Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
(former)FormerSanDiegan
Participant1. For traditional deductible IRAs :
Look at your past tax returns. If you contributed to a deductible IRA you should have claimed a deduction for them2. For traditional non-deductible IRA contributions:
You should have filed Form 8606.3. For ROTH IRA contributions:
There is no form on your tax return. Your financial institution should have the info. A ROTH IRA should be a separate account from your traditional IRA(s).4. Despite instructions otherwise, I would keep ALL my tax return records, particularly Form 8606 for non-deductible IRAs, because this is the only way I know of to prove that the portion has already been taxed.
April 14, 2008 at 8:45 AM in reply to: Small raise, adjusted for inflation, making less than last year #186660Participant0% raise.
SD house prices down 25% over 1.5 years.Look on the bright side …
Those who avoided buying in 2005, with a plan to buy in the future just gave themselves the equivalent of a double-digit raise at some point in the future (assuming one buys, eventually).
April 14, 2008 at 8:45 AM in reply to: Small raise, adjusted for inflation, making less than last year #186681Participant0% raise.
SD house prices down 25% over 1.5 years.Look on the bright side …
Those who avoided buying in 2005, with a plan to buy in the future just gave themselves the equivalent of a double-digit raise at some point in the future (assuming one buys, eventually).
April 14, 2008 at 8:45 AM in reply to: Small raise, adjusted for inflation, making less than last year #186711Participant0% raise.
SD house prices down 25% over 1.5 years.Look on the bright side …
Those who avoided buying in 2005, with a plan to buy in the future just gave themselves the equivalent of a double-digit raise at some point in the future (assuming one buys, eventually).
April 14, 2008 at 8:45 AM in reply to: Small raise, adjusted for inflation, making less than last year #186717Participant0% raise.
SD house prices down 25% over 1.5 years.Look on the bright side …
Those who avoided buying in 2005, with a plan to buy in the future just gave themselves the equivalent of a double-digit raise at some point in the future (assuming one buys, eventually).
April 14, 2008 at 8:45 AM in reply to: Small raise, adjusted for inflation, making less than last year #186723Participant0% raise.
SD house prices down 25% over 1.5 years.Look on the bright side …
Those who avoided buying in 2005, with a plan to buy in the future just gave themselves the equivalent of a double-digit raise at some point in the future (assuming one buys, eventually).
ParticipantFormerSD – Good point about the capital gains tax
Yes, but give DWCAP credit for beating me to it while I edited my post.
ParticipantFormerSD – Good point about the capital gains tax
Yes, but give DWCAP credit for beating me to it while I edited my post.
ParticipantFormerSD – Good point about the capital gains tax
Yes, but give DWCAP credit for beating me to it while I edited my post.
ParticipantFormerSD – Good point about the capital gains tax
Yes, but give DWCAP credit for beating me to it while I edited my post.
ParticipantFormerSD – Good point about the capital gains tax
Yes, but give DWCAP credit for beating me to it while I edited my post.
ParticipantFirst of all, I don’t think there is anything to justify a permanently higher plateau. But I do have a couple observations.
1. Like the tax changes in the 70’s mentioned above there was a significant tax change in 1997 for personal residences. The change is the capital gains tax exclusion on the first 250K (or 500K if married) on the sale of a primary residence.
Over the long term, this could effectively makes a primary residence a little more attractive over the long run, if everything else were equal. I would expect this to raise the ratio slightly (maybe by 5 or 10%) not the 60% increase shown.2. The ratio of an asset price compared to income or rent derived from it can be interest-rate sensitive. For example, one might be happy to pay $100,000 to buy a property that rents at say $1000 per month when bonds or alternative investments are in the 5% range. However, if alternative investments are paying 15%, it doesn’t look so hot. After a long-period of declining interest rates from early 1980s until now I would expect some upward bias in the valuation on your chart. Going forward, I think the trend will at best be flat rates and perhaps significantly higher rates, so this would not help the higher plateau theory.
ParticipantFirst of all, I don’t think there is anything to justify a permanently higher plateau. But I do have a couple observations.
1. Like the tax changes in the 70’s mentioned above there was a significant tax change in 1997 for personal residences. The change is the capital gains tax exclusion on the first 250K (or 500K if married) on the sale of a primary residence.
Over the long term, this could effectively makes a primary residence a little more attractive over the long run, if everything else were equal. I would expect this to raise the ratio slightly (maybe by 5 or 10%) not the 60% increase shown.2. The ratio of an asset price compared to income or rent derived from it can be interest-rate sensitive. For example, one might be happy to pay $100,000 to buy a property that rents at say $1000 per month when bonds or alternative investments are in the 5% range. However, if alternative investments are paying 15%, it doesn’t look so hot. After a long-period of declining interest rates from early 1980s until now I would expect some upward bias in the valuation on your chart. Going forward, I think the trend will at best be flat rates and perhaps significantly higher rates, so this would not help the higher plateau theory.
ParticipantFirst of all, I don’t think there is anything to justify a permanently higher plateau. But I do have a couple observations.
1. Like the tax changes in the 70’s mentioned above there was a significant tax change in 1997 for personal residences. The change is the capital gains tax exclusion on the first 250K (or 500K if married) on the sale of a primary residence.
Over the long term, this could effectively makes a primary residence a little more attractive over the long run, if everything else were equal. I would expect this to raise the ratio slightly (maybe by 5 or 10%) not the 60% increase shown.2. The ratio of an asset price compared to income or rent derived from it can be interest-rate sensitive. For example, one might be happy to pay $100,000 to buy a property that rents at say $1000 per month when bonds or alternative investments are in the 5% range. However, if alternative investments are paying 15%, it doesn’t look so hot. After a long-period of declining interest rates from early 1980s until now I would expect some upward bias in the valuation on your chart. Going forward, I think the trend will at best be flat rates and perhaps significantly higher rates, so this would not help the higher plateau theory.
-
AuthorPosts
