Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
UCGal
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]I’m not assuming all boomer parent’s are liquid and free and clear BUT some are. Some leave bills and some leave inheritances some of which are small and some are large. I know of some that left nothing but because of how I grew up I happen to know more that will leave plenty for children who are already very successful in their own rights. Its all over the board and I just want to make sure we look at things in balanced approach. Not everyone is leaving behind bills. I have a client right now whose father was a retired marine that liked to pick up beat up old houses and units around North Park. He was a tough as nails no nonsense guy that you would see at Home depot and think nothing of him. He just passed last year and left his two kids (in their 50’s) apartment complexes , land, houses, and 2 to 4 unit properties. We are working on selling some properties as he didnt have much other assets and owes the IRS about $1M in estate taxes. After that the kids will live off the rental income comfortably for the rest of their lives. Fr everyone of him there are a handful not like like him but thats not the point. The point is there are a good number of folks like him too.[/quote]
Bummer for his kids he didn’t die this year… it was/is the estate tax free year. But last year was still pretty good… 3.5M excluded… unfortunately anything above that was taxed at a 45% rate. His kids are sitting pretty if the estate was somewhere around 5.7M (to get an estate tax of 1M). It’s a shame they have to sell some of the holdings to pay the taxes. But it sounds like there will be plenty left when it’s all over.Participant[quote=sdrealtor]I’m not assuming all boomer parent’s are liquid and free and clear BUT some are. Some leave bills and some leave inheritances some of which are small and some are large. I know of some that left nothing but because of how I grew up I happen to know more that will leave plenty for children who are already very successful in their own rights. Its all over the board and I just want to make sure we look at things in balanced approach. Not everyone is leaving behind bills. I have a client right now whose father was a retired marine that liked to pick up beat up old houses and units around North Park. He was a tough as nails no nonsense guy that you would see at Home depot and think nothing of him. He just passed last year and left his two kids (in their 50’s) apartment complexes , land, houses, and 2 to 4 unit properties. We are working on selling some properties as he didnt have much other assets and owes the IRS about $1M in estate taxes. After that the kids will live off the rental income comfortably for the rest of their lives. Fr everyone of him there are a handful not like like him but thats not the point. The point is there are a good number of folks like him too.[/quote]
Bummer for his kids he didn’t die this year… it was/is the estate tax free year. But last year was still pretty good… 3.5M excluded… unfortunately anything above that was taxed at a 45% rate. His kids are sitting pretty if the estate was somewhere around 5.7M (to get an estate tax of 1M). It’s a shame they have to sell some of the holdings to pay the taxes. But it sounds like there will be plenty left when it’s all over.Participant[quote=bearishgurl]Many of our “greatest-generation” and “depression-era” parents had their retirement funds tied up in 401K or 403(b)-type vehicles and died too young or without sufficient notice to move it all out of there while they were alive, well and eligible. Therefore, if their baby-boomer children inherit these funds and are under age 59-1/2, the funds can only be moved over to the heirs’ SSN WITHOUT WITHDRAWALS until they are age-eligible, unless they are willing to pay a 20% penalty for early withdrawal.
[/quote]
I apologize for the hijack but I need to correct this.If the parent had started collecting on their 401k/IRA funds then the child does NOT have to cash out and there is NO 20% penalty. I know this from first hand experience. As mentioned previously, my parents have both passed and I inherited a small amount from them. The bulk was in IRA/401k money.
The adult child beneficiary has a “required minimum distribution” (RMD) that is based on the CHILD’s age and must withdraw that amount each year. They pay NORMAL income tax on it, no penalty. They CAN withdraw the entire amount – but that would mean they have to pay taxes on the entire amount (typically a higher rate than just adding the RMD to other sources of income) and they’d lose the tax deferred status of any money withdrawn.
The 20% penalty is NOT there for inherited tax deferred retirement funds. It is like an IRA that you can withdraw and pay normal income taxes – just doing it before you are 59.5.
