MONEY: Roth IRA Conversions are problematic?

http://mortonlaw.typepad.com/my_weblog/2012/02/roth-may-become-more-compelling-planning-option.html

February 13, 2012
Roth may become more compelling planning option

*** begin quote ***

If the current proposal before congress to eliminate the stretch IRA provisions from the tax code go into effect, it presents an even more compelling reason to convert traditional IRA’s into Roth IRA’s.  While most people are reluctant to pay taxes now on a tax deferred account, the ability to pay taxes now under current rates, rather than under future rates which are likely to be higher.  Now with the potential loss of the ability of beneficiaries to stretch withdrawals when they inherit, thereby paying the taxes on the account within 5 years of their inheritance, the case for the Roth becomes more compelling.

*** and ***

Their growth and distributions would be tax free – unless, of course, congress eliminated the tax free character of the Roth IRA.  But they would never break a promise like that (unless, of course, you count their original promise not to tax social security benefits).

*** end quote ***

Wow, even more cynical people.

Converting to Roth now ENSURES that a tax is to be paid. Waiting MAY cause a higher tax to be paid.

What’s the time value of money in a zero interest rate environment?

That argues BOTH ways.

* Since money today has ZERO value, why not pay the tax (i.e., there is no better use of the funds; the NPV of the tax loss in the future is huge; confiscation of IRA / 401Ks for the “enhanced socsec benefit)?

* Since money today has zero value, why not try to convert it into something that will become valuable (i.e., real estate; gold; dividend paying growth stock)?

Pretty good argue with myself and lose twice.

# – # – # – # – #

 

POLITICAL: Lessig’s One Way Forward

http://boingboing.net/2012/02/21/lessigs-one-way-forward.html

Lessig’s One Way Forward
by Cory Doctorow at 6:41 am Tuesday, Feb 21

*** begin quote ***

Lawrence Lessig’s new ebook One Way Forward is one of the most exciting documents I’ve read since I first found The Federalist Papers. One Way Forward is more of a long pamphlet than a book. It’s tempting to call it a “manifesto,” except that it’s so darned reasonable, and that’s not a word that comes readily to mind when one hears “manifesto.”

At the core of Lessig’s reasonable manifesto is the corrupting influence of money in politics, a corruption that predates the notorious Citizens United Supreme Court case. Lessig ascribes to this corruption the outrage that mobilizes both Occupy and the Tea Party, and he believes that the corruption can’t be ended until both the left and right realize that though they don’t have a common goal, they do share a common enemy, and unite to defeat it.

To this end, Lessig has a series of extremely practical suggestions, legislative proposals that, individually, strike at the root of the corruption, and, collectively, could kill it. Most of these don’t require any kind of constitutional amendment. All are designed to be passed through the nonpartisan action of activists of all political stripes, working together on ideals that neither should find fundamentally objectionable.

*** end quote ***

Lessig is a known forward thinker.

Cory Doctorow is another thought leader.

So why can’t us little people drain the swamp?

# – # – # – # – #

RANT: Triple the tax

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204880404577225493025537660.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

REVIEW & OUTLOOK    FEBRUARY 22, 2012
Obama’s Dividend Assault
A plan to triple the tax rate would hurt all shareholders.

*** begin quote ***

President Obama’s 2013 budget is the gift that keeps on giving—to government. One buried surprise is his proposal to triple the tax rate on corporate dividends, which believe it or not is higher than in his previous budgets.

Mr. Obama is proposing to raise the dividend tax rate to the higher personal income tax rate of 39.6% that will kick in next year. Add in the planned phase-out of deductions and exemptions, and the rate hits 41%. Then add the 3.8% investment tax surcharge in ObamaCare, and the new dividend tax rate in 2013 would be 44.8%—nearly three times today’s 15% rate.

Keep in mind that dividends are paid to shareholders only after the corporation pays taxes on its profits. So assuming a maximum 35% corporate tax rate and a 44.8% dividend tax, the total tax on corporate earnings passed through as dividends would be 64.1%.

