[SK in CV]

More people of non-working age in the population. More (under 18, (or under 22 if they’re in college) and not actively looking for a job, more full retirement age retirees, more early retirement retirees) as a percentage of the entire population. Much of the decline in the participation rate over the last decade has been a result of shifting demographics as opposed to a structural change to employment rates. The participation rate peaked around 1990 as all baby boomers entered the work force and the stay-at-home-moms all but disappeared. It was flat for a decade until 2000, when the oldest baby boomers started to retire early. We’re about 10 years away from the youngest baby boomers hitting retirement age. The current trend (since 2000) is (and was) predictable based on demographics, irrespective of changes in the economy.

[SK in CV]

[quote=harvey][quote=svelte][quote=harvey]

“The left” is not CNN. It’s not the people who post in the comments section of a news article.

[/quote]

CNN is most definitely on the left. I can tell you that for sure.[/quote]

Whoosh![/quote]

Well…if he says so. For sure.

[SK in CV]

[quote=kev374]The 21% jump in the stock market is because the fool has promised ….[/quote]

Market’s not up 21%. S&P is up less than 10%. NASDAQ up about 16%.

[SK in CV]

Mello Roos is a method of financing infrastructure in CA. Not essential, but it works for developers in CA.

I think that HOA’s are pretty much a function of whether there is common area. They do afford a developer a method of control over their project until it is fully or almost fully sold, I’m not sure that’s the main motivation for creation. It’s also a regional thing.

[SK in CV]

There was an additional and better article, or may have been a series of tweets, written by the same guy, better identifying the TSD as a subspecies of your ordinary douchebag. All characters from Scorsese films. Think Joe Pesci in Goodfellas. Normal people see them as an exaggeration, and aberration. TSD’s see them as role models.

[SK in CV]

Who will work for Trump?

More TSD’s (Tri State Douchebags)

https://newrepublic.com/article/144103/trump-mooch-rise-new-york-douchebag

[SK in CV]

Who will work for Trump?

More TSD’s (Tri State Douchebags)

https://newrepublic.com/article/144103/trump-mooch-rise-new-york-douchebag

[SK in CV]

[quote=no_such_reality]SK, let me check if I’m following.

Come time for me to start taking my minimum withdrawals, the only thing that matters is the balances on my ROTh accounts versus my non-ROTH accounts at the government appointed date.

Regardless of were I withdraw the money, if I have $200K in ROTH and $800K in IRA, by tax basis on any money taken from those accounts will be 80% taxable as if it came from the IRA, even if I take it all from the IRA (or ROTH).

The next year, the ratio is again checked, and the new ratio used.

Assuming laws remain the same. Do I have that about right?[/quote]

No. Roths and traditional IRAs are treated entirely separately.

I think maybe I wasn’t clear enough about non-deductible contributions. Those are NOT the same as Roth contributions. For taxpayer who have made non-deductible contributions to traditional IRA accounts, the important numbers are total FMV of all IRAs and amount of non-deductible TRADITIONAL IRA contributions.

Roths are treated by an entirely different set of rules. Very simple if the Roth’s have been around for 5 years or more and distributions are after age 59 1/2, then all tax free (which makes them qualifying distributions). Non-qualifying distributions are a little more complicated, but generally, non-deductible contributions come out first, rather than ratably.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen]Then you are saying that the form wording disagrees or is in dispute with the actual laws governing the reporting? Are you saying that the form instructions are in disagreement with the actual laws governing reporting? The reason why they only want changes is because it (the amounts you report) is being tracked by the IRS. I don’t see how it proves that you have maintained the records – though maybe I am a weird case since I have all my tax records back to at least 1987. If the forms and instructions effectively state file ‘only’ on change, the IRS is on a weak foot legally should they expect more. Are most of the people you are filing for in a position where they are drawing down IRAs? Maybe you are just being more thorough, but I don’t see any ‘requirement’ for the every year filing unless changes – conversely I see support for the argument for filing only on change:

[/quote]

Based on my experience of teaching classes for CPA’s and EAs on on how to report retirement income for the last decade, and preparing somewhere around 12,000 returns over the last 40 years, I’m telling you what the law is.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen]Oh yes, a nit to pick –
[quote=SK in CV]Those cumulative non-deductible contributions are supposed to be reported on tax returns every year (on form 8606), even if no new non-deductible contributions have been made for the tax year.[/quote]
[/quote]

