Harbor Fright Down Grades Quality Again

On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 12:26:57 PM UTC-4, dadiOH wrote:
> krw wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 12:48:37 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Sometimes life insurance policies can "pay off" twice. Once when the
> >> owner sells it, then again when the insured passes away.
> >
> > No, once you sell an insurance policy it's no longer in force.
>
> Incorrect.
>
> > Worse, the life payout is reduced by the value of the policy.
>
> ?? When the insured dies the owner of the policy receives the full amount
> of the policy's death benefit.

Let's be clear here.

When the insured dies the *beneficiary* (or beneficiaries) of the policy receives the full amount of the policy's death benefit.

I can be the owner, you can be the insured and the crazy cat lady down the street can be the beneficiary.

or

I could be the owner and the insured and you can be the beneficiary (ain't gonna happen!)

or

I could be the owner and the insured and my trust could be the beneficiary. BTW...the trust is written such that you get half if and only if you help the crazy cat lady take care of her cats. That's my way of making you suffer even after I'm gone. ;-)

>
> If you are thinking of a policy that earns and therefore has an ever
> increasing cash value, that cash value may get very close to the death
> benefit value of the policy but that has nothing to do with the death
> benefit. If the owner of the policy has borrowed from the cash value, THEN
> the death benefit is reduced by the amount borrowed plus interest.
>

On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 23:57:37 -0400, Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:

>krw wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 22:16:56 -0400, Bill <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> krw wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 21:51:23 -0400, Bill <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> krw wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 11:13:47 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/18/2015 7:21 PM, krw wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 23:43:40 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2015 8:38 PM, krw wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 22:45:12 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 21:22:35 -0400, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 16:12:43 -0400, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, the $15 an hour folks want the most menial jobs, the jobs with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the least skill level, the jobs that provided by employers that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffer all those that come and go as first time employees to be paid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a "livable" wage. Regardless of their work history (if any), skill
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level, employment history or lack thereof, an employer will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to pay almost double what they are paying now for minimum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wage employees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If a job has to be done, then it deserves a living wage to get it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not all entry level jobs are done by pimple faced kids looking for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pocket money.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many of these people earning a minimum wage are trying to support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a family unit which isn't going to happen at $10/hr much less the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $7.50/hr
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> federal minimum wage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the $15/hour minimum wage gets enacted it will raise the standard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of living of the whole economy except for the top 1% which will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asked to pay for it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lew, if raising the minimum wage would enable all to enjoy a better standard
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of living (except for the 1% of course :) then why haven't the two dozen +
>>>>>>>>>>>>> raises in it over the last 70 years accomplished that end?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only thing raising the mnimum wage does is raise all prices.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...and decrease employment.
>>>>>>>>>>> A "living wage" would increase business, because more people would
>>>>>>>>>>> be able to afford to buy products. $7.50 is NOT a living wage. Nor is
>>>>>>>>>>> $12.00.
>>>>>>>>>>> It would increase prices somewhat, for sure - but overall it WOULD
>>>>>>>>>>> improve the economy.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I KNOW it will never happen in the "greatest country on earth" because
>>>>>>>>>>> it's not "the american way"
>>>>>>>>>> Utterly absurd. You don't make money by spending more money. The
>>>>>>>>>> government has been trying it for decades and we are where we are
>>>>>>>>>> because of it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well you do make more money if you spend more money "correctly". The
>>>>>>>>> problem is that the government, that has never had to work with what it
>>>>>>>>> collects, has never learned how to manage a business. It does however
>>>>>>>>> know how to promote socialism.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You don't make money by spending money. You make money by *investing*
>>>>>>>> money. There is a difference.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well pamato, topatato. Not all investments make money. You get the point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ;-) I can't think of an investment that wasn't intended to have a
>>>>>> positive return.
>>>>> How about life insurance, Mr. investment expert. ;-)
>>>> Only criminals "invest" in insurance. For everyone else, it's an
>>>> expense. The return is *expected* to be negative. It *has* to be
>>>> (for other than one contemplating insurance fraud).
>>> How about the purchase of PUTs to protect a stock holding, Mr
>>> Investment Expert?
>> Are you, or are you not expecting a positive return on (all of) your
>> investments?
>
>You said you couldn't think of an investment that wasn't intended to
>have a positive return. I've given you two now (and avoided the use of
>the word clueless that you used earlier). You didn't say anything about
>portfolios or non-pecuniary issues. A person's house may be a 3rd example.
>
Oh, good grief. Of *course* it has a positive return. It is
protecting the higher return of the investment. That's *positive*.
>>
>>>>> == Sure, not all plans work out as intended. ...but
>>>>>> yes, it's a matter of perspective. IMO, I'm not spending money when I
>>>>>> put it in a savings account. ...not investing, these days, either
>>>>>> :-(.

On Monday, April 20, 2015 at 8:36:21 PM UTC-4, krw wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 12:48:37 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>=20
> >On Monday, April 20, 2015 at 3:33:04 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >> On 4/20/2015 1:01 PM, krw wrote:
> >>=20
> >> >>> ;-) I can't think of an investment that wasn't intended to have a
> >> >>> positive return.
> >> >> How about life insurance, Mr. investment expert. ;-)
> >> >
> >> > Only criminals "invest" in insurance. For everyone else, it's an
> >> > expense. The return is *expected* to be negative. It *has* to be
> >> > (for other than one contemplating insurance fraud).
> >> >
> >>=20
> >> Life insurance can have a great payback if you die at the right time.=
=20
> >> Not everyone does though. Poor planning, I guess.
> >
> >Sometimes life insurance policies can "pay off" twice. Once when the own=
er sells it, then again when the insured passes away.
>=20
> No, once you sell an insurance policy it's no longer in force. =20

Perhaps you are not familiar with Life Settlement transactions. Just to mak=
e sure that we are starting on the same page, here are some definitions rel=
ated to life insurance, stolen without permission from:

http://thismatter.com/money/insurance/types/life/contract/owner-insured-ben=
eficiary.htm

Owner:

"The owner of a life insurance policy is the one who has the rights that ar=
e stipulated in the contract. These include the right to name a beneficiary=
; the right to participating dividends; the right to surrender the policy f=
or its cash value; and the right to transfer ownership."

Insured:

"The insured, who is often the owner of the policy, is the person whose dea=
th causes the insurer to pay the death claim to the beneficiary. The benefi=
ciary can be a person, trust, estate, or business."

Note the owner's "right to transfer ownership". If the owner enters into a =
Life Settlement transaction, he is transferring the ownership of the policy=
to someone else. Once the ownership has changed, the new owner has the rig=
ht to name a beneficiary. Of course, the new owner now also has the respons=
ibility to adhere to the terms stipulated in the original insurance contrac=
t, which may mean paying premiums and other fees required to keep the polic=
y in force.

Nothing in a Life Settlement transaction causes the policy to no longer be =
in force.

> Worse, the life payout is reduced by the value of the policy. =20

What "value" are you referring to? The cash-value? If so, that is not actua=
lly true.=20

In most cases, entering into Life Settlement transaction does not impact th=
e current cash-value of the policy because other than the change of ownersh=
ip (and most likely the beneficiary) the policy itself has not been changed=
. The cash value has not been withdrawn, so the death benefit itself has no=
t been reduced. The original owner receives payment with funds that are ext=
ernal to the policy.

Granted, the *total return* to the new owner - assuming the new owner is al=
so the new beneficiary - will be less than the death benefit paid out when =
the insured eventually passes away. The total return will be the death bene=
fit minus the sum of the cost of the contract (amount paid to the original =
owner), any commissions and fees paid to the broker, any premiums and fees =
paid to the Ins Co, etc.

If the new owner does not name him/herself as the beneficiary, then the ben=
eficiary will receive the full death benefit.

> Whole life insurance is a miserable bet.

That statement, in and of itself, is worthy of it's own long, drawn out dis=
cussion.




>=20
> >See "Life Settlement Contracts", sometimes known as a Viatical settlemen=
ts.

On Monday, April 20, 2015 at 9:37:22 PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 20:18:02 GMT, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal)
> wrote:
>=20
> >Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> writes:
> >>On 4/20/2015 1:01 PM, krw wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> ;-) I can't think of an investment that wasn't intended to have a
> >>>>> positive return.
> >>>> How about life insurance, Mr. investment expert. ;-)
> >>>
> >>> Only criminals "invest" in insurance. For everyone else, it's an
> >>> expense. The return is *expected* to be negative. It *has* to be
> >>> (for other than one contemplating insurance fraud).
> >>>
> >>
> >>Life insurance can have a great payback if you die at the right time.=
=20
> >>Not everyone does though. Poor planning, I guess.
> >
> >There are also policies that have an investement portion;
> >where funds in excess of the premium are invested in various
> >income-generating opportunities. Those funds can be claimed
> >if the policy is cancelled prior to the death of the covered individual(=
s).
> That was the intent when we bought a policy - but the company has
> changed hands/names 3 times and the current company denies the option
> exists. Gona rattle some bars.

It's possible that the terms of the contract changed somewhere along the li=
ne and you weren't aware of it/don't remember/didn't understand/etc. (Nothi=
ng personal!)

In many cases, an insurance company can petition the state in which the pol=
icy was sold requesting permission to change the terms of the contract as l=
ong as they change the terms for an entire class of people. For example, on=
e such class might be everyone that bought that specific product, e.g. Gene=
ric Ins Co Ventura III Premier Variable Life.

