Bob Brinker Free Discussion Site 59,820+

» bbaddict - Kirk's Attitude

Kirk, it is fine to disagree with or correct people, but no reason to demean, belittle, or insult them. This is where internet discussion boards fall apart.

Why bother to post here? It's really just a place to listen to the know-it-all's sales pitches for his newsletter.

-- posted by bbaddict

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» bbaddict - Re: Re: Re: Re: Brinker gives the secular bull at least a few mo

In response to Re: Re: Re: Brinker gives the secular bull at least a few more m posted by Kirk:

OK, let's be more specific. The most recent bottom was in 2003. there was slightly lower bottom in 2002, followed by a VERY SHORT (less than one year) run up and back down.

The bottom in 2003 was the triple bottom that Allan refers to.

If you really want to go back farther, wasn't the real bottom in 1929? Or maybe 1974?

-- posted by bbaddict

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» allancoleman - Re: allancoleman Congrats & MAGI

In response to allancoleman Congrats & MAGI posted by smile_1:

it's easy smile1 , your Roth conversion dollar amount does NOT count against your MAGI threshold for Roth conversions . and PLEASE do not take my word for this , but consult your own tax advisor .

also please keep in mind that the larger your Roth conversion and the larger your income for that income tax year , the more you'll pay in taxes on your total overall income for that year , includng Roth conversions and other regular income .

i personally use the 25% income tax bracket for my tax planning for any tax year . which puts my ' effective ' ( tax on " every " dollar " ) tax rate normally between 14% and 16% . so i pay roughly 14 to 16 cents in taxes for every dollar i invest TAXFREE forever with no requred minimum distributions at age 70 1/2 later . plus the additional advantage of passing on Roths later to heirs .

because i'm living off real estate sales at the present , the only regular income i have is my wife's small pension and the interest paid on my small savngs accounts . so therefore i can convert usually between $90k and $120k and stay within the $119,950 maximum allowed in that 25% bracket . keeping in mind you're also allowed the ' standard ' deduction and ' exemption ' too in that income calculation .

as you can see , this planning isn't for the faint of heart or those that don't fully understand the IRS tax code . and as a matter of fact , i was reading the IRS tax code this afternoon as i listen to Terry Savage cover for Bob Brinker , as it applies to my two 401(k) rollovers ( transfers ? ) that i've just done from my 401(k) this month . and in addition , my Roth conversion i just did on one IRA account and judging the advisabilty of me doing another Roth conversion in another IRA account . and , in addition , attempting doing a transfer ( rollover ? ) from one custodian to an additional custodian in the this same tax year . ? ?

-- posted by allancoleman

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» allancoleman - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brinker gives the secular bull at least a fe

In response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Brinker gives the secular bull at least a few mo posted by bbaddict:

appreciate your support bbaddict , but i realize that Kirk and others here are going to be overly critical on reporting the facts as it pertains to bob brinker's statements . and i can accept that because i don't care what anyone else thinks of any particular advisor . i'm totally free to make up my own mind about my own investment decisions cause , in the end , it's my money .

and i do appreciate Kirk's , or anyone else's , right to their opinon about bob brinker or anyone else . including me . .

-- posted by allancoleman

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» smile_1 - Re: allancoleman Congrats & MAGI

In response to Re: allancoleman Congrats & MAGI posted by allancoleman:

"because i'm living off real estate sales at the present , the only regular income i have is my wife's small pension and the interest paid on my small savngs accounts."

Allan, the above was the part I was interested in. So either real estate sales are not counting against your MAGI or your living expenses are small enough to keep you from converting + your other sources of taxable income to keep you below the MAGI limit.

I would think that real estate income although subject to cap gains exemptions would count against your MAGI. Guess I need to see how this MAGI is calculated. Before I asked my question I tried to play with the numbers a little but the software program (free Tax ACT) I was using looked like it got confused or I guess it could have been user error.

I guess congress has that MAGI limit in to benefit those below that 100K limit (middle class) but with 1 good income or 2 moderate incomes + investments it's real easy to bust thru that 100k.

