistic, and understanding how this business works FIRST is very important and hopefully we have dispelled one of the biggest misconceptions.

This is a great time to start a medical billing company!

I don’t consider myself an expert on economic or political issues; however I have taken an extreme interest in today’s politics given the economic situation we are in.

In the past several months I have spoken with many providers who are feeling the crunch of the economy, many of them cannot afford to add staff and some are now considering outsourced solutions, we are seeing an economic trend like we did in the late 80’s and early 90’s when the home based business market was booming. Its different this time, our overall economy is in danger; the healthcare industry is a mess as it’s been for years, but yet… IT REALLY IS A GREAT TIME TO BE A MEDICAL BILLING COMPANY!

By Linda Walker
Copyright 2009 All rights Reserved, article may not be reprinted w/out express written permission
to link to the article directly, use this URL: http://www.billerswebsite.comjobsvsbiz.htm

Linda Walker is the owner of PMRNC – Practice Managers Resource and Networking Community, an online medical billing resource for medical billers. She has been in the insurance and claims industry for over 20 years.

Posted on June 13, 2010 by , Reply

Some More of our Freedoms Being Chipped Away

This article is a compilation of some quotes from a much larger article (source below), along with commentary from the publisher of ‘elf Expressions Ezine.

“Most Americans are totally unaware of a relentless, 20-year campaign by the United Nations to gain control over land use around the world. Many people believe that the U.N. is a distant, benevolent do-good organization that is expensive, but which has no direct effect on America. Nothing could be further from the truth!”

“Implementation of the U.N.’s land use philosophy is well under way in America, and is now being accelerated through the use of the “collaborative process” using stakeholder councils. The 1973 Endangered Species Act has been expanded administratively to now cover not only endangered species, but the habitat which a listed species may wish to use—even though the habitat may be privately owned. This policy breathes life into the GBA recommendation to extend legal rights to biodiversity. It, in fact, clarifies ‘the principle that biodiversity is not available for U.N.-controlled human use.'”

Read the entire article about the U.N. and property rights at http://sovereignty.freedom.org/p/land/unproprts.htm

“To the framers of the U.S. Constitution, property was as sacred as life and liberty. The inalienable right to own—and control the use of—private property is perhaps the single most important principle responsible for the growth and prosperity of America. It is a right that is being systematically eroded.

“Private ownership of land is not compatible with socialism, communism, or with global governance as described by the United Nations. Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Mao all took steps to forcefully nationalize the land as an essential first step toward controlling their citizens. The U.N., without the use of military force, is attempting to achieve the same result.”

Now get this . . . read the official land policy of the United Nations (and this is just the preamble):

“Land . . . cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable . . . ”

This is a quote from only one of the recommendations of various country members participating in this travesty: “Public ownership or effective control of land in the public interest is the single most important means of . . . achieving a more equitable distribution of the benefits of development whilst assuring that environmental impacts are considered.”

“Excessive profits resulting from the increase in land value due to development and change in use are one of the principal causes of the concentration of wealth in private hands. Taxation should not be seen only as a source of revenue for the community [read government] but also as a powerful tool to encourage development of desirable locations, to exercise a controlling effect on the land market and to redistribute to the public at large . . . ”

“The unearned increment resulting from the rise in land values resulting from change in use of land, from public investment or decision or due to the general growth of the community must be subject to appropriate recapture by public bodies.

“Past patterns of ownership rights should be transformed to match the changing needs of society and be collectively beneficial.”

[“Collectively” is a typical communist term.]

All of this has its basis in the environmental protection arena, whose original intentions were inherently good. Like most every other bureaucracy (governmental or not), however, it has been overdone, exploited, and is far out of proportion to its original intent.

“Propaganda about the loss of biodiversity and the threat of global warming has become rampant from the U.N. on down through all kinds of non-governmental bureaucracies.

“The U.N. also wants to “Encourage the principle of delegating policy-making to the lowest level of public authority consistent with effective action and a locally driven approach.

“Between 1976 and 1992 a new strategy for land use control was devised. It is subtle, sinister, and successful. Read again “Encourage the principle of delegating policy-making to the lowest level of public authority consistent with effective action and a locally driven approach.”