If the beneficiary is the wife of the deceased the rules are a bit different. I only did the research on the adult child beneficiary case since that’s the one that applied to me.
Too many people cash out inherited IRAs without considering the tax advantage of keeping it tax deferred.
Google “inherited IRA” and you’ll find the details, calculators for determining the RMD each year, etc.
I hope this info helps someone avoid costly misunderstandings.
End hijack.Participant[quote=bearishgurl]Many of our “greatest-generation” and “depression-era” parents had their retirement funds tied up in 401K or 403(b)-type vehicles and died too young or without sufficient notice to move it all out of there while they were alive, well and eligible. Therefore, if their baby-boomer children inherit these funds and are under age 59-1/2, the funds can only be moved over to the heirs’ SSN WITHOUT WITHDRAWALS until they are age-eligible, unless they are willing to pay a 20% penalty for early withdrawal.
[/quote]
I apologize for the hijack but I need to correct this.If the parent had started collecting on their 401k/IRA funds then the child does NOT have to cash out and there is NO 20% penalty. I know this from first hand experience. As mentioned previously, my parents have both passed and I inherited a small amount from them. The bulk was in IRA/401k money.
The adult child beneficiary has a “required minimum distribution” (RMD) that is based on the CHILD’s age and must withdraw that amount each year. They pay NORMAL income tax on it, no penalty. They CAN withdraw the entire amount – but that would mean they have to pay taxes on the entire amount (typically a higher rate than just adding the RMD to other sources of income) and they’d lose the tax deferred status of any money withdrawn.
The 20% penalty is NOT there for inherited tax deferred retirement funds. It is like an IRA that you can withdraw and pay normal income taxes – just doing it before you are 59.5.
If the beneficiary is the wife of the deceased the rules are a bit different. I only did the research on the adult child beneficiary case since that’s the one that applied to me.
Too many people cash out inherited IRAs without considering the tax advantage of keeping it tax deferred.
Google “inherited IRA” and you’ll find the details, calculators for determining the RMD each year, etc.
I hope this info helps someone avoid costly misunderstandings.
End hijack.Participant[quote=bearishgurl]Many of our “greatest-generation” and “depression-era” parents had their retirement funds tied up in 401K or 403(b)-type vehicles and died too young or without sufficient notice to move it all out of there while they were alive, well and eligible. Therefore, if their baby-boomer children inherit these funds and are under age 59-1/2, the funds can only be moved over to the heirs’ SSN WITHOUT WITHDRAWALS until they are age-eligible, unless they are willing to pay a 20% penalty for early withdrawal.
[/quote]
I apologize for the hijack but I need to correct this.If the parent had started collecting on their 401k/IRA funds then the child does NOT have to cash out and there is NO 20% penalty. I know this from first hand experience. As mentioned previously, my parents have both passed and I inherited a small amount from them. The bulk was in IRA/401k money.
The adult child beneficiary has a “required minimum distribution” (RMD) that is based on the CHILD’s age and must withdraw that amount each year. They pay NORMAL income tax on it, no penalty. They CAN withdraw the entire amount – but that would mean they have to pay taxes on the entire amount (typically a higher rate than just adding the RMD to other sources of income) and they’d lose the tax deferred status of any money withdrawn.
The 20% penalty is NOT there for inherited tax deferred retirement funds. It is like an IRA that you can withdraw and pay normal income taxes – just doing it before you are 59.5.
If the beneficiary is the wife of the deceased the rules are a bit different. I only did the research on the adult child beneficiary case since that’s the one that applied to me.
Too many people cash out inherited IRAs without considering the tax advantage of keeping it tax deferred.
Google “inherited IRA” and you’ll find the details, calculators for determining the RMD each year, etc.
I hope this info helps someone avoid costly misunderstandings.