Seems they have this same issue with AMT not adjusting it for inflation is catching more middle class people.

I just wanted to see if you were doing anything special to keep below the MAGI limit.

-- posted by smile_1

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» smile_1 - Re: allancoleman Congrats & MAGI

In response to Re: allancoleman Congrats & MAGI posted by allancoleman:

"i personally use the 25% income tax bracket for my tax planning for any tax year . which puts my ' effective ' ( tax on " every " dollar " ) tax rate normally between 14% and 16% . so i pay roughly 14 to 16 cents in taxes for every dollar i invest TAXFREE forever with no requred minimum distributions at age 70 1/2 later . plus the additional advantage of passing on Roths later to heirs ."

Excellent tax planning. I like your use of targeting the incremental tax rate yet keeping the perspective of your effective tax rate.

Have You ever had to do a recharacterization due to your exceeding MAGI? Does your broker charge you for recharcterizations? If not who is your broker. I use Scottrade and they charge $25 for a recharacterization.

-- posted by smile_1

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» allancoleman - Re: allancoleman Congrats & MAGI

In response to Re: allancoleman Congrats & MAGI posted by smile_1:

hi smile1 ,

the capital gains ( usually 15% now ) on real estate sales do count as income and i do have to count that as a part of my income for income tax consideration .

i use TurboTax , although i'm sure other income tax software is just as good . it's just that i've been using TurboTax for over 6 years now and feel i really understand it . plus i've done my own taxes for years now and normally read IRS publcations like the normal person would read the morning newspaper .

no , i don't feel like i'm doing anything ' special ' in my tax planning other than to spend the time necessary to understand it .

-- posted by allancoleman

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» allancoleman - Re: allancoleman Congrats & MAGI

In response to Re: allancoleman Congrats & MAGI posted by smile_1:

smile1 ,

i have NEVER done a ' recharacterization ' . although i did pass up a Roth conversion in one tax year in the past because i sold an additional property i hadn't planned on and didn't want to go over / or get close to the limit for that tax year .
.
i wouldn't pay anyone to do my taxes or a recharacterization . feel that part of the ' learning ' experience of taxes & life . if i had to , i would feel confident doing my own recharctrization .

i have an account ( brokerage ? ) with Schwab and Fidelity and am getting ready to open a Roth IRA account with Vanguard to be able to buy the Vanguard GNMA , Admiral class shares , mutual fund with my Roth money . my intent is to have my Roth money my ' last money ' spent after all my real estate sales and deferred account distributions are finished .

alhough i wouldn't pay anyone to do any tax work for me , i do feel the $25 fee for a recharacterization that Scottrade would charge you as being " cheap " . .

-- posted by allancoleman

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» bbaddict - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brinker gives the secular bull at least

In response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brinker gives the secular bull at least a fe posted by Kirk:

So you don't like being told your facts were wrong. You are not the first and won't be the last who doesn't like being corrected

No, I love being corrected. Learning is what I thrive on. What I don't like is being insulted or talked down to.

Bob uses the S&P 500 as his benchmark, not the broad market. The S&P had 3 "bottoms" since the crash of 2000. (thus, Allan's correct call of 'triple-bottom'): 7/22/02, 10/9/02, and 3/11/03. The gains after the first 2 were unsustained and short-lived. The third is where the strength/momentum lies, and the correct call.

The 10/9/02 bottom was technically the lowest closing price of the triple bottom, but for long-term investors, it was irrelevant, as the gains evaporated. Also, if anything can be classified as 'noise' the 10/9/02 closing bottom can; it was a one day blip. The S&P went from 804 to 777 and right back to 799 the next day.

Those who missed the exact-date opportunity to buy at 777 kept their reserves in cash, and earned interest until the real buy signal at 800.

We are wasting energy arguing over the semantics of the market call and the 'bottom'. What is remarkable is Bob's buy call at the last of the triple-bottoms: S&P 800 on March 11, 2003. Gains since that date have sustained.