For example, NYS recently allowed an Ins Co to change the terms of a specif=
ic Long Term Care policy such that the original 5% inflation adjustment was=
reduced to 3% for the same premium payment. Owners were given the option t=
o retain the 5% by paying a substantially higher premium.=20

Is it possible that with all the change of carriers in your case, the notic=
e of the change in terms got lost in the shuffle?

On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 20:18:02 GMT, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> writes:
>>On 4/20/2015 1:01 PM, krw wrote:
>>
>>>>> ;-) I can't think of an investment that wasn't intended to have a
>>>>> positive return.
>>>> How about life insurance, Mr. investment expert. ;-)
>>>
>>> Only criminals "invest" in insurance. For everyone else, it's an
>>> expense. The return is *expected* to be negative. It *has* to be
>>> (for other than one contemplating insurance fraud).
>>>
>>
>>Life insurance can have a great payback if you die at the right time.
>>Not everyone does though. Poor planning, I guess.
>
>There are also policies that have an investement portion;
>where funds in excess of the premium are invested in various
>income-generating opportunities. Those funds can be claimed
>if the policy is cancelled prior to the death of the covered individual(s).
That was the intent when we bought a policy - but the company has
changed hands/names 3 times and the current company denies the option
exists. Gona rattle some bars.

On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 12:48:37 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Monday, April 20, 2015 at 3:33:04 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 4/20/2015 1:01 PM, krw wrote:
>>
>> >>> ;-) I can't think of an investment that wasn't intended to have a
>> >>> positive return.
>> >> How about life insurance, Mr. investment expert. ;-)
>> >
>> > Only criminals "invest" in insurance. For everyone else, it's an
>> > expense. The return is *expected* to be negative. It *has* to be
>> > (for other than one contemplating insurance fraud).
>> >
>>
>> Life insurance can have a great payback if you die at the right time.
>> Not everyone does though. Poor planning, I guess.
>
>Sometimes life insurance policies can "pay off" twice. Once when the owner sells it, then again when the insured passes away.

No, once you sell an insurance policy it's no longer in force. Worse,
the life payout is reduced by the value of the policy. Whole life
insurance is a miserable bet.

>See "Life Settlement Contracts", sometimes known as a Viatical settlements.

krw wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 12:48:37 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
> <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Sometimes life insurance policies can "pay off" twice. Once when the
>> owner sells it, then again when the insured passes away.
>
> No, once you sell an insurance policy it's no longer in force.

Incorrect.

> Worse, the life payout is reduced by the value of the policy.

?? When the insured dies the owner of the policy receives the full amount
of the policy's death benefit.

If you are thinking of a policy that earns and therefore has an ever
increasing cash value, that cash value may get very close to the death
benefit value of the policy but that has nothing to do with the death
benefit. If the owner of the policy has borrowed from the cash value, THEN
the death benefit is reduced by the amount borrowed plus interest.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

[email protected] wrote:
> A house has a much better chance of being a "good investment" than a
> vehicle, for sure||
> You need to look at what it would cost to rent "the same"
> accomodation, buying too much house is seldom a good investment.
> Buying good basic shelter USUALLY is.
>
> I've been in this house 34 years this June. Paid $65K-ish for it.
> It's worth $350K-ish today. Spent another 3\$35,000 more or less on
> renovations and repairs and $50,000 more or less on taxes. Renting a 3
> bedroom family home when I bought was over $800 per month here - over
> $2500 today.
> Utility costs would have been similar
>
> Rent would have amounted to well over $500,000 for the duration and I
> would not have an assett at the end.
>
> Comes out about 4 times the cost to rent. Can't beat that as an
> "investment" - even IF the house had not appreciated one cent over the
> 34 years

General "words of wisdom" in real estate are, "Rent where you live, own what
you rent".

That seems contradictory but it means rent where you live so you have
capital to buy rentals...let the rental income pay the mortgage, taxes, etc.
Suppose you buy a rental house worth 150,000 with, say, 15K down and a few
years later you sell it for $180,000. ROI is 200%.

But there are better deals. House next to me sits on 12 acres purchased for
60K or so in 1996. The buyer put a prefab garage (modified into a 1 bedroom
house) on it and added a 28K prefab barn elsewhere on the property. He sold
all 6-7 years later for $287,000. That buyer was foreclosed upon in the
fall of 2013 for 51K. An investor bought it from the bank for 40K and sold
it a few months later for 133K. THAT's making money :)

krw wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 23:57:37 -0400, Bill <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> krw wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 22:16:56 -0400, Bill <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> krw wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 21:51:23 -0400, Bill <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> krw wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 11:13:47 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2015 7:21 PM, krw wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 23:43:40 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2015 8:38 PM, krw wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 22:45:12 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 21:22:35 -0400, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 16:12:43 -0400, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, the $15 an hour folks want the most menial jobs, the jobs with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the least skill level, the jobs that provided by employers that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffer all those that come and go as first time employees to be paid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a "livable" wage. Regardless of their work history (if any), skill
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level, employment history or lack thereof, an employer will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to pay almost double what they are paying now for minimum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wage employees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If a job has to be done, then it deserves a living wage to get it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not all entry level jobs are done by pimple faced kids looking for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pocket money.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many of these people earning a minimum wage are trying to support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a family unit which isn't going to happen at $10/hr much less the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $7.50/hr
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> federal minimum wage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the $15/hour minimum wage gets enacted it will raise the standard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of living of the whole economy except for the top 1% which will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asked to pay for it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lew, if raising the minimum wage would enable all to enjoy a better standard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of living (except for the 1% of course :) then why haven't the two dozen +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> raises in it over the last 70 years accomplished that end?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only thing raising the mnimum wage does is raise all prices.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...and decrease employment.
>>>>>>>>>>>> A "living wage" would increase business, because more people would
>>>>>>>>>>>> be able to afford to buy products. $7.50 is NOT a living wage. Nor is
>>>>>>>>>>>> $12.00.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It would increase prices somewhat, for sure - but overall it WOULD
>>>>>>>>>>>> improve the economy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I KNOW it will never happen in the "greatest country on earth" because
>>>>>>>>>>>> it's not "the american way"
>>>>>>>>>>> Utterly absurd. You don't make money by spending more money. The
>>>>>>>>>>> government has been trying it for decades and we are where we are
>>>>>>>>>>> because of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well you do make more money if you spend more money "correctly". The
>>>>>>>>>> problem is that the government, that has never had to work with what it
>>>>>>>>>> collects, has never learned how to manage a business. It does however
>>>>>>>>>> know how to promote socialism.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You don't make money by spending money. You make money by *investing*
>>>>>>>>> money. There is a difference.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well pamato, topatato. Not all investments make money. You get the point.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ;-) I can't think of an investment that wasn't intended to have a
>>>>>>> positive return.
>>>>>> How about life insurance, Mr. investment expert. ;-)
>>>>> Only criminals "invest" in insurance. For everyone else, it's an
>>>>> expense. The return is *expected* to be negative. It *has* to be
>>>>> (for other than one contemplating insurance fraud).
>>>> How about the purchase of PUTs to protect a stock holding, Mr
>>>> Investment Expert?
>>> Are you, or are you not expecting a positive return on (all of) your
>>> investments?
>> You said you couldn't think of an investment that wasn't intended to
>> have a positive return. I've given you two now (and avoided the use of
>> the word clueless that you used earlier). You didn't say anything about
>> portfolios or non-pecuniary issues. A person's house may be a 3rd example.
>>
> Oh, good grief. Of *course* it has a positive return. It is
> protecting the higher return of the investment. That's *positive*.
It's actually protecting against the potential loss of the
investment. Do you want to say that's positive too? What do you advise
about selling calls?

>>>>>> == Sure, not all plans work out as intended. ...but
>>>>>>> yes, it's a matter of perspective. IMO, I'm not spending money when I
>>>>>>> put it in a savings account. ...not investing, these days, either
>>>>>>> :-(.

DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 12:26:57 PM UTC-4, dadiOH wrote:
>> krw wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 12:48:37 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> Sometimes life insurance policies can "pay off" twice. Once when
>>>> the
>>>> owner sells it, then again when the insured passes away.
>>>
>>> No, once you sell an insurance policy it's no longer in force.
>>
>> Incorrect.
>>
>>> Worse, the life payout is reduced by the value of the policy.
>>
>> ?? When the insured dies the owner of the policy receives the full
>> amount
>> of the policy's death benefit.
>
> Let's be clear here.
>
> When the insured dies the *beneficiary* (or beneficiaries) of the
> policy receives the full amount of the policy's death benefit.

Yes, of course. My fingers and brain were disconnected.

Bill wrote:

> What do you
> advise about selling calls?