The reference to “public authority” is not to elected city councils or county commissions. No! The reference is to newly constituted “stakeholder councils” or other bodies of “civil society” that consist primarily of professionals functioning as representatives of non-governmental organizations (N.G.O.s) affiliated with national and international N.G.O.s accredited by the United Nations! This strategy is becoming increasingly effective.

You also need to read some other documents produced by the Earth Summit, which directly affect private property rights and land use, e.g., the Convention on Biological Diversity, which authorized the production of the Global Biodiversity Assessment (G.B.A.).

“The G.B.A. is a massive 1,140-page document that supposedly provides the “scientific” basis for implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity and other environmental treaties. It discusses land use extensively (approximately 400 pages). Some of the more poignant revelations:

“Property rights are not absolute and unchanging, but rather a complex, dynamic, and shifting relationship between two or more parties, over space and time.”

“The legal approach to this U.N. view of property rights is discussed in Section 11.3.3.2 (pages 786-787):

“Plants and animals are objects whose degree of protection depends on the value they represent for human beings. Although well intentioned, this specifically anthropocentric view leads directly to the subordination of biological diversity, and to its sacrifice in spite of modern understanding of the advantages of conservation. “We should accept biodiversity as a legal subject and supply it with adequate rights. This could clarify the principle that biodiversity is not available for uncontrolled human use. Contrary to current custom, it would therefore become necessary to justify any interference with biodiversity, and to provide proof that human interests justify the damage caused to biodiversity.”

Now listen to this: “Under the U.N.’s concept of land and resource management, the owner is not even considered as one who may have a right to determine how his land is to be used. It is a higher authority that represents the “community” to whom “proof” must be offered that a proposed use is justified. This process effectively separates the right of ownership from the right of use . . . And who, exactly, is this “higher authority” to whom proof must be presented? The authority envisioned by the U.N. is not local elected officials, but rather local “stakeholder councils” dominated by N.G.O. professionals.”

The election process and representative government created by the U.S. Constitution is clearly unacceptable to these power mongers, which want “civil society” [read: N.G.O. dominated stakeholder councils] “to become the local authority for not only land use decisions, but for a variety of other policy decisions as well.

“Implementation of the U.N.’s land use philosophy is well under way in America, and is now being accelerated through the use of the “collaborative process” using stakeholder councils. The 1973 Endangered Species Act has been expanded administratively to now cover not only endangered species, but the habitat which a listed species may wish to use—even though the habitat may be privately owned. This policy breathes life into the G.B.A. recommendation to extend legal rights to biodiversity. It, in fact, clarifies ‘the principle that biodiversity is not available for uncontrolled human use.’

“Sustainable communities are essential to the concept of land use and resource management envisioned by the Global Biodiversity Assessment and required by the Convention on Biological Diversity.

“Ultimately, if the U.N. plan is realized, at least half of the land area of North America will be converted to wilderness, off limits to human beings. An additional 25% will be controlled by government in collaboration with “civil society” in which individuals will have to prove that a proposed use will not harm biodiversity. Humans are to be relocated into “sustainable communities” that are described as “islands of human habitat” surrounded by natural areas.

“It is now clear that the U.N.’s land use policies, though refined over time, have had a predetermined objective from the very beginning. That objective—as bizarre as it may sound—is to place all land and natural resources under the ultimate authority of the U.N.

“Sadly, American policy has failed to honor the Constitutional commitment to life, liberty, and property. The next four years in America may well be the historic watershed which will be seen by future generations as the point from which the blessings of freedom were shared with the entire world, or the point from which the world began its descent into global tyrrany.”

Well, doesn’t this just make your day? The Government is messing with our basic freedoms guaranteed by our U.S. Constitution, i.e., freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to keep and bear arms, freedom to assemble peaceably, the freedom to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,

[Emphases added]

You may reprint the above article with this info intact:

Article penned by Mary Wilkey, publisher of ‘elf Expressions Ezine:

http://elfexpressionsezine.com

To subscribe, email sub@elfexpressionsezine.com?subject=subscribe

Posted on June 12, 2010 by , Reply

John McCain’s Rage is a National Security Concern


bravenewpac.org During last night’s debate, John McCain said we need “a cool hand at the tiller,” but McCain has proven to be a loose cannon. He has accosted his Congressional colleagues on both sides of the aisle on everything from the federal budget to diplomatic relations. He is known for hurling profanities rather than settling disagreements calmly. His belligerence is legendary. Even conservative Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi has said, “He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me.” When someone earns the nickname “Senator Hothead,” the public ought to call his character into question. McCain’s propensity to explode undermines his abilities as a rational decision maker, particularly on national security issues — which could prove disastrous considering our country is already involved in two wars. McCain’s temper is critical to his decision-making abilities, and his character must be discussed. As Drew Westen writes, “The political brain is an emotional brain. It is not a dispassionate calculating machine, objectively searching for the right facts, figures and policies to make a reasoned decision.” That why it’s so crucial people know the real Senator Hothead.

Posted on June 12, 2010 by , 25 comments

Worship and Church Attendance

The church exists in the city because it has certain specific functions to perform. To maintain public worship, to persuade to definite convictions and inspire to noble conduct, to furnish religious education, and to promote social reform are its essential responsibilities. Worship is a natural attitude to the individual who is prompted by a desire to adjust himself to the universe and to obtain the peace of mind that follows upon the establishment of a right relationship.

To most people it is easier to get into the proper atmosphere and spirit of worship in a public assembly, and they therefore are accustomed to meet at stated intervals and bow side by side as if in kinship together before the Unseen God. Long-established habit and a superstitious fear of the consequences that may follow neglect keep some persons regular in church attendance when they have no sense of spiritual satisfaction in worship. Others go to church because of the social opportunities that are present in any public gathering.

In recent years church attendance has not kept pace with the increasing population of the city. A certain pride of intellect and a feeling of security in the growing power of man over nature has produced an indifference to religion and religious teachers. Multiplicity of other interests overshadows the ecclesiastical interests of the aristocracy; fatigue and hostility to an institution that they think caters to the rich keeps the proletariat at home.

In the city, as in the country, the religious instinct expresses itself socially through the institution of the church . Spiritual force cannot be confined within the limits of a single institution; religion is a dynamic that permeates the life of society; yet in this age of specialization, and especially in a country like the Nigeria, where religion is a voluntary affair, not to be entangled with the school or the State, religion has naturally exerted its influence most directly through the church. Charity and settlement workers are inspired by a religion that makes humanitarianism a part of its creed, and a large majority of them are church members, but as a rule they do not attempt to introduce any religious forms or exercises into their programmes. Most public-school teachers have their religious connections and recognize the important place of religion in moulding character, but religious teaching is not included in the curriculum because of the recognized principle of complete religious liberty and the separation of church and state.

The result has been that religion is not consciously felt as a vital force among many people who are not directly connected with an ecclesiastical institution. Those who are definitely connected with the church in Nigeria contribute voluntarily to its expenses, sometimes even at personal sacrifice. Most people who have little religious interest realize the value of the mere presence of a meeting-house in the community as a reminder of moral obligations and an insurance against disorder. Its spire seems to point the way to heaven, and to make a mute appeal to the best motives and the highest ideals. The decline of the church is, therefore, regarded as a sign of social degeneracy.

Read author’s recent article on Ejaculation.

He also writes for Nigeria Forums and

the Internet Business Blog..

Posted on June 12, 2010 by , Reply

A Better U.s. Constitution?

If you’ve read it, you may have noticed that the U.S. Constitution, in designating how representatives were to be apportioned by population, excluded “untaxed” Indians, and counted each black slave as three fifths of a person. That’s in the first couple paragraphs, by the way. Fortunately it was changed when the 14th amendment was ratified.

Obviously the writers had the prejudices of the times they lived in. The lesson here is that we cannot create a perfect constitution that will stand the test of time. To think so is to think we have nothing to learn. Any document that is so important will need to be changed as we learn more and progress in our political and moral ideas.

Of course it could be dangerous to create an entirely new constitution, given the politics that would go into writing and ratifying it. Still, if we were to do so, what should it include? I can think of many changes that I would like to see, including an electoral process that is less based on geography and more on citizens political beliefs. In such a system, representatives would be elected not by districts but by voters across the country who share common political causes or goals.

