Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
it is cute seeing oaktonite try to use the founding fathers' desires (or his own perception of them) at his convenience when he seems to think that his opinion is in alignment with them when im sure in other discussions he has nothing but contempt for them.
Some of the founders were better examples of the breed than others, but all of them were men. Imperfect by nature. Beatification is not an appropriate thing here.
People who make life decisions on the basis of how much money they might be able to make from them are typically going to be miserable (and often broke) until the day they die. Do what you love. Invest in what you know. This is how to live happily ever after.
That's why you make decisions on what you love AND how much you can make. They are not mutually exclusive. And some just love the art of making money. Educate yourself so that you know about what you invest in. And then live happily ever after.
You can't deduct hobby expenses. Trying to convert a hobby into an allowable business is quite likely to result in a) expenses, and b) losses.
No - you convert a hobby into a profit-intending business. Business expenses/losses are the point - but you understand that, right? That was but one example. I didn't do that, but I've seen it done successfully - MANY times.
Such as? And just generally, buying or selling based simply on tax consequences is a terrible idea.
Not true at all. Plenty of people/businesses buy commercial properties merely to shelter income. This is a very common practice, which I'm sure you know all about.
Most people have no need of any trust of any kind, making the expenses of setting one up and maintaining it a net waste of otherwise useful resources. IRA's are fine for many, and hardly a secret. Whole life insurance policies are typically a rip-off. Most people would do better with term insurance.
Whole life may be a rip-off if you are a 50 y.o. smoker needing coverage. A healthy 18 y.o. trying to diversify low-risk retirement investment, while setting up portable coverage- not such a rip-off - but that would require some simple estate planning.
You mean DEBT, don't you? That's what leverage is...evil, nasty DEBT. Right?
No, strategic business leverage is not nasty and not evil - it is the way the game is successfully played, but you know that right? We're not talking credit cards here.
The risk of ending up subject to estate taxes without recognizing that likelihood years if not decades in advance is zero. There is no need to take any action at all to avoid estate taxes that one is not going to be subject to in any case.
Disagree. Self-defeating and short-sighted thinking.
Strategic wealth building/preservation information? How about a bunch of hyperbolized nonsense
Nope, just a smart, strategic way of thinking. That's ok, many people don't get it. I am quite happy with how I set things up when I was in my early 20's, and I am glad things are working out for you as well.
That's why you make decisions on what you love AND how much you can make. They are not mutually exclusive.
Is there any actual tendency for them to be coincidental?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCUBS1
And some just love the art of making money. And they love happily ever after.
That's happy news for them then, isn't it. As it turns out, this is typical of those who heed my advice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCUBS1
No - you convert a hobby to a profitable business
Hocus-pocus-alla-ma-gocus! Got it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCUBS1
Not true. Plenty of people/businesses buy commercial properties to shelter income. This is a very common practice.
No, buying solely on the basis of tax consequences is not a strategy of any serious investor. At most, tax consequences contribute to decisions on timing and to choices between otherwise comparable opportunities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCUBS1
Whole life may be a rip-off if you are a 50 y.o. smoker trying to buy it for coverage/no cash value, a healthy 18 y.o. trying to diversify - not such a rip-off - but that would require some simple estate planning.
In most cases, whole life policies are a rip-off, period. This is one reason why the skylines of even medium-sized cities in this country are defined by insurance company towers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCUBS1
No, strategic business leverage is not nasty and not evil - it is the way the game is successfully played. We're not talking credit cards here.
We are howevr talking DEBT. You are simply afraid to use the word.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCUBS1
Disagree. Self-defeting and short-sighting thinking.
Absolute nonsense. You may as well tell people that they need to plan for the event of elephant stampedes. Or have you done that already?
Is there any actual tendency for them to be coincidental?
That's happy news for them then, isn't it. As it turns out, this is typical of those who heed my advice.
Hocus-pocus-alla-ma-gocus! Got it!
No, buying solely on the basis of tax consequences is not a strategy of any serious investor. At most, tax consequences contribute to decisions on timing and to choices between otherwise comparable opportunities.
In most cases, whole life policies are a rip-off, period. This is one reason why the skylines of even medium-sized cities in this country are defined by insurance company towers.
We are howevr talking DEBT. You are simply afraid to use the word.
Absolute nonsense. You may as well tell people that they need to plan for the event of elephant stampedes. Or have you done that already?
I seriously doubt you have any business experience, certainly no successful business/property ownership experience or you would not be making the above-bolded statement. You should not be so proudly spewing advice, there may be a reader of lower intellect than you here. Oh, and your whole "you're to scared to say debt" is laughable - what are you 10?
Debt used to business advantage is LEVERAGE, something you appear to know nothing about. I am a fan of leverage and I am a fan of prudent use of debt. I have announced that before on this forum to the sneers of others. But that's ok, I'm smiling at the bank. I have no desire to educate you further. Good luck with your investment strategy.
it is cute seeing oaktonite try to use the founding fathers' desires (or his own perception of them) at his convenience when he seems to think that his opinion is in alignment with them when im sure in other discussions he has nothing but contempt for them.
