Harvesting massive capital gains – go curry cracker! decorating ideas for work office space

With the overhead of the ACA and CA taxes, we would no longer be able to harvest capital gains tax free. Over time our ability to sell stock at full basis would disappear… 10 years of 5% capital growth means 40% of every sale becomes a gain. That’s the way it is with long-term capital gains over the long term. (tax free roth IRA conversions would also be a thing of the past.)

But in most years our total income would be less than 400% FPL, in which case the highest amount we would pay for tax and health insurance would be $6,000/year ($500/month.) (roughly $2k to california and $3-4k in health insurance premiums.) additionally, we could have ~$2,000 in annual expenses in “medium usage” health care expenses, based on estimates by covered CA.

This could be much higher in years with expensive health issues (an accident or a major illness.)

To minimize the potential for going over the ACA subsidy cliff, I could choose to pay 15% tax today by harvesting massive amounts of capital gains. Home office closet organization ideas this would result in significant tax payments but result in lower future tax burden and significantly greater flexibility. This assumes a lower overall marginal rate ends up being the better deal. Tax now or more tax later?

Dave, we are in agreement on paying taxes that are required. But I still have to call out those who feel NY, as an example, is superior to a state like TN where our taxes are now substantially less, because of the perception that NY and other states like it have better infrastructure, education and services than those who have much lower taxes. Everyone who comes down to visit us here in TN from NY marvels at the quality of the road systems here, versus the pothole-infested roads and interstates in NY. We have quality universities such as vanderbilt and UT that can compete with anyone, and our high schools and lower grades are earning higher and higher marks every year on the national level. Even in a small town like ours the medical care is exceptional, while if anything really serious comes up nashville has become one of the best centers in the country for medicine, along with superior hospitals in knoxville and chattanooga.

I stand by my comments since I have lived for long periods of time in NY and now in the south, versus those who follow standard arguments used by high tax states spokespeople. Office wall design ideas the north and west have nothing over the south except for high taxes. Home office wall color ideas these taxes are due to profligate politicians in those states, welfare systems that are out of control, rampant illegal immigration straining all services, and waste and abuse. Those insolvent states need to take a serious look at how states like TN can run a surplus every year and still be places people actually want to move to. Reply

Chuck. Fair enough. I have no experience with NY or TN, but I do in the southwest and currently live in CA which was the state being discussed. Office building design ideas the only caveat I’d put on what you’ve said is that some states receive much more in federal aid than they pay in federal taxes. These states are subsidized by the higher tax states to make up the shortfall between what they need to maintain their services and the taxes they collect. It is not unusual for low tax states to be low tax in part because of they are dependent on this federal welfare. Many of those same states like to talk of the out of control spending, illegal immigration, welfare, waste, fraud, and abuse, etc of the higher tax states while being completely dependent on welfare themselves. The worst offender is south carolina who receives $7.87 in federal spending for every $1 they pay in federal tax. Part (but only part) of why taxes are higher in states like NY is because they are effectively subsiding other states who can’t or won’t pay their own bills.

Might be more of an urban myth than fact. For example, CA has far and away more military bases than any other state, so by your reasoning CA should be getting the most money from the federal government and would be incorrectly classified on the “federal welfare” chart as getting an inordinate amount of federal funds vs what is paid in taxes. This is not the case.

You are completely correct on the retirees and social security/medicare. Based only on stereotypes of new yorkers moving to florida to retire (thank you seinfeld!), I’d definitely concede that many people move to warmer climates as they get older. Business office remodel ideas I’m not completely confident on the tax aspects of this, but 30 seconds of generic searching ( https://www.Forbes.Com/sites/davidrae/2018/04/03/social-security-medicare-changes-2018/#3960e756640b) seems to say the following: social security is federally taxable once you reach a minimum threshold, so if the retiree has retirement account income, pension, etc they would be paying federal taxes on income. Construction company office decorating ideas they wouldn’t be paying state income on the SS income, but they would on the other income. Same with medicare benefits (or maybe the premium just goes up?). So even if federal funds flow into the south for this, if those citizens had other sources of income they would have to pay federal income tax. If my flimsy understanding of all of that works, then it is a bit of a moot point just dismissing the money flow as going to retirees so it shouldn’t be counted. Especially given this money is then spent in the state, so any sales tax from direct purchases would stay local as well as pushing money into the economy that would otherwise not be there and therefore subject to state income tax, etc indirectly as it is paid out in wages later on, etc. I’m sure that if florida felt like the retirees were an expense and damaging to the state’s income/budget, they would not be so welcoming to retirees. To some extent this is a side discussion, if those states still require federal funds to make their budgets work, then they are still on federal welfare.

As to your final point/question, I would submit that the same article pointed out the large percentage of the population in the south (and a few other places, so not an absolute by any stretch) on federally funded food stamps. The justifications for the money flowing southward can’t all be about retirees and the military when so many are below the poverty line and therefore have no money to pay taxes to state or federal, although there are some who fit the former categories and also require food stamps.