But apart from the specific provisions throughout a new constitution, there is one important change that I would like to see right up front: A declaration of purpose and intent. The current document governing the United States is vague enough that there are many “gray” areas. The result is laws that may or may not be unconstitutional, based on differing interpretations. Differing interpretations are inevitable to some extent, but a clearer statement of purpose would resolve much of the confusion. An example follows.

A New Constitution – Preamble

“The government of the United States has only the powers specified in this constitution, and may not do anything which is not explicitly authorized by this document. The intent of this document is to protect the rights of individuals within the country, both citizens and all others, and that is the only valid purpose of government. When the United States government acts outside its borders, it must still act in accordance with this constitution, and refrain from violating the rights of individuals. This is in recognition that rights are not a gift of government, or an earned privilege, but are inherent in every human being.”

The idea here is to state plainly what the intent of the constitution is and what the proper purpose of the government is. This makes it much easier to determine when a law is allowable or unconstitutional. Combined with the clear enumeration of powers laid out in the rest of the document, there would be much less room for mis-interpretation than there currently is.

It also makes it clear that rights are not a matter of citizenship. Any and all who are within the jurisdiction of the government are to have their rights respected and protected. Also, the government cannot violate an individual’s rights just because that person is not within the borders of the country.

Finally, this preamble states that government power is limited. The current United States Constitution is supposed to do this as well, but is vague in many ways. A new constitution should state plainly what the government is allowed to do, and should require that all new laws specify the constitutional clause that authorizes them. This will prevent much of our useless legislation, and help prevent an abuse of power on the part of the government.

Copyright Steve Gillman. For a look at what else might be in a New Constitution, visit: http://www.999ideas.com/new-constitution.html

Posted on June 12, 2010 by , Reply

QUEDOS Launch Panel – Government: Transparency and Freedom of Information [Part 1 of 4]


Sir Nicholas Montagu [Chair], Professor Michele Barrett and Professor Wayne Parsons

Posted on June 11, 2010 by , Reply

Non Profit Organizations and Church Grants

Many non profit organizations do not consider the idea of using church grants as a viable way to fund their ministries. Some local parishes don’t accept monies from the government or other outside sources because they may be afraid there will be strings attached. At the same time, other churches may not be aware that this type of funding is available to them. There is a recent initiative designed to aid in expanding the role that churches and not for profit groups take in social problems that our nation faces.

Churches who apply for grants from the government should start whenever they decide to write a grant proposal, because, like anything dealing with the government, the application process tends to be drawn out and fraught with red tape. When some groups prepare to request church grants, it may take as long as six weeks to put together all the information they will need. Companies like Here-4 You Consulting have made it their mission to assist your parish or group in applying for grants that are available. They generally charge a fee that will equal a relatively small percentage of the monies your church or group might receive.

Many of the grants that your group applies for can’t be used to run the day to day operations of a church. These monies are not to be used to pay rentals on buildings, or utility bills. The free church grants that you may qualify for may be given to you only if you have a specific need. For example, if you are trying to start a new at-risk children’s ministry, the grants may be there to help you. The money can help you start up a program like this.

In the United States, the former president started a program for faith-based grants. These would offer federal funding to charitable and religious groups who need it. Some people view this as controversial, and possibly bridging the supposed gap between church and state, since churches are usually already tax-free.

Church grants can be quite helpful, as long as you handle them correctly. Some volunteers and church members may be a little too eager to spend new grant monies, especially if your group was cash-strapped before you received the grant. Make sure that your church members and employees understand that the grant money must be properly allocated, and only spent for the programs you specified when you wrote the grant proposal.

Here-4-You Consulting are part of NPFunds.com. They are specialists in acquiring church grants within the Christian community.
Ann Smithson is a writer for www.npfunds.com who has experience in the financial sector.

Posted on June 11, 2010 by , Reply

Latest Equality Vs Freedom Auctions

Hey, check out these auctions:
[eba kw=”Equality vs Freedom” num=”2″ ebcat=”all”]
Cool, arent they?