Pick away. You’re wrong, irrespective of your limited reading of the instructions. Basis of non-deductible IRA’s, net of prior year cost recovery, is reported on line 2 of form 8606. It is practically the only proof that the IRS will accept that you’ve maintained the records. They (The form 8606) can, in fact, be filed as a stand alone form. You can file them late all the way back to 1995, though it’s conceivably possible for failure to file penalties to be assessed. I’ve never seen that penalty assessed for a late filed 8606. I have prepared dozens for clients, in order to fix their improperly prepared returns.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen]
The cumulative deductible and non deductible contribs are also reported to IRS by brokerage. [/quote]
No, they aren’t. Ever. Brokers have no way of knowing whether you’ve deducted IRA contributions. So no, it’s not possible. They do report FMV, on form 5398, due in May each year.

[quote=ucodegen]
While your have to do your schedule-D with your calc’d basis, and manage carry-over losses, records of types of IRA contribs(post vs pre tax) etc, the IRS now runs a shadow record on incomes near $100,000/yr and up to ensure tax compliance on higher income individuals. I had the IRS correct me on a stock basis, the only way the IRS could have known was to have the record of stock transaction when I bought it a few years earlier [/quote]

IRA distributions aren’t reported on Sched D. Ever. IRS requirements for brokerages recently (maybe 4 years ago) increased to require reporting of basis of securities which are sold in non-retirement accounts. The IRS does not keep the info of your purchases every year. Brokers report the basis (if available) of what you sold every year. This has nothing to do with IRA distributions.

The IRS runs matching programs on all returns, irrespective of income. If income that was reported on 1099’s or W-2’s or other income/deduction reporting isn’t consistent with what was reported on returns, correction letters are issued if the amount is sufficient. They’ve been doing this for decades. This also has nothing to do with recovering non-deductible IRA contributions.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen]The problem is that you have to take the brokerages record as gospel, and I have had a problem on a Rollover that I had to correct. Not all brokerages may create the problem that I had (was the source not destination acct) and it probably depends which source has the post-tax(for likelihood for it to occur). The IRS takes the brokerage’s numbers over yours. Fore-burned, forewarned. It is not guaranteed that you will have the same problem as I.

Using your numbers, what happened was that the post tax contrib of $50,000 became 0/500,000 non taxable, instead of 50,000/450,000. I caught it fairly quickly though.[/quote]

There was nothing for you to catch. The only brokerage numbers that are important are the FMV of the accounts as of 12/31 of the year prior to distribution. The brokerages do not report cumulative deductible or non-deductible contributions. That’s taxpayers’ responsibility. Those cumulative non-deductible contributions are supposed to be reported on tax returns every year (on form 8606), even if no new non-deductible contributions have been made for the tax year.

[SK in CV]

[quote=flu]
The only reason why I wanted I keep money rolled from a traditional 401k into a separate rollover IRA account different from an IRA account that I contributed to with after tax dollars is because for me i thought it would be easier when I start taking distributions for it. I can assume account X is entirely pretax contributions while account B is with after tax contributions…in case I get more senile in my old age.[/quote]

Only 2 numbers are important to figure out how much is taxable when you begin taking distributions. The FMV of ALL your IRA’s as of 12/31 of the prior year and dollar amount of non-deductible contributions. Earnings in one account v another is immaterial.

If you put $5000 in non-deductible contributions 10 times into 1 account and it never earned a dime for 10 years and is still exactly $50,000, and also have a $400,000 rollover IRA, distributions will be 50,000/450,000 non taxable for the 1st distribution, no matter which account it comes from.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen][quote=SK in CV][quote=ucodegen]Train:

[SK in CV]

Oy. Don’t follow advice from people on the internet that don’t know what the F they’re talking about.

It does not matter whether you roll the 401K into an existing or a brand new IRA account. The computation for recovering non-deductible contributions is exactly the same. Having a separate IRA for the rollover won’t change anything.

There could be difference with the Roth 401k, but only having to do with the 5 year rule, and the order in which non-qualifying distributions are treated. (Non-qualifying distributions are those made before age 59 1/2 and/or less than 5 years after the Roth was created.) If all accounts were begun (Roth 401K and regular contributory Roth) more than 5 years before distributions and all distributions are after age 59 1/2, then it won’t make any difference.

[Author]

Posts