End hijack.Participant[quote=bearishgurl]Many of our “greatest-generation” and “depression-era” parents had their retirement funds tied up in 401K or 403(b)-type vehicles and died too young or without sufficient notice to move it all out of there while they were alive, well and eligible. Therefore, if their baby-boomer children inherit these funds and are under age 59-1/2, the funds can only be moved over to the heirs’ SSN WITHOUT WITHDRAWALS until they are age-eligible, unless they are willing to pay a 20% penalty for early withdrawal.
[/quote]
I apologize for the hijack but I need to correct this.If the parent had started collecting on their 401k/IRA funds then the child does NOT have to cash out and there is NO 20% penalty. I know this from first hand experience. As mentioned previously, my parents have both passed and I inherited a small amount from them. The bulk was in IRA/401k money.
The adult child beneficiary has a “required minimum distribution” (RMD) that is based on the CHILD’s age and must withdraw that amount each year. They pay NORMAL income tax on it, no penalty. They CAN withdraw the entire amount – but that would mean they have to pay taxes on the entire amount (typically a higher rate than just adding the RMD to other sources of income) and they’d lose the tax deferred status of any money withdrawn.
The 20% penalty is NOT there for inherited tax deferred retirement funds. It is like an IRA that you can withdraw and pay normal income taxes – just doing it before you are 59.5.
If the beneficiary is the wife of the deceased the rules are a bit different. I only did the research on the adult child beneficiary case since that’s the one that applied to me.
Too many people cash out inherited IRAs without considering the tax advantage of keeping it tax deferred.
Google “inherited IRA” and you’ll find the details, calculators for determining the RMD each year, etc.
I hope this info helps someone avoid costly misunderstandings.
End hijack.Participant[quote=bearishgurl]Many of our “greatest-generation” and “depression-era” parents had their retirement funds tied up in 401K or 403(b)-type vehicles and died too young or without sufficient notice to move it all out of there while they were alive, well and eligible. Therefore, if their baby-boomer children inherit these funds and are under age 59-1/2, the funds can only be moved over to the heirs’ SSN WITHOUT WITHDRAWALS until they are age-eligible, unless they are willing to pay a 20% penalty for early withdrawal.
[/quote]
I apologize for the hijack but I need to correct this.If the parent had started collecting on their 401k/IRA funds then the child does NOT have to cash out and there is NO 20% penalty. I know this from first hand experience. As mentioned previously, my parents have both passed and I inherited a small amount from them. The bulk was in IRA/401k money.
The adult child beneficiary has a “required minimum distribution” (RMD) that is based on the CHILD’s age and must withdraw that amount each year. They pay NORMAL income tax on it, no penalty. They CAN withdraw the entire amount – but that would mean they have to pay taxes on the entire amount (typically a higher rate than just adding the RMD to other sources of income) and they’d lose the tax deferred status of any money withdrawn.
The 20% penalty is NOT there for inherited tax deferred retirement funds. It is like an IRA that you can withdraw and pay normal income taxes – just doing it before you are 59.5.
If the beneficiary is the wife of the deceased the rules are a bit different. I only did the research on the adult child beneficiary case since that’s the one that applied to me.
Too many people cash out inherited IRAs without considering the tax advantage of keeping it tax deferred.
Google “inherited IRA” and you’ll find the details, calculators for determining the RMD each year, etc.
I hope this info helps someone avoid costly misunderstandings.
End hijack.ParticipantIsn’t Android based on Linux? You’d be hard pressed to say a cell phone isn’t embedded.
I work in embedded programming… I see products by our company and our competitors with Linux every day. (I work on vxwords stuff, though).
ParticipantIsn’t Android based on Linux? You’d be hard pressed to say a cell phone isn’t embedded.
I work in embedded programming… I see products by our company and our competitors with Linux every day. (I work on vxwords stuff, though).
ParticipantIsn’t Android based on Linux? You’d be hard pressed to say a cell phone isn’t embedded.
