what is the point of the part b late enrollment penalty?
"The point of the enrollment penalty is basically the same as the ACA penalty.  Any sort of health insurance - or really, any insurance - is funded by creating a risk pool of high and low risk people and pricing it so that the overall payments cover the total risk.   That means, however, that on average the low risk people end up paying more than their share - more than it would have cost them, without the insurance, excepting any provider agreements to charge less (which is significant in the health insurance business).  (Of course some of them do end up using more than they pay - but not on average, assuming the risk was calculated accurately.) While there isn't really a completely low risk pool in Medicare, there is a significant difference in utilization (=cost) between younger (65-70) and older enrollees.  As such, for many health 65 year olds, it would be beneficial to not enroll in Medicare right away - delay a few years, if they're fully healthy, and wait until they are less healthy.  Since Medicare won't turn you away for pre-existing conditions, that's a risk some would take. In order to accommodate for that, Medicare effectively says, ""If you didn't help subsidize the costs of the high users when you were younger, you need to pay more to make up for that fact"" - hence the enrollment penalty.   The New York Times explains this in part in a 2006 article discussing Part D (which was new that year, and has a similar penalty): The purpose of the late enrollment penalty is to encourage people to   sign up as soon as possible, before they have significant drug costs."
To round out something that @Chris W. Rea pointed out, the business that a REIT is in will be either A) Equity REIT... property management, B) mortgage REIT... lending, or C) hybrid REIT (both).  A very key point about why REITs broadly have been struggling lately, (and this would show up in the REIT indices/ETFs you've linked to,) is linked to the REIT business models.  For an Equity REIT, they borrow money at the going rate (let's say ~4.5% for commercial-scale loans), and use that to take out mortgages on physical properties. If a property rents for $15K per month, and they can take out a $1.8 million loan at $9,000 per month, then their business is around managing maintenance, operating expenses, and taxes on that $6,000 per month margin. For a mortgage REIT, they borrow funds as a highly qualified borrower, (again let's say ~4.5%), and lend those funds back out at a higher rate. The basic concept is that if you borrow $10 million at 4.5% for 30 years, you need to pay it back at $50,668 per month. If you can lend it out reliably at 5%, you collect $53,682 per month... a handy $3,000 per month. The cheaper you can get money at (below 4.5%) and the higher you can lend it at (above 5%), the better your margin is.  The worry is that both REIT business models are very highly dependent on the cost of borrowing money. With the US Fed changing its bond-buying/QE/stimulus activity, the prevailing interest rates are likely to go up. While this has its benefits (inflation), it also will make it more expensive for these types of companies to do business. "There's no such thing as ""leniency"" when enforcing the law. Not knowing the law, as you have probably heard, is not a valid legal defence. Tax law is a law like any other. That said, some penalties and fines can be abated if the error was done in good faith and due to a reasonable cause. First time penalties can be abated in many cases assuming you're compliant otherwise (for example - first time late filing penalty can be abated if you're compliant in the last 5 years. Not many people know about that.). Examples for a reasonable cause (from the IRS IRM 20.1.1): Reliance on the advice of a tax advisor generally relates to the   reasonable cause exception in IRC 6664(c) for the accuracy-related   penalty under IRC 6662. See IRM 20.1.5, Return Related Penalties, and If the taxpayer does not meet the criteria for penalty relief under   IRC 6404(f), the taxpayer may qualify for other penalty relief. For   instance, taxpayers who fail to meet all of the IRC 6404(f) criteria   may still qualify for relief under reasonable cause if the IRS   determines that the taxpayer exercised ordinary business care and   prudence in relying on the IRS’s written advice. IRM 20.1.1.3.2.2.5 -   Erroneous Advice or Reliance.   Treas. Reg. 1.6664–4(c). There are more. IRM is the ""Internal Revenue Manual"" - the book of policies for the IRS agents.  Of course, you should seek a professional advice when you're non-compliant and want to ask for abatement and become compliant again. Talk to a CPA/EA licensed in your state." I can't address Indian law but US law has no problems with you having savings accounts in India.  Furthermore, there are no tax consequences from paying off the student loan. However there is big problem here--while the US has no rules against foreign bank accounts it has reporting rules that you certainly have violated (if you hadn't violated them you wouldn't be asking the question.) 1)  Those foreign bank accounts must be listed on your tax return. 2)  Those foreign bank accounts must be listed on a PDF that's filed with the (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.  (Yes, it's very stupid they need identical information sent to two different departments.) 2)  The interest you earned on that bank account is income that should have been reported on your return. As for what to do about it--this is the realm where you get professional help.  As for the outcome--since you didn't set out to cheat they have a much less harsh system set up.  Expect to amend your 2012 and 2013 returns (and 2014 if you've already filed it), pay interest and late-payment penalties on the additional tax caused by the interest and pay a penalty of 5% of the highest total value of the accounts. Since the discovery of large amounts of money being hidden from the taxman in Swiss bank accounts Congress has gone 1000# gorilla about it and been pressuring foreign banks to cough up the details on any US-citizen or US-resident depositors. Mortgages with a prepayment penalty usually do not charge points as a condition of issue. The points, usually in the range 1%-3% of the amount borrowed, are paid from the buyer's funds at the settlement, and are effectively the prepayment penalty.  