I always avoided options except for covered calls.
--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 23:57:37 -0400, Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:

>krw wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 22:16:56 -0400, Bill <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> krw wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 21:51:23 -0400, Bill <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> krw wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 11:13:47 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/18/2015 7:21 PM, krw wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 23:43:40 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2015 8:38 PM, krw wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 22:45:12 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 21:22:35 -0400, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 16:12:43 -0400, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, the $15 an hour folks want the most menial jobs, the jobs with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the least skill level, the jobs that provided by employers that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffer all those that come and go as first time employees to be paid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a "livable" wage. Regardless of their work history (if any), skill
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level, employment history or lack thereof, an employer will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to pay almost double what they are paying now for minimum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wage employees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If a job has to be done, then it deserves a living wage to get it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not all entry level jobs are done by pimple faced kids looking for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pocket money.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many of these people earning a minimum wage are trying to support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a family unit which isn't going to happen at $10/hr much less the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $7.50/hr
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> federal minimum wage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the $15/hour minimum wage gets enacted it will raise the standard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of living of the whole economy except for the top 1% which will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asked to pay for it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lew, if raising the minimum wage would enable all to enjoy a better standard
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of living (except for the 1% of course :) then why haven't the two dozen +
>>>>>>>>>>>>> raises in it over the last 70 years accomplished that end?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only thing raising the mnimum wage does is raise all prices.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...and decrease employment.
>>>>>>>>>>> A "living wage" would increase business, because more people would
>>>>>>>>>>> be able to afford to buy products. $7.50 is NOT a living wage. Nor is
>>>>>>>>>>> $12.00.
>>>>>>>>>>> It would increase prices somewhat, for sure - but overall it WOULD
>>>>>>>>>>> improve the economy.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I KNOW it will never happen in the "greatest country on earth" because
>>>>>>>>>>> it's not "the american way"
>>>>>>>>>> Utterly absurd. You don't make money by spending more money. The
>>>>>>>>>> government has been trying it for decades and we are where we are
>>>>>>>>>> because of it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well you do make more money if you spend more money "correctly". The
>>>>>>>>> problem is that the government, that has never had to work with what it
>>>>>>>>> collects, has never learned how to manage a business. It does however
>>>>>>>>> know how to promote socialism.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You don't make money by spending money. You make money by *investing*
>>>>>>>> money. There is a difference.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well pamato, topatato. Not all investments make money. You get the point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ;-) I can't think of an investment that wasn't intended to have a
>>>>>> positive return.
>>>>> How about life insurance, Mr. investment expert. ;-)
>>>> Only criminals "invest" in insurance. For everyone else, it's an
>>>> expense. The return is *expected* to be negative. It *has* to be
>>>> (for other than one contemplating insurance fraud).
>>> How about the purchase of PUTs to protect a stock holding, Mr
>>> Investment Expert?
>> Are you, or are you not expecting a positive return on (all of) your
>> investments?
>
>You said you couldn't think of an investment that wasn't intended to
>have a positive return. I've given you two now (and avoided the use of
>the word clueless that you used earlier). You didn't say anything about
>portfolios or non-pecuniary issues. A person's house may be a 3rd example.
>
>
A house has a much better chance of being a "good investment" than a
vehicle, for sure||
You need to look at what it would cost to rent "the same"
accomodation, buying too much house is seldom a good investment.
Buying good basic shelter USUALLY is.

I've been in this house 34 years this June. Paid $65K-ish for it.
It's worth $350K-ish today. Spent another 3\$35,000 more or less on
renovations and repairs and $50,000 more or less on taxes. Renting a 3
bedroom family home when I bought was over $800 per month here - over
$2500 today.
Utility costs would have been similar

Rent would have amounted to well over $500,000 for the duration and I
would not have an assett at the end.

Comes out about 4 times the cost to rent. Can't beat that as an
"investment" - even IF the house had not appreciated one cent over the
34 years
>>
>>>>> == Sure, not all plans work out as intended. ...but
>>>>>> yes, it's a matter of perspective. IMO, I'm not spending money when I
>>>>>> put it in a savings account. ...not investing, these days, either
>>>>>> :-(.

On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 4:44:58 PM UTC-4, dadiOH wrote:
> DerbyDad03 wrote:
>
> > To be clear, instead of "replaced within 60 calendars days" I should
> > have said "deposited into a qualified retirement account held by the
> > same individual within 60 calendars days".
> >
> > Since the 60 day rule was put into place to facilitate rollovers,
> > there is no stipulation that the funds must go back into the same
> > account they were withdrawn from, they just need to go back into a
> > qualified retirement account owned by the same individual.
>
> I'm guessing that a Roth IRA doesn't qualify as a "qualified retirement
> account"?
>

A Roth is a qualified retirement account. If I said something that made you think otherwise, I apologize.

What made you ask that question?

On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 10:20:29 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 9:33:26 PM UTC-4, dadiOH wrote:
> > DerbyDad03 wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 3:04:55 PM UTC-4, dadiOH wrote:
> > >> DerbyDad03 wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I know a couple that withdrew a huge sum from the wife's IRA and
> > >>> bought a house with it. She paid no income tax on the withdrawal.
> > >>> They then withdrew the same amount of money from the husband's IRA
> > >>> and deposited it into the wife's IRA. He paid no income tax on the
> > >>> withdrawal. They then took out a mortgage on the house they bought
> > >>> and deposited the loan proceeds into his IRA. Now they take the tax
> > >>> deduction on the mortgage interest every year. Once again, it's all
> > >>> in the timing of the transactions.
> > >>
> > >> Roth IRAs? If not, why no tax?
> > >
> > > Traditional IRAs, not Roths.
> > >
> > > Aren't you also curious as to how the husband could withdraw a large
> > > sum of money from his IRA and deposit it into his wife's IRA? (By
> > > "large" I mean about $150K)
> >=20
> > Yes. Do tell all...
>=20
> In order to facilitate IRA rollovers, the IRS allows an individual to wit=
hdraw funds from an IRA (or other qualified retirement plan) and not pay an=
y taxes or penalties as long as the money is replaced within 60 calendars d=
ays and as long as they don't do it more than once in any 12 month period. =
(They are very strict about both of those timing rules...you don't want to =
play around with them!)
>=20
> Tom & Sue Jones found their dream home for sale by some very motivated se=
llers. They had some cash that they had set aside for other purposes but th=
ey needed an additional $150K to purchase the home. They had to move very q=
uickly, even before they had put their current home on the market.
>=20
> Sue withdrew $150K from her IRA and they bought the home for cash. Almost=
60 days went by and their original house still hadn't sold, so Tom withdre=
w $150K from his IRA, gave it to Sue who used it to replace her IRA withdra=
wal before the 60 day period had expired. A couple of more weeks went by an=
d their house finally sold. Tom took $150K from the proceeds from that sale=
and put it back into his IRA, again staying within the 60 day "rollover" g=
race period.=20
>=20
> Since the purchase of their dream home had eaten into all of the excess c=
ash they had set aside and the quick move had cost them more than they expe=
cted, they went to a bank and took out a small mortgage on the new house. S=
ince the house had been purchased "within the past 90 days" they were able =
to classify the loan as "house acquisition debt" allowing them to deduct th=
e mortgage interest. =20
>=20
> As I said earlier, it's all in the timing of the transactions.

Allow me to clarify one point:

I originally stated: "...the IRS allows an individual to withdraw funds fro=
m an IRA (or other qualified retirement plan) and not pay any taxes or pena=
lties as long as the money is replaced within 60 calendars days..."

To be clear, instead of "replaced within 60 calendars days" I should have s=
aid "deposited into a qualified retirement account held by the same individ=
ual within 60 calendars days".

Since the 60 day rule was put into place to facilitate rollovers, there is =
no stipulation that the funds must go back into the same account they were =
withdrawn from, they just need to go back into a qualified retirement accou=
nt owned by the same individual.

The IRS also doesn't stipulate that they *can't* go back into the same acco=
unt, thus allowing for what could be considered "60 day loan" from a person=
's IRA once every 12 months.

On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 8:44:44 AM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 4/21/2015 11:23 PM, krw wrote:
>=20
> >>>>
> >>> Sure, sometimes you just can't lose. ...until you do.
> >> In the USA you have the added benefit that your mortgage interest is
> >> tax deductible (on your primary residence? or any?)
> >
> > Any residence, with some restrictions at the very top end. The
> > mortgage interest deduction applies to vacation homes, including boats
> > and RVs, as well. Of course interest on rental property is deductible
> > as a business expense, as well.
> >
>=20
> Interest on a car loan is NOT deductible, but it is on a home equity=20
> loan. =20

It's never safe to simple say "it is on a home equity loan".

Even on a home equity loan/line of credit, there are some tax deductibility=
limitations related to the date of the loan, the amount of the debt, the F=
MV of the home, etc.=20

It's all explained here:

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p936/ar02.html#en_US_2014_publink1000230008

> Some people take the home equity loan and then use the money to=20
> buy a car. Not legal, but done every day.


There is nothing illegal about buying a car (or anything else) with Home Eq=
uity debt or even with Home Acquisition debt and you can still deduct the i=
nterest (within all applicable limitations, of course)

Here's a fun one: You can pay cash for a home, then take out a *first* mort=
gage, spend all of the money on a fabulous vacation and then deduct the int=
erest as if you bought the house with the proceeds from the loan. It all de=
pends on the timing between the purchase and the closing on the mortgage.

I know a couple that withdrew a huge sum from the wife's IRA and bought a h=
ouse with it. She paid no income tax on the withdrawal. They then withdrew =
the same amount of money from the husband's IRA and deposited it into the w=
ife's IRA. He paid no income tax on the withdrawal. They then took out a mo=
rtgage on the house they bought and deposited the loan proceeds into his IR=
A. Now they take the tax deduction on the mortgage interest every year. Onc=
e again, it's all in the timing of the transactions.

On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 3:04:55 PM UTC-4, dadiOH wrote:
> DerbyDad03 wrote:
>
> > I know a couple that withdrew a huge sum from the wife's IRA and
> > bought a house with it. She paid no income tax on the withdrawal.
> > They then withdrew the same amount of money from the husband's IRA
> > and deposited it into the wife's IRA. He paid no income tax on the
> > withdrawal. They then took out a mortgage on the house they bought
> > and deposited the loan proceeds into his IRA. Now they take the tax
> > deduction on the mortgage interest every year. Once again, it's all
> > in the timing of the transactions.
>
> Roth IRAs? If not, why no tax?