*** end quote ***

So instead of reducing the corporate tax and the dividend tax, BHO44 is increasing it.

How stupid!

This election will be critical.

Reelect and we are so <synonym for the past tense of the procreation act.> Even the worst R, won’t follow through on these tax increases.

Why should a corporation be an “American” company?

# – # – # – # – #

RANT: Child support – pro and con

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/01/26/exposing-the-child-support-myth

Thursday, January 26th, 2012
Posted by Jere Beery
Exposing the Child Support Myth

*** begin quote ***

Last weekend I was standing in the checkout line at our local Wal-Mart when I overheard a conversation between the cashier and a customer. The two women obviously knew one another and began talking like they were very good friends. The Cashier asked the customer if they were going to the Jason Aldean concert that upcoming weekend. The customer replied that they had just received “their” child support check and that “they” were going to use that money to purchase the tickets, get their hair done, and pay for a sitter. This conversation got me to thinking, how much of child support payments truely directly benefit the child?

*** end quote ***

Mixed reaction to this.

On the one hand, the cited anecdote is terrible. But the other side of the coin, seeing abandoned broke families deserted by the fathers living in shelters, makes me wonder.

The Gooferment is a big problem in this whole area.

They give the women support orders that are unenforceable. I’d have the Gooferment give the money to the spouse with the children regardless of sex and take upon itself the need to collect it. Think the IRS going after “child support”.

It’s like the Gooferment’s Courts giving battered spouses an “order of protection”. Worthless. Give them a gun and “hunting license” (i.e., if they defend themselves, they are presumed innocent).

Private charity is better than Gooferment welfare. More intelligent. More flexible.

# – # – # – # – #

GUNS: Firing gun into ground unsafe

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/21/new-hampshire-man-faces-felony-charge-after-firing-gun-into-ground-near-burglar/

New Hampshire man arrested for firing gun into ground while catching suspected burglar
By Joshua Rhett Miller
Published February 21, 2012

*** begin quote ***

A New Hampshire man who fired his handgun into the ground to scare an alleged burglar he caught crawling out of a neighbor’s window is now facing a felony charge — and the same potential prison sentence as the man he stopped.

*** and ***

Penny Dean, a spokeswoman for the Gun Owners of New Hampshire, said her organization is “absolutely outraged” by Fleming’s arrest.

“This homeowner fired at the ground, from all accounts, in a safe direction and held a burglar for police and did things correctly,” Dean told FoxNews.com. “The fact that this man would be charged is an outrage. Burglars in New Hampshire must know it’s open season, since homeowners cannot defend themselves, as evidenced by this case. This is charging the victim.”

Rick Pelkey, Fleming’s longtime neighbor, said he’s now worried how the “straight-forward, working-class guy” will pay legal fees associated with the arrest.

“I think it’s outrageous,” Pelkey told FoxNews.com. “He did the community a service here. We ought to thank him for it.”

*** end quote ***

>Is NJ next, and NC?

That’s already illegal in NJ. Every municipality has laws about discharges in developed areas. That why I can not use my 45 on the tree rats!

He did a few things wrong.

First, that’s probably not a safe shot. Richocet? What’s in the ground in a developed area?

Only in the movies, does that work. Waving guns at bad guys and warning shots. Like shooting the gun out of someone’s hand. Theatrics. Decide that you’re willing to use deadly force, draw, take your stance, then cover the target, breath control, and sqeeeeze.

Once you’ve drawn your gun, you’ve basically decided to fire.

Second, he should have waited, gotten the guy coming towards him, and then nailed him. And kept firing till the gun was empty. And, hopefully the perp was dead.

Sad to say, but then there’s only one side of the story to tell. And, deadly force to save your life or the life of another is always per se justifiable.

It’s akin to the “shoot shovel and shutup” strategy.

Argh!

And, in NH too!

I’m shocked!!!

# – # – # – # – #  2012-Feb-21 @ 16:57