Once upon a time (e.g. 30 years ago), in some areas,  buyers had a choice of  This last option usually had a higher interest rate than the first two. It was advantageous for a buyer to accept this option if the buyer was sure that the mortgage would indeed be paid off in a short time, e.g. because a windfall of some kind (huge bonus, big inheritance, a killing in the stock market, a successful IPO) was anticipated, where the higher interest charged for only a few years did not make much of a difference. Taking this third option and hanging on to the mortgage over the full 15 or 20 or 25 or 30 year term would have been a very poor choice. I do not know if all three options are still available in the current mortgage market. The IRS treats points for original morttgages and points for re-financed mortgages differently for the purposes of Schedule A deductions. Points paid on an original mortgage are deductible as mortgage interest in the year paid, whereas points paid on a refinance must be amortized over the life of the loan so that the mortgage interest deduction is the sum of the interest paid in the monthly payments plus a fraction of the points paid for the refinance. The undeducted part of the points get deducted in the year that the mortgage is paid off early (or refinanced again). Prepayment penalties are, of course, deductible as mortgage interest in the year of the prepayment. "I'm in a similar situation. First, a 529 plan can be use for ""qualifying"" international schools.  There are 336 for 2015, which includes many well known schools but also excludes many schools, especially lower level or vocational schools and schools in non-English speaking countries. I ran 3 scenarios to see what the impact would be if you invested $3000 a year for 14 years in something tracking the S&P 500 Index: For each of these scenarios, I considered 3 cases: a state with 0% income tax, a state with the median income tax rate of 6% for the 25% tax bracket, and California with an income tax rate of 9.3% for the 25% tax bracket. California has an addition 2.5% penalty on unqualified distributions.  Additionally, tax deductions taken on contributions that are part of unqualified distributions will be viewed as income and that portion of the distribution will be taxed as such at the state level. Vanguard's 500 Index Portfolio has a 10 year average return of 7.63%.  Vanguard's S&P 500 Index fund has a 10 year average return of 7.89% before tax and 7.53% after taxes on distributions. Use a 529 as intended: Use a 529 but do not use as intended: Invest in a S&P 500 Index fund in a taxable account: Given similar investment options, using a 529 fund for something other than education is much worse than having an investment in a mutual fund in a taxable account, but there's also a clear advantage to using a 529 if you know with certainty you can use it for qualified expenses.  Both the benefits for correct use of a 529 and the penalties for incorrect use increase with state tax rates. I live in a state with no income tax so the taxable mutual fund option is closer to the middle between correct and incorrect use of a 529.  I am leaning towards the investment in a taxable account." None of the 'solutions' to lowered enrollment included closing for-profit schools to increase enrollment in schools that are accredited and cost a lot less. Many for -profit schools are only money pits for the student loans and grants and don't graduate students or provide real skills for the workplace. Then, students are left with huge loans and no way to pay. I would imagine that it goes beyond purpose and also addresses the demographic as a poor credit risk. Those seeking a post secondary education are a poor credit risk.  They are at the beginning of their careers so tend to have low income, a short credit history, and a very short time of managing money on their own.  Also many don't know how to work.  This later fact, to me, is a great predictor of financial success. Reading into the financial data surrounding student loans, it pretty easy to see that this demographic makes poor money decisions.  I live near a state university.  A large percentage of students drive late model luxury cars, frequent expensive bars and restaurants, and wear pretty nice clothes.  They also graduate with, on average 60K in student loans.  Keep in mind a 4 year degree could be had for about 30K and could be paid for working a part time job.  And that, to me, is the wisdom in bank's decision.  Sure they will loan you all the money you want with a government guarantee.  However, once that disappears they will not you money for unnecessary purposes. Note that this study isn't tracking graduates, just enrollment. Thomas Sowell pointed out that drop-out rates are higher for black Americans in many colleges, and believes that affirmative action is actually to blame - many of these upper tier institutions have lower academic requirements for black Americans applying, so these individuals are, on average, less prepared for that level to college, and drop out. He also felt that these students probably would have been prepared for an institution with lower requirements, and questioned whether it's better to drop out of Harvard or graduate from Brown. If you're saddled with a ton of debt and *also* don't have a degree to show for it, I'd say it's much more likely you're going to have trouble paying it off.  I wonder what the figures for black graduates looks like compared to white graduates? If black graduates are at a payoff rate comparable to that of white graduates, I think that would be a fairly telling piece of evidence that it's not, in fact, about race - but about whether or not you graduated at all.