I work in embedded programming… I see products by our company and our competitors with Linux every day. (I work on vxwords stuff, though).
ParticipantIsn’t Android based on Linux? You’d be hard pressed to say a cell phone isn’t embedded.
I work in embedded programming… I see products by our company and our competitors with Linux every day. (I work on vxwords stuff, though).
ParticipantIsn’t Android based on Linux? You’d be hard pressed to say a cell phone isn’t embedded.
I work in embedded programming… I see products by our company and our competitors with Linux every day. (I work on vxwords stuff, though).
Participant[quote=CONCHO]I believe that my experience living as a middle-class US citizen has given me the insight to decide what is right and wrong for other people. I think women shouldn’t have to wear funny, loose-fitting ghost outfits that cover most of their bodies. That would be objectifying them. Instead, they should be liberated and wear minimal, revealing clothing and tattoos showing how liberated they are. Body piercings are nice as well. Such liberated, tattooed, minimally-clothed women are thus freed from being objects and can express their freedom to rub themselves on me without fear of reprisal from an oppressive, sexist system.
Unless they are fat of course, and then they should be forced to cover up as much as possible.[/quote]
LMAO!My husband had an interesting situation when he was renting his house out (when he moved in with me, a month before our wedding.) The couple was born and raised in Philadelphia and were practicing muslims. The woman wore a burqa in front of my husband. She took it off when it was just me in the room. She explained she chose to follow the more conservative methods of her religion, that a woman should not show her face to unmarried men. We continued to rent to them till 2002. She did NOT wear the burqa around him after we got married, because, I guess my husband was no longer a “threat”.
I felt very afraid for them after 9/11. She took the El to work in center city, (yes, wearing a burqa) and she did face some anti-muslim lash back. This was a very nice woman.
Back to the subject at hand… I heard that public schools in france banned ALL religious adornment several years ago. Burqa’s, Crucifixes, Stars of David. I had less of an issue with this because it was very consistent.
For the comments about visitors to other countries having to follow the religious laws of that country… Yes, if those countries are theocracies. Visiting another country is a choice. We live in a country that has a secular government, specifically allowing freedom or religion. That is one of the things that truly makes this country great. No imposition of a specific religion, no ban of a religion.
Participant[quote=CONCHO]I believe that my experience living as a middle-class US citizen has given me the insight to decide what is right and wrong for other people. I think women shouldn’t have to wear funny, loose-fitting ghost outfits that cover most of their bodies. That would be objectifying them. Instead, they should be liberated and wear minimal, revealing clothing and tattoos showing how liberated they are. Body piercings are nice as well. Such liberated, tattooed, minimally-clothed women are thus freed from being objects and can express their freedom to rub themselves on me without fear of reprisal from an oppressive, sexist system.
Unless they are fat of course, and then they should be forced to cover up as much as possible.[/quote]
LMAO!My husband had an interesting situation when he was renting his house out (when he moved in with me, a month before our wedding.) The couple was born and raised in Philadelphia and were practicing muslims. The woman wore a burqa in front of my husband. She took it off when it was just me in the room. She explained she chose to follow the more conservative methods of her religion, that a woman should not show her face to unmarried men. We continued to rent to them till 2002. She did NOT wear the burqa around him after we got married, because, I guess my husband was no longer a “threat”.
I felt very afraid for them after 9/11. She took the El to work in center city, (yes, wearing a burqa) and she did face some anti-muslim lash back. This was a very nice woman.
Back to the subject at hand… I heard that public schools in france banned ALL religious adornment several years ago. Burqa’s, Crucifixes, Stars of David. I had less of an issue with this because it was very consistent.
For the comments about visitors to other countries having to follow the religious laws of that country… Yes, if those countries are theocracies. Visiting another country is a choice. We live in a country that has a secular government, specifically allowing freedom or religion. That is one of the things that truly makes this country great. No imposition of a specific religion, no ban of a religion.
-
AuthorPosts
