Jump to content

Welcome to our forums!

Sign In or Register to gain full access to our forums. By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Photo

Barack Obama’s Net Worth Surges After Leaving the White House, Thanks to Wall Street


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#21 West

West

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,290 posts

Posted 01 May 2017 - 09:37 PM

I'll bet the SOB took the $ as "deferred Income" until he turns 65 and then will collect it at a lower tax rate. :lol:

 

w



#22 jetlord

jetlord

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,951 posts

Posted 02 May 2017 - 03:27 AM

I'll bet the SOB took the $ as "deferred Income" until he turns 65 and then will collect it at a lower tax rate. :lol:

 

w

Tax rates go down when one turns 65?  I didn't get that memo and have been overpaying.   :(



#23 wilkie

wilkie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,393 posts
  • LocationShagri La

Posted 02 May 2017 - 03:56 AM

Tax rates go down because for most of us income also goes down after age 65 ( or whenever you retire ) That's the theory behind the IRA

#24 jetlord

jetlord

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,951 posts

Posted 02 May 2017 - 06:32 PM

Tax rates go down because for most of us income also goes down after age 65 ( or whenever you retire ) That's the theory behind the IRA

Doesn't work that way if one handles his finances carefully.  Since many retirees spend more in retirement, they need more income for such things as vacations, grandkid visits and gifts, greens fees, and a host of other things that we were too busy to do during our working years.  The IRS has no sympathy for geezers.



#25 mex

mex

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,458 posts

Posted 02 May 2017 - 07:34 PM

Doesn't work that way if one handles his finances carefully.  Since many retirees spend more in retirement, they need more income for such things as vacations, grandkid visits and gifts, greens fees, and a host of other things that we were too busy to do during our working years.  The IRS has no sympathy for geezers.

'lucky' geezers, anyway



#26 MAUI

MAUI

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,911 posts
  • LocationMaui

Posted 02 May 2017 - 10:44 PM

I'm finding now that I have less money to spend, but more time to spend it.., I guess I can deal with that.., I seem to hang around the fort a lot more..,



#27 West

West

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,290 posts

Posted 03 May 2017 - 02:06 PM

Jet it depends on the tax law at the time of the action.

 

In the 90's, I had some very large gains based on bonus payments.  I could defer the income over time in order to keep myself at a lower tax bracket by keeping my income slightly below the threshold.  It takes a good tax accountant and a willing corporation.

 

The money sits idle but in some cases, it is worth it.

 

w


  • mex likes this

#28 jetlord

jetlord

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,951 posts

Posted 03 May 2017 - 05:20 PM

Jet it depends on the tax law at the time of the action.

 

In the 90's, I had some very large gains based on bonus payments.  I could defer the income over time in order to keep myself at a lower tax bracket by keeping my income slightly below the threshold.  It takes a good tax accountant and a willing corporation.

 

The money sits idle but in some cases, it is worth it.

 

w

That was my point.  Lone range planning in mandatory if one expects to do all the things in retirement that weren't possible during our working years.  Taxes won't be lower in those cases where the planning is done well.



#29 West

West

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,290 posts

Posted 03 May 2017 - 05:42 PM

Actually, Taxes could be lower in the short term if you defer enough income until your taxable income goes down in retirement.  Then you take as much of that income as you determine and paying income taxes at a lower rate should be a part of that decision process.

 

 

Of course, if your taxable income is going up when you retire,, that is a different story.

 

w



#30 jetlord

jetlord

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,951 posts

Posted 03 May 2017 - 06:38 PM

Actually, Taxes could be lower in the short term if you defer enough income until your taxable income goes down in retirement.  Then you take as much of that income as you determine and paying income taxes at a lower rate should be a part of that decision process.

 

 

Of course, if your taxable income is going up when you retire,, that is a different story.

 

w

The problem is deferring investment income by putting too much in qualified plans such as IRAs and 401Ks.  While the return is better because no taxes are paid during one's working years, when reaching 70 1/2, one must withdraw an amount that is taxed at ordinary income rates even though most of it is capital gains.  That income also causes the recipient to pay much higher medicare premiums and triggers taxation on SS.  It's not just a simple matter of saying one's income will be lower while working so taxes will be lower in retirement.  Of course, one could just remain "unlucky" and not worry about taxes.


  • mex likes this

#31 mex

mex

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,458 posts

Posted 03 May 2017 - 11:12 PM

 

The money sits idle

 

if it gets lonely, I'll volunteer to keep it company  :D



#32 mex

mex

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,458 posts

Posted 03 May 2017 - 11:15 PM

The problem is deferring investment income by putting too much in qualified plans such as IRAs and 401Ks.  While the return is better because no taxes are paid during one's working years, when reaching 70 1/2, one must withdraw an amount that is taxed at ordinary income rates even though most of it is capital gains.  That income also causes the recipient to pay much higher medicare premiums and triggers taxation on SS.  It's not just a simple matter of saying one's income will be lower while working so taxes will be lower in retirement.  Of course, one could just remain "unlucky" and not worry about taxes.

you're paying the price because when you saved for your retirement, someone got poor. all because of you. it's a zero-sum game jet... did you forget?



#33 West

West

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,290 posts

Posted 04 May 2017 - 01:57 PM

Jet, its not investment income.  Its salary.

 

Your point is well taken, if Trump lowers taxes and the Markets continue to serve, its better to take the hit and get the money into the market today.

 

That said, it was not like that in 2006....

 

w



#34 jetlord

jetlord

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,951 posts

Posted 04 May 2017 - 04:50 PM

Jet, its not investment income.  Its salary.

 

Your point is well taken, if Trump lowers taxes and the Markets continue to serve, its better to take the hit and get the money into the market today.

 

That said, it was not like that in 2006....

 

w

I doubt Trump will lower taxes for individuals much except maybe for those who already pay in very little.  Lowering corporate tax rates is where the big boom will come from.  To your point, whether today or 2006, one has to think long term, really long term.  People saving in 2006. 2007, 2008, 2009, etc. saw a Dow peak at around 14k, IIRC, followed by a major trough.  Anyone who stuck it out and kept dollar cost averaging made out like a bandit.  Those who panicked and bailed out, missed a major opportunity.  Such opportunities that come along only a few times in one's lifetime.



#35 NChiefsCorner

NChiefsCorner

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,777 posts
  • LocationLiberty, Missouri

Posted 05 May 2017 - 12:14 AM

I heard that the $400,000 could cost Obama his pension.



#36 xen

xen

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,395 posts

Posted 05 May 2017 - 12:21 AM

I heard that the $400,000 could cost Obama his pension.


If that's true than dubya and billy must have lost theirs already. Small price to pay when you're bringing in that kind of dough.

#37 NChiefsCorner

NChiefsCorner

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,777 posts
  • LocationLiberty, Missouri

Posted 05 May 2017 - 12:27 AM

Maybe it is a new law signed in by Trump. :D



#38 MAUI

MAUI

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,911 posts
  • LocationMaui

Posted 05 May 2017 - 05:25 AM

Idjut..,



#39 xen

xen

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,395 posts

Posted 05 May 2017 - 12:09 PM

Idjut..,


You're awesome

lol

#40 NChiefsCorner

NChiefsCorner

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,777 posts
  • LocationLiberty, Missouri

Posted 05 May 2017 - 09:06 PM

It was a law vetoed by Obama that said no ex-president could make over $400,000 in a single year or they lose their pension, now we know why Obama vetoed the law, but the authors of the law may bring it back up for Trump to sign into law.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users