It is also cute when he talks of those who "heed his advice." He sees little advantage of leverage, estate planning, tax sheltering.... This poster is comic relief!
I seriously doubt you have any business experience, certainly no successful business/property ownership experience or you would not be making the above-bolded statement.
So, another descent into the world of not so veiled personal insult. What is it with you people? Meanwhile, you would be seriously wrong on all counts here except that I wrote the above bolded statement. And let me reiterate that buying anything solely on the basis of tax consequences is a fool's errand. There must be an actual underlying rationale for an investment before it can begin to make sense. More or less favorable tax treatment is merely one aspect of deciding between competing such candidates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCUBS1
You should not be so proudly spewing advice, there may be a reader of lower intellect than you here. Oh, and your whole "you're to scared to say debt" is laughable - what are you 10?
No, I'm pushing 70, and if you were not afraid to use the word DEBT in a sentence, you should simply have done so rather than so obviously investing in dancing around it. Leverage is the use of OPM -- Other People's Money. That's borrowed money. Borrowing creates debt. You may as well just say so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCUBS1
Debt used to business advantage is LEVERAGE, something you appear to know nothing about.
Rest assured that I am knowledgeable over the ranges of both sane and insane uses of leverage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCUBS1
I am a fan of leverage and I am a fan of prudent use of debt. I have announced that before on this forum to the sneers of others. But that's ok, I'm smiling at the bank.
It is also cute when he talks of those who "heed his advice." He sees little advantage of leverage, estate planning, tax sheltering.... This poster is comic relief!
Is that the sound of whimpering that I hear? It is meanwhile often found that those who do what they love and invest in what they know are able to compile an enviable record of success in life. Including financial success of course, but many other sorts as well.
Leverage -- like all DEBT -- is a tool. So is a chainsaw. Used properly, these are very beneficial things. Used improperly, they can do a lot of long-term damage.
Estate planning is for those who can actually expect to have an estate when they die. For most, nothing beyond a simple will is necessary. Trying to push people into products and services that they don't and won't ever have an actual need for is shyster-stuff.
Tax-sheltering is very different from investing solely on the basis of tax advantages. That's another tune changed there.
Why do you have more of a right to keep your money and pass it on to people who have not earned it than I (a wage earning individual) have to pay a lower tax rate? The answer is you don't. We are basically making value judgments as a society. I see about three possible positions here:
1. All taxes should be abolished and we shouldn't have government at all.
2. Its better to tax inheritances and money going to people who have not earned it than to tax incomes.
3. Its better to tax the money that working people earn than it is to tax unearned money bequeathed to people who did not work for it.
Position #2 is the value judgment that I would make. Position #1 is one that civilized people cannot respect. Position #3 is a choice you make that I imagine is shared by a minority of people.
I don't agree with #1 (of course).
As for #2 - it is clear you and I disagree. I work/invest for myself and my family. I think I have earned my right to give my money away. I was taxed when I earned it. I was taxed when I bought an item. Etc. The "unearned money" issue is irrelevant to me when the event that triggered the unearned money is my death. I consider it a ridiculous waste of time and resources to have to manage my death so taxes are minimized.
I am sympathetic to taxation of dynastic or massive wealth inheritance. But not ordinary wealth ($5M is ordinary these days).
My BIL believes all inheritance should be abolished. It should all go to society (government). So we should work our entire lives to pass on our life's savings to people with no connection to me? No. Taxes paid while I am working already do that.
That's probably the strongest argument in favor of an estate tax. To the extent that revenue is collected at all, then surely, one of the most preferable sources would be an estate tax. It would be one of the first taxes that should be imposed, because it is a lot less bothersome and disruptive than other forms of taxation.
If we get to a point where no revenue needs to be collected, then we could have a debate over the utility of the estate tax, but until then, it's almost beside the point.
An aggressive inheritance tax would cause massive changes in behavior by people with wealth. What do you think wealthy people will do? They will hide/transfer/obfuscate their assets and find a way to give it to the people they want so the government doesn't take it. Yup that helps society.
Wealthy people do this with their money today. No one should ever believe any projection on how much revenue big inheritance taxes would produce. Maybe it would be a stimulus program for accountants and lawyers. And offshore bank accounts. Is that what you want?
I am sympathetic to taxation of dynastic or massive wealth inheritance. But not ordinary wealth ($5M is ordinary these days).
$5 million is ordinary if you consider the richest household out of fifty to be the norm and all of the poorer forty-nine to be outliers.
And by the way, wealthy people do not have all the tax-avoidance tools or engage in all the tax-avoidance behaviors that you imagine. Estate tax payments were twice as large in 2000 as in 2012. Do you recall 2000 as having been some year of mass rich-person exodus from the US or frenzied tax-avoidance behavior modification of their part?
Last edited by oaktonite; 08-10-2013 at 08:45 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