Posted on June 11, 2010 by , Reply

Shami Chakrabarti – Defend Freedom of Religion Rally


Shami Chakrabarti (Director of Liberty) Defend Freedom of Religion, Conscience and Thought Rally. 20th November 2006. Organised by BMI and Liberty. For more information, please go to www.bminitiative.net

Posted on June 11, 2010 by , 25 comments

401(K) vs IRA

Today’s marketplace offers lots of choices in terms of retirement planning vehicles. The 401(k) (or 403(b) for the nonprofit sector) and Individual Retirement Account (IRA) are two of the most common. While they share some similarities, the differences are more important for the impact they could have on the growth of your retirement funds. However, though the differences are clear, the question of which type of account is better does not have a clear answer. As you will see below, some features of the accounts may be perceived by some as advantages and as disadvantages by others. Investment preferences and retirement are personal matters, so you should weigh the options carefully before you choose an account that makes the most sense for you. In fact, if you can afford to contribute to both types of accounts, you should do so to round out your investment portfolio.

Tax advantages

The most obvious and impressive similarity between a 401(k) and IRA is the tax benefit. Money placed in both types of accounts is tax free until you withdraw and use it. More accurately, it is tax deferred. You defer the tax until you use the money. The same is true for money earned by these accounts-until you take it out, you don’t have to pay income tax on the earnings. Recent tax law changes also allow tax credits for certain types of IRAs under specific conditions. Check with your tax professional to see if opening an IRA to take advantage of such credits would be beneficial for you.

The tax benefits of an IRA are income-dependent. If you make more than an allowed amount in a given year, your contributions to your IRA may not bring any tax advantage at all. Furthermore, IRA contributions may not be fully deductible if you contribute to a 401(k) in addition to your IRA. Once again, it is smart to check with a tax professional so that you can plan your retirement contributions to maximize your tax benefits.

There is also a down side to these tax benefits. If you withdraw money from your IRA or 401(k) before you reach age 59 (and one half!), you will not only have to pay tax on the amount you withdraw, but will most likely be stuck with an early withdrawal penalty as well. The safest route is to not touch these accounts until you retire. If you must tap these funds, do so only with the advice of a tax professional so you are not surprised by unpleasant notices from the IRS come April 15.

Contribution Limits

Because the money you put into retirement accounts is tax deferred, the IRS limits the amount you may stash away. The amounts change based on your age and the rate of inflation (and the whims of Congress), but generally, $2,000 is the limit for IRAs and approximately $10,000 is the limit for 401(k) plans. Learn the rules and limits and consult with an adviser to learn how to maximize the tax advantages available to you.

Employee Benefit vs Individual Account

The biggest difference is simply that a 401(k) is offered as part of an employee benefits package, while an IRA is owned and administered by the individual account holder. This difference accounts for one of the major advantages of a 401(k) over an IRA: your employer usually matches your contribution to your plan up to a given percentage. For instance, if your contribute 2% of your pay to your 401(k) each pay period, your employer might match your contributions, essentially doubling your money. For many people, this benefit alone is reason enough to choose a 401(k) over an IRA if they must choose one or the other.

Freedom of Choice

There are also disadvantages inherent in the company ownership of the 401(k). Because more than one person owns funds in the overall account, a third party, usually an insurance company or other financial institution, administers the account. This results in less freedom for you in administrative options, such as changing, starting, or stopping contributions and in how your funds are allocated. For instance, company 401(k) plans might offer 10 mutual funds to which you can distribute your money out of the many thousands that are available. Because you are the sole owner and administrator of an IRA, by contrast, you can place the money in any investment vehicle for which you’re qualified. That freedom is essential for hands-on types who prefer to manage their own affairs and accept credit or blame for success and failure.

For some, this freedom is not an advantage at all; some people do not want to trouble themselves with asset allocation and mutual fund performance. If that describes you, a 401(k) would better serve your needs because your employer’s plan likely has an account manager watching its performance to maximize security and returns.

Whatever your preference, you are not limited to one choice or the other. Many people have both a 401(k) through their employers and an IRA. If you can afford it, contribute the maximum allowable amounts to both accounts. You’ll enjoy the tax advantages now and will be better prepared for retirement in the future.

Workforce Solutions – Human Resource Outsourcing is located in Utah and provides HR outsourcing services such as retirement benefits, payroll processing, etc. Learn more about 401 k vs. IRA.

Posted on June 11, 2010 by , Reply
First « 56789 » Last