Ask Rande 10,000+
- Rande
- reporter20
- collguy
- JenL_2
- AL_W
- collguy
- AL_W
- Rande
- smoran00
- collguy
This archived discussion is "read only".
For the corresponding "live" discussions, post in the active topic forum here.
« Previous 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 Next »
» Rande - Re: Re: Re: 403B
In response to message posted by reporter20:
Right -- the new catch-up provisions allow workers who turn 50 this year to put away an extra $1,000 in their employer plans for a total $12,000 (provided the employer allows it) and an extra $500 into their IRAs for a total $3,500. The catch-up provision increases over the next few years along with the overall contribution limits so that those 50 or over can put an extra $500 away in their IRAs each year (over and above the regular annual limit which also increases -- total will be $6,000 by 2008 with catch-up, then indexed for inflation) through 2005, and $1,000 extra in 2006 and later. Without the catch-up, the annual contribution limit for 401(k) and 403(b) plans increases each year until it reaches the maximum deductible contribution level of $15,000 by 2006. People 50 and over get to contribute up to $12,000 in 2002 but the annual total amount (regular amount plus catch-up, which increases $1,000 per year up to $5,000 in 2006) will eventually rise to $20,000 in 2006.
-- posted by Rande
» reporter20 - Re: Re: Re: Re: 403B
In response to message posted by Rande:Cool. Thanks again. Problem solved.
-- posted by reporter20
» collguy - Asbestos risk
There are many companies facing asbestos liability claims such as Viacom, Pfizer and Halliburton. HAL stock has been severely punished based on this unquantifiable risk along with the specter of WR Grace, Johns-Manville and others that have been forced into bankruptcy. As an investor how do you factor in this risk? Crown, Cork and Seal is another company which faced huge liability based on a company they owned for 90 days in 1963. It seems to me that the government is going to have to put in end to this insanity we are going to end up with many financially crippled and bankrupt companies.-- posted by collguy
» AL_W - Re: Asbestos risk
In response to message posted by collguy:Collguy.....
Lawyers have discovered that there is money to be had ( for the lawyers ) from any company that has any connection to asbestos, regardless of whether or not is a minor or major connection.
I feel any company, even with a tiny tiny exposure, will have huge payouts, and this will continue until: 1. The laws are changed. 2. All companies involved are bankrupt.
What these suckers ( lawyers ) are doing, is re-cycling their lists of potentially exposed clients to each and every company, that has any money, they can find that had anything to do asbestos. To me, the sham of it is, that the lawyers get 80% of the settlements, and the purported injured get 20%. I say purported, because no evidence of sickness is required.
I work for one of those companies that has already filed bankruptcy, have lost a pile of my 401K money, and yes, I am very disdainful of how our tort system operates. In this case, the process has evolved into a cash cow for lawyers, with all other parties getting screwed. Its deep pockets to the extreme.
-- posted by AL_W
» collguy - Re: Re: Asbestos risk
Thanks for the Barrons link Jen.Al W-I couldn't agree more. However, with nearly half the Dow 30 involved in various degrees with asbestos. I can't believe there isn't a bigger stink being raised about this. Here we are in a recession and companies are being torpedoed left and right by this ridiculous tort system. Instead of a stimulus package, the economy needs a tort reform package now. I'm sick of researching my investments doing the DD and then having my head handed to me because they owned a company with some marginal relation to asbestos. The most egregious example is Crown Cork and Seal which owned an asbestos related company for 90 days back in 1963 and was near BK before the PA legislature passed some emergency relief. Of course that relief is now being challenged in court.-- posted by collguy
» Rande - Re: Re: Re: Re: Asbestos risk
In response to message posted by AL_W:Litigation is an unfortunate cost of doing business in our society. All business owners face it, from the mom and pop corner grocery store to the largest multinational. Consumer protection is important, and the legal system serves a vital need in that regard. But greed leads to abuse on both sides. We've reached a point where we need protection from the "protectors." Serious tort reform is the answer.
-- posted by Rande
» smoran00 - Sale of Personal Residence
Dear Randy,I hope you or one of the members are able to help.
The Problem:
> I have lived abroad for the past 9 years and have rented my house in Seattle all this time. I now wish to sell the house, however the current tax law does not recognize the house as a personal residence but treats it as an investment property. Therefore, I am not allowed the 500K marriage exclusion for selling a personal residence. I figure to receive 700K clear from the sale with a basis, due in part to depreciation, close to 0. I would pay capital gains tax on pretty much the entire amount - 140K cap gains tax at the 20% rate.
>
> Solution 1
Re-establish residence and claim the $500K exclusion.
I don't wish to move back to the states permanently at this time due to my engineering business abroad however I thought that the following might be worth a try;
Move my personal belongings back into the house.
Stop renting the house - perhaps have a housesitter keep an eye on things while I am away.
Use the house as my base when I return to the USA periodically.
Stop taking the Foreign Income Exclusion that I am now taking (which highlights that I am out of the country).
Wait 2 years until residency is reestablished.
Sell the house and claim the 500K exclusion.
How can I confirm that the IRS would accept this?
I believe that since I would not be making an income on the property for 2 years and the home is my only USA residence, it might fly with the IRS.
>
> Solution 2
> Because of the Foreign Income Exclusion, my taxable income is close to 0$. If the house could be sold with the proceeds going to a 3rd party (say to a bank or mutual fund or a trust) I could arrange that the 3rd party pay me a sum, of say, up to $45,000 per year, which would be taxed at a capital gains tax of 8% because the property has been held longer than 5 years. This arrangement would result in a relatively low tax. It was suggested that I carry a contract with the buyer and structure a similar type of payback - but I have ruled this out as being too risky for me - better to have all of the proceeds in some type of trust with regular payouts to me.
Do you know if this is allowable and if so, what type of 3rd party could operate as a trust or holding account?
Other Solutions?
Perhaps you know of some other option that has not occurred to me. Or, perhaps there is an imminent change to the tax codes. I would appreciate any help you could give me regarding this.
Happy New Year
Steve Moran
-- posted by smoran00
» collguy - Re: Re: Re: Re: Asbestos risk
AL W read the Dallas Observer article you linked. It certainly points out how corrupt our legal system is and the need for campaign finance reform at all levels of government. Maybe our much vaunted first world judicial system isn't much different than that of the third world.-- posted by collguy
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 Next »
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.