Traditional IRAs, not Roths.

Aren't you also curious as to how the husband could withdraw a large sum of money from his IRA and deposit it into his wife's IRA? (By "large" I mean about $150K)

On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 3:06:27 PM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
> On 4/24/2015 1:13 PM, dadiOH wrote:
> > DerbyDad03 wrote:
> >> On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 4:44:58 PM UTC-4, dadiOH wrote:
> >>> DerbyDad03 wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> To be clear, instead of "replaced within 60 calendars days" I should
> >>>> have said "deposited into a qualified retirement account held by the
> >>>> same individual within 60 calendars days".
> >>>>
> >>>> Since the 60 day rule was put into place to facilitate rollovers,
> >>>> there is no stipulation that the funds must go back into the same
> >>>> account they were withdrawn from, they just need to go back into a
> >>>> qualified retirement account owned by the same individual.
> >>>
> >>> I'm guessing that a Roth IRA doesn't qualify as a "qualified
> >>> retirement
> >>> account"?
> >>>
> >>
> >> A Roth is a qualified retirement account. If I said something that
> >> made you think otherwise, I apologize.
> >>
> >> What made you ask that question?
> >
> > The business about being able to transfer from one qualified account to
> > another.
> >
> > If one can transfer a regular IRA, funded with pre-tax dollars which ar=
e
> > taxable when withdrawn or distributed, to a Roth IRA, which is funded w=
ith
> > post-tax dollars which are NOT taxed when distributed or withdrawn, it =
seems
> > to me there is a loop hole. IME, the IRS really frowns on loop holes b=
ut if
> > this exists, I want in on it :)
> >
>=20
> If you remove money from a traditional IRA and move it to a Roth IRA you=
=20
> have to do a "conversion". Essentially the conversion allows you to=20
> move money into a ROTH in excess of amounts normally allowed per year=20
> however the amount converted adds to your yearly income and you pay=20
> taxes on that money and perhaps at a higher rate if the amount puts you=
=20
> in a higher tax bracket.
>=20
> http://www.rothira.com/roth-ira-conversion-rules

Another reason to do Roth conversions is to reduce the amount of money in y=
our traditional IRA's so that your RMD will be lower once you reach 70 1/2.

There are Roth conversion calculators that can help determine if paying a l=
ittle bit more in taxes each year via Roth conversions will result in a sma=
ller long term tax bill. Let's say you are in the the 15% bracket now but p=
rojections show that your RMD's will push you into the 25% bracket. It may =
make sense to do enough of a Roth conversion each year to get yourself to t=
he top of the 15% bracket, reducing the amount in your IRA's so that when y=
ou reach 70 1/2 you stay in the 15% bracket even with your RMD income.

Of course, if you are going to Roth conversions for any reason, you should =
have money to pay the income taxes already available in non-IRA funds. It d=
oesn't make sense to take a gross amount out the IRA, pay the taxes with pa=
rt of it and convert just the net amount.

On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 1:04:39 PM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
> On 4/23/2015 9:50 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>=20
> >
> > Allow me to clarify one point:
> >
> > I originally stated: "...the IRS allows an individual to withdraw
> > funds from an IRA (or other qualified retirement plan) and not pay
> > any taxes or penalties as long as the money is replaced within 60
> > calendars days..."
> >
> > To be clear, instead of "replaced within 60 calendars days" I should
> > have said "deposited into a qualified retirement account held by the
> > same individual within 60 calendars days".
> >
> > Since the 60 day rule was put into place to facilitate rollovers,
> > there is no stipulation that the funds must go back into the same
> > account they were withdrawn from, they just need to go back into a
> > qualified retirement account owned by the same individual.
> >
> > The IRS also doesn't stipulate that they *can't* go back into the
> > same account, thus allowing for what could be considered "60 day
> > loan" from a person's IRA once every 12 months.
> >
>=20
> "If" the owner of the traditional IRA does not take possession of the=20
> money and lets one institution transfer IRA funds, FBO of the owner, to=
=20
> another Institution as the same type of IRA, there is no limit of ONE=20
> movement of money per year.

This is true, but then it wouldn't be considered a "withdrawal" (actually a=
"distribution") it would most likely be considered an "direct rollover" or=
a "trustee-to-trustee transfer". All of those terms tend to get used inter=
changeably, but they actually have different meanings.

In addition, transfers from one IRA to another IRA within the same institut=
ion are not considered rollovers and are therefore not subject to the One-R=
ollover-Per-Year rule.

However, it should be noted that the IRS got a little stricter in 2015. You=
used to be able to do multiple IRA "loans" from your IRA within the same 1=
2 month period as long as you used different IRA's. Starting 1/1/2015 the I=
RS looks at *all* of an individuals IRA's in aggregate, allowing only one s=
uch transaction per year.

http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/IRA-One-Rollover-Per-Year-Rule

On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 9:33:26 PM UTC-4, dadiOH wrote:
> DerbyDad03 wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 3:04:55 PM UTC-4, dadiOH wrote:
> >> DerbyDad03 wrote:
> >>
> >>> I know a couple that withdrew a huge sum from the wife's IRA and
> >>> bought a house with it. She paid no income tax on the withdrawal.
> >>> They then withdrew the same amount of money from the husband's IRA
> >>> and deposited it into the wife's IRA. He paid no income tax on the
> >>> withdrawal. They then took out a mortgage on the house they bought
> >>> and deposited the loan proceeds into his IRA. Now they take the tax
> >>> deduction on the mortgage interest every year. Once again, it's all
> >>> in the timing of the transactions.
> >>
> >> Roth IRAs? If not, why no tax?
> >
> > Traditional IRAs, not Roths.
> >
> > Aren't you also curious as to how the husband could withdraw a large
> > sum of money from his IRA and deposit it into his wife's IRA? (By
> > "large" I mean about $150K)
>=20
> Yes. Do tell all...

In order to facilitate IRA rollovers, the IRS allows an individual to withd=
raw funds from an IRA (or other qualified retirement plan) and not pay any =
taxes or penalties as long as the money is replaced within 60 calendars day=
s and as long as they don't do it more than once in any 12 month period. (T=
hey are very strict about both of those timing rules...you don't want to pl=
ay around with them!)

Tom & Sue Jones found their dream home for sale by some very motivated sell=
ers. They had some cash that they had set aside for other purposes but they=
needed an additional $150K to purchase the home. They had to move very qui=
ckly, even before they had put their current home on the market.

Sue withdrew $150K from her IRA and they bought the home for cash. Almost 6=
0 days went by and their original house still hadn't sold, so Tom withdrew =
$150K from his IRA, gave it to Sue who used it to replace her IRA withdrawa=
l before the 60 day period had expired. A couple of more weeks went by and =
their house finally sold. Tom took $150K from the proceeds from that sale a=
nd put it back into his IRA, again staying within the 60 day "rollover" gra=
ce period.=20

Since the purchase of their dream home had eaten into all of the excess cas=
h they had set aside and the quick move had cost them more than they expect=
ed, they went to a bank and took out a small mortgage on the new house. Sin=
ce the house had been purchased "within the past 90 days" they were able to=
classify the loan as "house acquisition debt" allowing them to deduct the =
mortgage interest. =20

As I said earlier, it's all in the timing of the transactions.

On 4/24/2015 1:13 PM, dadiOH wrote:
> DerbyDad03 wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 4:44:58 PM UTC-4, dadiOH wrote:
>>> DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>>
>>>> To be clear, instead of "replaced within 60 calendars days" I should
>>>> have said "deposited into a qualified retirement account held by the
>>>> same individual within 60 calendars days".
>>>>
>>>> Since the 60 day rule was put into place to facilitate rollovers,
>>>> there is no stipulation that the funds must go back into the same
>>>> account they were withdrawn from, they just need to go back into a
>>>> qualified retirement account owned by the same individual.
>>>
>>> I'm guessing that a Roth IRA doesn't qualify as a "qualified
>>> retirement
>>> account"?
>>>
>>
>> A Roth is a qualified retirement account. If I said something that
>> made you think otherwise, I apologize.
>>
>> What made you ask that question?
>
> The business about being able to transfer from one qualified account to
> another.
>
> If one can transfer a regular IRA, funded with pre-tax dollars which are
> taxable when withdrawn or distributed, to a Roth IRA, which is funded with
> post-tax dollars which are NOT taxed when distributed or withdrawn, it seems
> to me there is a loop hole. IME, the IRS really frowns on loop holes but if
> this exists, I want in on it :)
>

If you remove money from a traditional IRA and move it to a Roth IRA you
have to do a "conversion". Essentially the conversion allows you to
move money into a ROTH in excess of amounts normally allowed per year
however the amount converted adds to your yearly income and you pay
taxes on that money and perhaps at a higher rate if the amount puts you
in a higher tax bracket.

http://www.rothira.com/roth-ira-conversion-rules

On Sunday, April 26, 2015 at 11:02:53 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
> On 4/24/2015 10:03 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> > On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 3:06:27 PM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
> >> On 4/24/2015 1:13 PM, dadiOH wrote:
> >>> DerbyDad03 wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 4:44:58 PM UTC-4, dadiOH wrote:
> >>>>> DerbyDad03 wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> To be clear, instead of "replaced within 60 calendars days"
> >>>>>> I should have said "deposited into a qualified retirement
> >>>>>> account held by the same individual within 60 calendars
> >>>>>> days".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Since the 60 day rule was put into place to facilitate
> >>>>>> rollovers, there is no stipulation that the funds must go
> >>>>>> back into the same account they were withdrawn from, they
> >>>>>> just need to go back into a qualified retirement account
> >>>>>> owned by the same individual.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm guessing that a Roth IRA doesn't qualify as a "qualified
> >>>>> retirement account"?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> A Roth is a qualified retirement account. If I said something
> >>>> that made you think otherwise, I apologize.
> >>>>
> >>>> What made you ask that question?
> >>>
> >>> The business about being able to transfer from one qualified
> >>> account to another.
> >>>
> >>> If one can transfer a regular IRA, funded with pre-tax dollars
> >>> which are taxable when withdrawn or distributed, to a Roth IRA,
> >>> which is funded with post-tax dollars which are NOT taxed when
> >>> distributed or withdrawn, it seems to me there is a loop hole.
> >>> IME, the IRS really frowns on loop holes but if this exists, I
> >>> want in on it :)
> >>>
> >>
> >> If you remove money from a traditional IRA and move it to a Roth
> >> IRA you have to do a "conversion". Essentially the conversion
> >> allows you to move money into a ROTH in excess of amounts normally
> >> allowed per year however the amount converted adds to your yearly
> >> income and you pay taxes on that money and perhaps at a higher rate
> >> if the amount puts you in a higher tax bracket.
> >>
> >> http://www.rothira.com/roth-ira-conversion-rules
> >
> > Another reason to do Roth conversions is to reduce the amount of
> > money in your traditional IRA's so that your RMD will be lower once
> > you reach 70 1/2.
>=20
> IMHO the only drawback to a RMD is that you have to pay taxes on that=20
> amount which is being withdrawn. Converting means you will pay those=20
> taxes earlier. Converting does not mean you will get out of paying=20
> taxes.=20

I never said a conversion gets you out of paying taxes=20

> Hopefully if you have done your projections and calculations=20
> correctly you will pay less taxes in the long run by converting.

That is exactly what I said. By converting enough assets at a lower tax rat=
e early on, you can sometimes avoid ending up in a higher tax bracket once =
you are forced to take your RMD. Since the RMD is based on the value of you=
r IRA's at the end of each year, reducing the amount in your IRA's reduces =
your RMD.

>=20
> Converting would make more since if Roth investments loose value during=
=20
> a down turn in the market. You essentially still own the same amount of=
=20
> shares and or funds but since they are less valuable they would be taxed=
=20
> less during the conversion.

The only way to pay "less" taxes during a conversion is to convert fewer do=
llars. In my experience, Roth conversions are typically done based on a dol=
lar amount, and then the number of shares to move is calculated to get as c=
lose to that dollar amount as possible. When a specific dollar amount is co=
nverted, it's true that you can convert more shares in a down market, but i=
t doesn't change the taxes due. A $30K conversion is a $30K conversion whet=
her you move 1 "high priced" share or 100 "low priced" shares. You still ge=
t taxed on $30K of income.=20

In fact, if the market goes down in the year *after* the conversion, it oft=
en makes sense to do a recharacterization and "undo" the conversion. There =
is no sense in paying taxes on a $30K conversion if the converted assets ar=
e only worth $15K. That's one of the reasons the IRS allows you to recharac=
terize the assets up until October 15th of the following year.

On 4/21/2015 11:23 PM, krw wrote:

>>>>
>>> Sure, sometimes you just can't lose. ...until you do.
>> In the USA you have the added benefit that your mortgage interest is
>> tax deductible (on your primary residence? or any?)
>
> Any residence, with some restrictions at the very top end. The
> mortgage interest deduction applies to vacation homes, including boats
> and RVs, as well. Of course interest on rental property is deductible
> as a business expense, as well.
>

Interest on a car loan is NOT deductible, but it is on a home equity
loan. Some people take the home equity loan and then use the money to
buy a car. Not legal, but done every day.

On 4/23/2015 9:50 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:

>
> Allow me to clarify one point:
>
> I originally stated: "...the IRS allows an individual to withdraw
> funds from an IRA (or other qualified retirement plan) and not pay
> any taxes or penalties as long as the money is replaced within 60
> calendars days..."
>
> To be clear, instead of "replaced within 60 calendars days" I should
> have said "deposited into a qualified retirement account held by the
> same individual within 60 calendars days".
>
> Since the 60 day rule was put into place to facilitate rollovers,
> there is no stipulation that the funds must go back into the same
> account they were withdrawn from, they just need to go back into a
> qualified retirement account owned by the same individual.
>
> The IRS also doesn't stipulate that they *can't* go back into the
> same account, thus allowing for what could be considered "60 day
> loan" from a person's IRA once every 12 months.
>

"If" the owner of the traditional IRA does not take possession of the
money and lets one institution transfer IRA funds, FBO of the owner, to
another Institution as the same type of IRA, there is no limit of ONE
movement of money per year.

On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 5:49:38 PM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
> On 4/23/2015 2:14 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 1:04:39 PM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
> >> On 4/23/2015 9:50 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Allow me to clarify one point:
> >>>
> >>> I originally stated: "...the IRS allows an individual to
> >>> withdraw funds from an IRA (or other qualified retirement plan)
> >>> and not pay any taxes or penalties as long as the money is
> >>> replaced within 60 calendars days..."
> >>>
> >>> To be clear, instead of "replaced within 60 calendars days" I
> >>> should have said "deposited into a qualified retirement account
> >>> held by the same individual within 60 calendars days".
> >>>
> >>> Since the 60 day rule was put into place to facilitate
> >>> rollovers, there is no stipulation that the funds must go back
> >>> into the same account they were withdrawn from, they just need to
> >>> go back into a qualified retirement account owned by the same
> >>> individual.
> >>>
> >>> The IRS also doesn't stipulate that they *can't* go back into
> >>> the same account, thus allowing for what could be considered "60
> >>> day loan" from a person's IRA once every 12 months.
> >>>
> >>
> >> "If" the owner of the traditional IRA does not take possession of
> >> the money and lets one institution transfer IRA funds, FBO of the
> >> owner, to another Institution as the same type of IRA, there is no
> >> limit of ONE movement of money per year.
> >
> > This is true, but then it wouldn't be considered a "withdrawal"
> > (actually a "distribution") it would most likely be considered an
> > "direct rollover" or a "trustee-to-trustee transfer" All of those
> > terms tend to get used interchangeably, but they actually have
> > different meanings.
>=20
> Actually a trustee to trustee transfer. And yes they do have different=
=20
> meanings and why I did not call it a roll over or withdrawal.
>=20
> >
> > In addition, transfers from one IRA to another IRA within the same
> > institution are not considered rollovers and are therefore not
> > subject to the One-Rollover-Per-Year rule.
>=20
> Correct, but to be clear, a Rollover is where the owner actually takes=20
> possession of the money and puts it into another qualified IRA account.=
=20

This is where the wording on the various IRS pages can be confusing. Depend=
ing on what page you read - and in what context - one could argue that you =
are correct and one could argue that you are wrong. In an effort to keep th=
is friendly, I'll simply point out a few of the many contradictions on the =
irs.gov pages.

Let's start with the basic definition of a Rollover from the IRS.

http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Plan-Participant,-Employee/Definitions

"Rollover - A rollover occurs when a participant directs the transfer of th=
e money in his or her retirement account or IRA to a new plan or IRA."

There is no mention of taking possession or not taking possession, so let's=
call it "unclear" for the moment. Now consider these 2 scenarios in light =
of that IRS definition:

Joe quits his job at Company "A" and gets hired at Company "B". He then "di=
rects the transfer" of the funds in his "A" 401(k) to his "B" 401(k). If he=
were to take possession of the funds, the 401(k) plan would be required to=
withhold 20% in federal taxes. However, if he requests a "direct rollover"=
(see the IRS definition of a direct rollover below) he does not take posse=
ssion yet it is still considered a rollover per the IRS definition. He "dir=
ected the transfer" by requesting a "direct rollover".

The same situation would occur if Joe quit/retired/was laid off and "direct=
s the transfer" of the funds in his "A" 401(k) to an IRA via direct rollove=
r. He did not take possession and it is considered a rollover by definition=
.

Then there's the following from the IRS. Note that they consider both a Dir=
ect Rollover" and a "Trustee-to-Trustee transfer" to be a means to "complet=
e a rollover" without the individual taking possession of the funds. Does t=
hat mean that these types of movements are rollovers? Based on the title of=
the section "How do I complete a rollover?" one could argue Yes.

http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Plan-Participant,-Employee/Rollovers-of=
-Retirement-Plan-and-IRA-Distributions

"How do I complete a rollover?

Direct rollover - If you're getting a distribution from a retirement pl=
an, you can ask your plan administrator to make the payment directly to ano=
ther retirement plan or to an IRA. Contact your plan administrator for inst=
ructions. The administrator may issue your distribution in the form of a ch=
eck made payable to your new account. No taxes will be withheld from your t=
ransfer amount.

Trustee-to-trustee transfer - If you're getting a distribution from an =
IRA, you can ask the financial institution holding your IRA to make the pay=
ment directly from your IRA to another IRA or to a retirement plan. No taxe=
s will be withheld from your transfer amount.

60-day rollover - If a distribution from an IRA or a retirement plan is=
paid directly to you, you can deposit all or a portion of it in an IRA or =
a retirement plan within 60 days. Taxes will be withheld from a distributio=
n from a retirement plan (see below), so you'll have to use other funds to =
roll over the full amount of the distribution."

But - and this is a big but - let's see what they say here:

http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/IRA-One-Rollover-Per-Year-Rule

"Direct transfers of IRA money are not limited"

"This change won't affect your ability to transfer funds from one IRA trust=
ee directly to another, because this type of transfer isn't a rollover (Rev=
enue Ruling 78-406, 1978-2 C.B. 157). The one-rollover-per-year rule of Int=
ernal Revenue Code Section 408(d)(3)(B) applies only to rollovers"

So, depending on which section of irs.gov you read, it's not not easy to fi=
gure out what they define as a rollover, although one might want to give a =
higher weighting to a Revenue Ruling than a FAQ. ;-)

On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 22:01:48 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 21:02:41 -0400, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 12:46:49 -0400, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>> A house has a much better chance of being a "good investment" than a
>>>> vehicle, for sure||
>>>> You need to look at what it would cost to rent "the same"
>>>> accomodation, buying too much house is seldom a good investment.
>>>> Buying good basic shelter USUALLY is.
>>>>
>>>> I've been in this house 34 years this June. Paid $65K-ish for it.
>>>> It's worth $350K-ish today. Spent another 3\$35,000 more or less on
>>>> renovations and repairs and $50,000 more or less on taxes. Renting a 3
>>>> bedroom family home when I bought was over $800 per month here - over
>>>> $2500 today.
>>>> Utility costs would have been similar
>>>>
>>>> Rent would have amounted to well over $500,000 for the duration and I
>>>> would not have an assett at the end.
>>>>
>>>> Comes out about 4 times the cost to rent. Can't beat that as an
>>>> "investment" - even IF the house had not appreciated one cent over the
>>>> 34 years
>>>
>>>General "words of wisdom" in real estate are, "Rent where you live, own what
>>>you rent".
>>>
>>>That seems contradictory but it means rent where you live so you have
>>>capital to buy rentals...let the rental income pay the mortgage, taxes, etc.
>>>Suppose you buy a rental house worth 150,000 with, say, 15K down and a few
>>>years later you sell it for $180,000. ROI is 200%.
>>
>>...and if you live in it (two years out of five) that ROI is tax free.
>>There once was a time when this was a foolproof plan. Not so much
>>anymore.
>>
>>>But there are better deals. House next to me sits on 12 acres purchased for
>>>60K or so in 1996. The buyer put a prefab garage (modified into a 1 bedroom
>>>house) on it and added a 28K prefab barn elsewhere on the property. He sold
>>>all 6-7 years later for $287,000. That buyer was foreclosed upon in the
>>>fall of 2013 for 51K. An investor bought it from the bank for 40K and sold
>>>it a few months later for 133K. THAT's making money :)
>>>
>>Sure, sometimes you just can't lose. ...until you do.
> In the USA you have the added benefit that your mortgage interest is
>tax deductible (on your primary residence? or any?)

Any residence, with some restrictions at the very top end. The
mortgage interest deduction applies to vacation homes, including boats
and RVs, as well. Of course interest on rental property is deductible
as a business expense, as well.

On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 8:12:45 PM UTC-4, Swingman wrote:
> On 4/23/2015 6:47 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>
> > So, depending on which section of irs.gov you read, it's not not easy to figure out what they define as a rollover, although one might want to give a higher weighting to a Revenue Ruling than a FAQ. ;-)
>
> I'm beginning to like the fact that all I have to worry about these days
> is RMD. ;)
>

...and let's hope you have to worry about it for long, long time.

DerbyDad03 wrote:

> I know a couple that withdrew a huge sum from the wife's IRA and
> bought a house with it. She paid no income tax on the withdrawal.
> They then withdrew the same amount of money from the husband's IRA
> and deposited it into the wife's IRA. He paid no income tax on the
> withdrawal. They then took out a mortgage on the house they bought
> and deposited the loan proceeds into his IRA. Now they take the tax
> deduction on the mortgage interest every year. Once again, it's all
> in the timing of the transactions.

Roth IRAs? If not, why no tax?

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 3:04:55 PM UTC-4, dadiOH wrote:
>> DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>
>>> I know a couple that withdrew a huge sum from the wife's IRA and
>>> bought a house with it. She paid no income tax on the withdrawal.
>>> They then withdrew the same amount of money from the husband's IRA
>>> and deposited it into the wife's IRA. He paid no income tax on the
>>> withdrawal. They then took out a mortgage on the house they bought
>>> and deposited the loan proceeds into his IRA. Now they take the tax
>>> deduction on the mortgage interest every year. Once again, it's all
>>> in the timing of the transactions.
>>
>> Roth IRAs? If not, why no tax?
>
> Traditional IRAs, not Roths.
>
> Aren't you also curious as to how the husband could withdraw a large
> sum of money from his IRA and deposit it into his wife's IRA? (By
> "large" I mean about $150K)

Yes. Do tell all...

DerbyDad03 wrote:

> To be clear, instead of "replaced within 60 calendars days" I should
> have said "deposited into a qualified retirement account held by the
> same individual within 60 calendars days".
>
> Since the 60 day rule was put into place to facilitate rollovers,
> there is no stipulation that the funds must go back into the same
> account they were withdrawn from, they just need to go back into a
> qualified retirement account owned by the same individual.

I'm guessing that a Roth IRA doesn't qualify as a "qualified retirement
account"?

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 4:44:58 PM UTC-4, dadiOH wrote:
>> DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>
>>> To be clear, instead of "replaced within 60 calendars days" I should
>>> have said "deposited into a qualified retirement account held by the
>>> same individual within 60 calendars days".
>>>
>>> Since the 60 day rule was put into place to facilitate rollovers,
>>> there is no stipulation that the funds must go back into the same
>>> account they were withdrawn from, they just need to go back into a
>>> qualified retirement account owned by the same individual.
>>
>> I'm guessing that a Roth IRA doesn't qualify as a "qualified
>> retirement
>> account"?
>>
>
> A Roth is a qualified retirement account. If I said something that
> made you think otherwise, I apologize.
>
> What made you ask that question?

The business about being able to transfer from one qualified account to
another.

If one can transfer a regular IRA, funded with pre-tax dollars which are
taxable when withdrawn or distributed, to a Roth IRA, which is funded with
post-tax dollars which are NOT taxed when distributed or withdrawn, it seems
to me there is a loop hole. IME, the IRS really frowns on loop holes but if
this exists, I want in on it :)

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

On 4/23/2015 6:47 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:

> So, depending on which section of irs.gov you read, it's not not easy to figure out what they define as a rollover, although one might want to give a higher weighting to a Revenue Ruling than a FAQ. ;-)

I'm beginning to like the fact that all I have to worry about these days
is RMD. ;)

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 4/23/2015 2:14 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 1:04:39 PM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
>> On 4/23/2015 9:50 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Allow me to clarify one point:
>>>
>>> I originally stated: "...the IRS allows an individual to
>>> withdraw funds from an IRA (or other qualified retirement plan)
>>> and not pay any taxes or penalties as long as the money is
>>> replaced within 60 calendars days..."
>>>
>>> To be clear, instead of "replaced within 60 calendars days" I
>>> should have said "deposited into a qualified retirement account
>>> held by the same individual within 60 calendars days".
>>>
>>> Since the 60 day rule was put into place to facilitate
>>> rollovers, there is no stipulation that the funds must go back
>>> into the same account they were withdrawn from, they just need to
>>> go back into a qualified retirement account owned by the same
>>> individual.
>>>
>>> The IRS also doesn't stipulate that they *can't* go back into
>>> the same account, thus allowing for what could be considered "60
>>> day loan" from a person's IRA once every 12 months.
>>>
>>
>> "If" the owner of the traditional IRA does not take possession of
>> the money and lets one institution transfer IRA funds, FBO of the
>> owner, to another Institution as the same type of IRA, there is no
>> limit of ONE movement of money per year.
>
> This is true, but then it wouldn't be considered a "withdrawal"
> (actually a "distribution") it would most likely be considered an
> "direct rollover" or a "trustee-to-trustee transfer". All of those
> terms tend to get used interchangeably, but they actually have
> different meanings.

Actually a trustee to trustee transfer. And yes they do have different
meanings and why I did not call it a roll over or withdrawal.



>
> In addition, transfers from one IRA to another IRA within the same
> institution are not considered rollovers and are therefore not
> subject to the One-Rollover-Per-Year rule.

Correct, but to be clear, a Rollover is where the owner actually takes
possession of the money and puts it into another qualified IRA account.
Transfers are not subject to the once a year rule because they are not
roll overs.

On 4/24/2015 10:03 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 3:06:27 PM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
>> On 4/24/2015 1:13 PM, dadiOH wrote:
>>> DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 4:44:58 PM UTC-4, dadiOH wrote:
>>>>> DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> To be clear, instead of "replaced within 60 calendars days"
>>>>>> I should have said "deposited into a qualified retirement
>>>>>> account held by the same individual within 60 calendars
>>>>>> days".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since the 60 day rule was put into place to facilitate
>>>>>> rollovers, there is no stipulation that the funds must go
>>>>>> back into the same account they were withdrawn from, they
>>>>>> just need to go back into a qualified retirement account
>>>>>> owned by the same individual.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm guessing that a Roth IRA doesn't qualify as a "qualified
>>>>> retirement account"?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A Roth is a qualified retirement account. If I said something
>>>> that made you think otherwise, I apologize.
>>>>
>>>> What made you ask that question?
>>>
>>> The business about being able to transfer from one qualified
>>> account to another.
>>>
>>> If one can transfer a regular IRA, funded with pre-tax dollars
>>> which are taxable when withdrawn or distributed, to a Roth IRA,
>>> which is funded with post-tax dollars which are NOT taxed when
>>> distributed or withdrawn, it seems to me there is a loop hole.
>>> IME, the IRS really frowns on loop holes but if this exists, I
>>> want in on it :)
>>>
>>
>> If you remove money from a traditional IRA and move it to a Roth
>> IRA you have to do a "conversion". Essentially the conversion
>> allows you to move money into a ROTH in excess of amounts normally
>> allowed per year however the amount converted adds to your yearly
>> income and you pay taxes on that money and perhaps at a higher rate
>> if the amount puts you in a higher tax bracket.
>>
>> http://www.rothira.com/roth-ira-conversion-rules
>
> Another reason to do Roth conversions is to reduce the amount of
> money in your traditional IRA's so that your RMD will be lower once
> you reach 70 1/2.

IMHO the only drawback to a RMD is that you have to pay taxes on that
amount which is being withdrawn. Converting means you will pay those
taxes earlier. Converting does not mean you will get out of paying
taxes. Hopefully if you have done your projections and calculations
correctly you will pay less taxes in the long run by converting.

Converting would make more since if Roth investments loose value during
a down turn in the market. You essentially still own the same amount of
shares and or funds but since they are less valuable they would be taxed
less during the conversion.

On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 9:32:25 PM UTC-4, dadiOH wrote:
> krw wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 08:19:48 -0400, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
>
> >>> I thought you said it had nothing to do with the death benefit!
> >>
> >> It does ONLY if some of that benefit was used before the insured
> >> died. If you borrowed from a bank using a savings account as
> >> security and then died without pying off theloan,where do you think
> >> the bank is going to get their money?
> >
> > If you haven't got it, it's a loss.
>
> Wrong. Again. The bank gets it from the savings account that secured it.
> Just like an insurance company recovers any unpaid loans from a policy from
> the death benefit.
>
> I give up on the rest of your rantings, you are too far gone.

Just like he's wrong about the in-force status of an insurance policy that has been sold. I think we should just let him be.

On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 08:19:48 -0400, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>krw wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 12:26:38 -0400, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> krw wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 12:48:37 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Sometimes life insurance policies can "pay off" twice. Once when
>>>>> the owner sells it, then again when the insured passes away.
>>>>
>>>> No, once you sell an insurance policy it's no longer in force.
>>>
>>> Incorrect.
>>
>> Not.
>
>Is not.

You're wrong but obviously don't care.

>>>> Worse, the life payout is reduced by the value of the policy.
>>>
>>> ?? When the insured dies the owner of the policy receives the full
>>> amount of the policy's death benefit.
>>
>> The *insurance* value is reduced by the "cash value". The beneficiary
>> only gets the face value.
>
>Of course. Why would you think otherwise?

Because people think they're buying insurance. The insurance they're
buying is decreasing in value. If you take a loan against the
insurance, thpayout is reduced by that loan. It's a shit product.

>>> If you are thinking of a policy that earns and therefore has an ever
>>> increasing cash value, that cash value may get very close to the
>>> death benefit value of the policy but that has nothing to do with
>>> the death benefit. If the owner of the policy has borrowed from the
>>> cash value, THEN the death benefit is reduced by the amount borrowed
>>> plus interest.
>
>> I thought you said it had nothing to do with the death benefit!
>
>It does ONLY if some of that benefit was used before the insured died. If
>you borrowed from a bank using a savings account as security and then died
>without pying off theloan,where do you think the bank is going to get their
>money?

If you haven't got it, it's a loss. No, you're wrong. Whole life
insurance is really two products glued together. It's an *expensive*
sinking insurance policy in parallel with a piss-poor savings account,
all wrapped up in an uninsured product. IOW, *crap*.

>>> The fact is that this sort of shit product is really two pieces of shit.
>> First, there is an overly0expensive insurance policy that gets reduced
>> by the cash value each year.
>
>Where are you getting this stuff? The only thing I know of that may be
>reduced is the premium that pays for the insurance. I haven't had to pay a
>premium for at least 25 years and the cash value of the policy continued to
>grow. The cash value is now near the face value. I could surrender the
>policy and get that cash value which would be taxable; OTOH, when I die my
>beneficiary gets the FULL face value tax free.

You really should study this stuff more. I'm exactly right. You've
been *screwed*. I guess suckers tend to defend their poor decisions,
kinda like those with time-shares.

>> Then there is the cash value that grows
>> at a horrid rate.
>
>That depends upon the policy. Mine at least pays a minimum of 4%, much
>better than CDs now. Previously, it was 9%, still better than CDs then.

There may be a small difference but whole life insurance is
*universally* bad. Term insurance is *far* cheaper and if you invest
the difference at a *very* modest rate (i.e. *safe*), you would have
been *way* ahead, particularly over the last thirty years. You got
suckered.

>> The sum of these is the face value of the policy.
>> You don't get both!
>
>Your problem is that you simply don't understand what you are talking about.

No, you're just a typical sucker trying to justify his crappy
decisions.

>>You could buy a $100,000 term policy. It will pay your beneficiary $100,000
>when you die. Premiums are cheap, go up every 5 years or so as you age and
>become a greater risk. It never has a cash value.

You'll pay about 1/10th the premiums on this account. Take the 90%
and invest it and you'll be *way* ahead. 20 year term insurance is
readily available.

>You could buy a $100,000 universal life policy (or <enter type>). It will
>pay your beneficiary $100,000 when you die. Premiums are higher, never go
>up. Part of the premium is used to pay for the protection; the rest is
>invested by the insurance company and they pay you interest on what they
>use. Eventually, the policy has a cash value; you could surrender the
>policy and get that cash value. The cash value has nothing to do with the
>$100,000 face value.
>
Either you're the world's biggest sucker or an insurance salesman.

On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 9:00:45 PM UTC-4, krw wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 08:19:48 -0400, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >krw wrote:
> >> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 12:26:38 -0400, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> krw wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 12:48:37 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
> >>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Sometimes life insurance policies can "pay off" twice. Once when
> >>>>> the owner sells it, then again when the insured passes away.
> >>>>
> >>>> No, once you sell an insurance policy it's no longer in force.
> >>>
> >>> Incorrect.
> >>
> >> Not.
> >
> >Is not.
>
> You're wrong but obviously don't care.
>

I'm going assume that krw has me in his KF because he hasn't responded to anything I've tried to explain about Life Settlements.

I guess we'll just let him keep believing his incorrect statement that "once you sell an insurance policy it's no longer in force."

On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 21:02:41 -0400, krw <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 12:46:49 -0400, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>> A house has a much better chance of being a "good investment" than a
>>> vehicle, for sure||
>>> You need to look at what it would cost to rent "the same"
>>> accomodation, buying too much house is seldom a good investment.
>>> Buying good basic shelter USUALLY is.
>>>
>>> I've been in this house 34 years this June. Paid $65K-ish for it.
>>> It's worth $350K-ish today. Spent another 3\$35,000 more or less on
>>> renovations and repairs and $50,000 more or less on taxes. Renting a 3
>>> bedroom family home when I bought was over $800 per month here - over
>>> $2500 today.
>>> Utility costs would have been similar
>>>
>>> Rent would have amounted to well over $500,000 for the duration and I
>>> would not have an assett at the end.
>>>
>>> Comes out about 4 times the cost to rent. Can't beat that as an
>>> "investment" - even IF the house had not appreciated one cent over the
>>> 34 years
>>
>>General "words of wisdom" in real estate are, "Rent where you live, own what
>>you rent".
>>
>>That seems contradictory but it means rent where you live so you have
>>capital to buy rentals...let the rental income pay the mortgage, taxes, etc.
>>Suppose you buy a rental house worth 150,000 with, say, 15K down and a few
>>years later you sell it for $180,000. ROI is 200%.
>
>...and if you live in it (two years out of five) that ROI is tax free.
>There once was a time when this was a foolproof plan. Not so much
>anymore.
>
>>But there are better deals. House next to me sits on 12 acres purchased for
>>60K or so in 1996. The buyer put a prefab garage (modified into a 1 bedroom
>>house) on it and added a 28K prefab barn elsewhere on the property. He sold
>>all 6-7 years later for $287,000. That buyer was foreclosed upon in the
>>fall of 2013 for 51K. An investor bought it from the bank for 40K and sold
>>it a few months later for 133K. THAT's making money :)
>>
>Sure, sometimes you just can't lose. ...until you do.
In the USA you have the added benefit that your mortgage interest is
tax deductible (on your primary residence? or any?)

On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 10:02:03 PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 21:02:41 -0400, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 12:46:49 -0400, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>[email protected] wrote:
> >>> A house has a much better chance of being a "good investment" than a
> >>> vehicle, for sure||
> >>> You need to look at what it would cost to rent "the same"
> >>> accomodation, buying too much house is seldom a good investment.
> >>> Buying good basic shelter USUALLY is.
> >>>
> >>> I've been in this house 34 years this June. Paid $65K-ish for it.
> >>> It's worth $350K-ish today. Spent another 3\$35,000 more or less on
> >>> renovations and repairs and $50,000 more or less on taxes. Renting a 3
> >>> bedroom family home when I bought was over $800 per month here - over
> >>> $2500 today.
> >>> Utility costs would have been similar
> >>>
> >>> Rent would have amounted to well over $500,000 for the duration and I
> >>> would not have an assett at the end.
> >>>
> >>> Comes out about 4 times the cost to rent. Can't beat that as an
> >>> "investment" - even IF the house had not appreciated one cent over the
> >>> 34 years
> >>
> >>General "words of wisdom" in real estate are, "Rent where you live, own what
> >>you rent".
> >>
> >>That seems contradictory but it means rent where you live so you have
> >>capital to buy rentals...let the rental income pay the mortgage, taxes, etc.
> >>Suppose you buy a rental house worth 150,000 with, say, 15K down and a few
> >>years later you sell it for $180,000. ROI is 200%.
> >
> >...and if you live in it (two years out of five) that ROI is tax free.
> >There once was a time when this was a foolproof plan. Not so much
> >anymore.
> >
> >>But there are better deals. House next to me sits on 12 acres purchased for
> >>60K or so in 1996. The buyer put a prefab garage (modified into a 1 bedroom
> >>house) on it and added a 28K prefab barn elsewhere on the property. He sold
> >>all 6-7 years later for $287,000. That buyer was foreclosed upon in the
> >>fall of 2013 for 51K. An investor bought it from the bank for 40K and sold
> >>it a few months later for 133K. THAT's making money :)
> >>
> >Sure, sometimes you just can't lose. ...until you do.
> In the USA you have the added benefit that your mortgage interest is
> tax deductible (on your primary residence? or any?)

Straight from the source. Click on the Qualified a Home link.

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p936/ar02.html#en_US_2014_publink1000229900

On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 18:03:53 -0400, Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:

>krw wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 23:01:48 -0400, Bill <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> krw wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 23:57:37 -0400, Bill <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> krw wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 22:16:56 -0400, Bill <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> krw wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 21:51:23 -0400, Bill <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> krw wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 11:13:47 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2015 7:21 PM, krw wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 23:43:40 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2015 8:38 PM, krw wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 22:45:12 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 21:22:35 -0400, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 16:12:43 -0400, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, the $15 an hour folks want the most menial jobs, the jobs with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the least skill level, the jobs that provided by employers that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffer all those that come and go as first time employees to be paid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a "livable" wage. Regardless of their work history (if any), skill
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level, employment history or lack thereof, an employer will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to pay almost double what they are paying now for minimum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wage employees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If a job has to be done, then it deserves a living wage to get it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not all entry level jobs are done by pimple faced kids looking for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pocket money.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many of these people earning a minimum wage are trying to support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a family unit which isn't going to happen at $10/hr much less the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $7.50/hr
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> federal minimum wage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the $15/hour minimum wage gets enacted it will raise the standard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of living of the whole economy except for the top 1% which will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asked to pay for it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lew, if raising the minimum wage would enable all to enjoy a better standard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of living (except for the 1% of course :) then why haven't the two dozen +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> raises in it over the last 70 years accomplished that end?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only thing raising the mnimum wage does is raise all prices.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...and decrease employment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A "living wage" would increase business, because more people would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be able to afford to buy products. $7.50 is NOT a living wage. Nor is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $12.00.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would increase prices somewhat, for sure - but overall it WOULD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve the economy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I KNOW it will never happen in the "greatest country on earth" because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's not "the american way"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Utterly absurd. You don't make money by spending more money. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government has been trying it for decades and we are where we are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well you do make more money if you spend more money "correctly". The
>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem is that the government, that has never had to work with what it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> collects, has never learned how to manage a business. It does however
>>>>>>>>>>>>> know how to promote socialism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't make money by spending money. You make money by *investing*
>>>>>>>>>>>> money. There is a difference.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well pamato, topatato. Not all investments make money. You get the point.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ;-) I can't think of an investment that wasn't intended to have a
>>>>>>>>>> positive return.
>>>>>>>>> How about life insurance, Mr. investment expert. ;-)
>>>>>>>> Only criminals "invest" in insurance. For everyone else, it's an
>>>>>>>> expense. The return is *expected* to be negative. It *has* to be
>>>>>>>> (for other than one contemplating insurance fraud).
>>>>>>> How about the purchase of PUTs to protect a stock holding, Mr
>>>>>>> Investment Expert?
>>>>>> Are you, or are you not expecting a positive return on (all of) your
>>>>>> investments?
>>>>> You said you couldn't think of an investment that wasn't intended to
>>>>> have a positive return. I've given you two now (and avoided the use of
>>>>> the word clueless that you used earlier). You didn't say anything about
>>>>> portfolios or non-pecuniary issues. A person's house may be a 3rd example.
>>>>>
>>>> Oh, good grief. Of *course* it has a positive return. It is
>>>> protecting the higher return of the investment. That's *positive*.
>>> It's actually protecting against the potential loss of the
>>> investment. Do you want to say that's positive too? What do you advise
>>> about selling calls?
>> '
>> Are you intending to lose money? Yes or no.
>
>What I intend and what happens are two different things, no? When you
>sell a call, someone else buys it. One of you is going to be wrong!

That's no differnt than buying or selling stock. One of you is
betting that the price is going up and the other is that it's not (at
least fast enough).

>:) I agree with the poster who said selling covered calls is
>reasonable. "Cheap money" has made for higher grocery prices and
>expensive stock prices.

No question.

krw wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 08:19:48 -0400, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>

>>> I thought you said it had nothing to do with the death benefit!
>>
>> It does ONLY if some of that benefit was used before the insured
>> died. If you borrowed from a bank using a savings account as
>> security and then died without pying off theloan,where do you think
>> the bank is going to get their money?
>
> If you haven't got it, it's a loss.

Wrong. Again. The bank gets it from the savings account that secured it.
Just like an insurance company recovers any unpaid loans from a policy from
the death benefit.

I give up on the rest of your rantings, you are too far gone.

krw wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 18:03:53 -0400, Bill <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> krw wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 23:01:48 -0400, Bill <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> krw wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 23:57:37 -0400, Bill <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> krw wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 22:16:56 -0400, Bill <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> krw wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 21:51:23 -0400, Bill <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> krw wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 11:13:47 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2015 7:21 PM, krw wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 23:43:40 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2015 8:38 PM, krw wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 22:45:12 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 21:22:35 -0400, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 16:12:43 -0400, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, the $15 an hour folks want the most menial jobs, the jobs with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the least skill level, the jobs that provided by employers that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffer all those that come and go as first time employees to be paid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a "livable" wage. Regardless of their work history (if any), skill
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level, employment history or lack thereof, an employer will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to pay almost double what they are paying now for minimum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wage employees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If a job has to be done, then it deserves a living wage to get it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not all entry level jobs are done by pimple faced kids looking for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pocket money.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many of these people earning a minimum wage are trying to support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a family unit which isn't going to happen at $10/hr much less the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $7.50/hr
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> federal minimum wage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the $15/hour minimum wage gets enacted it will raise the standard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of living of the whole economy except for the top 1% which will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asked to pay for it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lew, if raising the minimum wage would enable all to enjoy a better standard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of living (except for the 1% of course :) then why haven't the two dozen +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> raises in it over the last 70 years accomplished that end?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only thing raising the mnimum wage does is raise all prices.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...and decrease employment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A "living wage" would increase business, because more people would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be able to afford to buy products. $7.50 is NOT a living wage. Nor is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $12.00.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would increase prices somewhat, for sure - but overall it WOULD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve the economy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I KNOW it will never happen in the "greatest country on earth" because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's not "the american way"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Utterly absurd. You don't make money by spending more money. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government has been trying it for decades and we are where we are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well you do make more money if you spend more money "correctly". The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem is that the government, that has never had to work with what it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collects, has never learned how to manage a business. It does however
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know how to promote socialism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't make money by spending money. You make money by *investing*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> money. There is a difference.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Well pamato, topatato. Not all investments make money. You get the point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ;-) I can't think of an investment that wasn't intended to have a
>>>>>>>>>>> positive return.
>>>>>>>>>> How about life insurance, Mr. investment expert. ;-)
>>>>>>>>> Only criminals "invest" in insurance. For everyone else, it's an
>>>>>>>>> expense. The return is *expected* to be negative. It *has* to be
>>>>>>>>> (for other than one contemplating insurance fraud).
>>>>>>>> How about the purchase of PUTs to protect a stock holding, Mr
>>>>>>>> Investment Expert?
>>>>>>> Are you, or are you not expecting a positive return on (all of) your
>>>>>>> investments?
>>>>>> You said you couldn't think of an investment that wasn't intended to
>>>>>> have a positive return. I've given you two now (and avoided the use of
>>>>>> the word clueless that you used earlier). You didn't say anything about
>>>>>> portfolios or non-pecuniary issues. A person's house may be a 3rd example.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, good grief. Of *course* it has a positive return. It is
>>>>> protecting the higher return of the investment. That's *positive*.
>>>> It's actually protecting against the potential loss of the
>>>> investment. Do you want to say that's positive too? What do you advise
>>>> about selling calls?
>>> '
>>> Are you intending to lose money? Yes or no.
>> What I intend and what happens are two different things, no? When you
>> sell a call, someone else buys it. One of you is going to be wrong!
> That's no differnt than buying or selling stock. One of you is
> betting that the price is going up and the other is that it's not (at
> least fast enough).

It IS different though. In selling a call you create a new contract out
of thin air. In the end, there is a clear winner and a clear loser. In
buying or selling a stock, you're assisting in providing liquidity for
the stock markets--which more directly supports our economic system.

>
>> :) I agree with the poster who said selling covered calls is
>> reasonable. "Cheap money" has made for higher grocery prices and
>> expensive stock prices.
> No question.