Slashdot Mirror

The rich do pay capital gains taxes. Short term capital gains are taxed as regular income. Long term capital gains are still taxed once you make more than $40K per year. And the long term capital gains tax rate starts at a rate equivalent to the average tax rate of the top 50% - surprisingly close to where that $40K income would put you...

Income is at (about) 40%, long term capital gains is %20, right? That's a huge break for people who have enough capital to live on the capital gains. Nobody thinks capital gains are not taxed at all, but that the relative rates favor the very wealthy.

Actually, capital gains tax reaches 20%, which is close to the average tax rate paid by the top 5% on all their income.

And the GP AC is also pimping a way that will DEFINITELY draw the attention of the IRS (a house from your corporation will be considered as material payment, and should be considered income - even if your corporation owns it, unless you can prove that it is used strictly for business purposes by anyone associated with the business) and land you in "Federal PMITA Prison".

The rich do pay capital gains taxes. Short term capital gains are taxed as regular income. Long term capital gains are still taxed once you make more than $40K per year. And the long term capital gains tax rate starts at a rate equivalent to the average tax rate of the top 50% - surprisingly close to where that $40K income would put you...

The rich do pay taxes on capital gains, but I understand it makes GREAT political theater to claim otherwise! It's great to ignore $716 billion in capital gains taxes paid in 2014 alone, considering it is about 25% of all tax revenues to the Federal Government. But keep on ranting against "the man" and his zero tax capital gains!

(I recently inherited an IRA. Between taxes, penalties, and fees, I'll be lucky to get Three Pieces Of Eight. Try very much not to inherit an IRA. Request Cash instead.)

So you cashed out an inherited IRA. That's different than simply inheriting one. An inherited IRA doesn't trigger the 10% penalty, so it's taxed as regular income, as opposed to some other kinds of inheritances that are untaxed. There should have been no penalties. And all that's only if you cash it out. It you retire with the retirement account (I know, insane, right?), it'd have likely been 100% tax and penalty free. So it was your greed, not "the system" that cost you money. http://www.schwab.com/public/s...

Charles Schwab has a *maximum* of 8 character passwords and have had the same for 15-20 years!

Passwords: We maintain strict rules to help prevent others from guessing your password, and recommend that you change your password periodically. Your password must meet the following criteria:

6-8 characters long
Include both letters and numbers
Include at least one number between the first and last character
http://www.schwab.com/public/s...

News Flash: Those generations paid into the fund huge sums of money, many of whom like my grandparents didn't even live long enough to collect a single penny.

It maybe interesting for you to know that most people they collect well beyond what they pay in. After 8-10 years people collect everything they've paid in. This is ONLY a count of retires, not including slugs who collect because they have phantom back pain or are "disabled" by an alcohol problem.

The argument isn't "right wing" as so much as facts. Please use facts.

http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/research_strategies/market_insight/retirement_strategies/planning/when_should_you_take_social_security.html

A fact is something that can be corroborated with some form of evidence. Since you provided none, I expressed my opinion of your statement.

I was merely hoping for a citation noting a significant difference. My original post did not claim all schools are identical; it merely compared the difference in quality to the difference in cost and made a conclusion. I apologizing for not providing evidence originally but here it is. If you wish to rebut this claim, please provide references to the contrary.

Schwab Investor Checking accounts refund third-party ATM fees at the end of every month. Domestic and international, and they don't charge conversion fees when using non-US ATMs. Also, you get free checks and postage-paid envelopes for making deposits by mail. These accounts are also interest-bearing, although that doesn't count for much these days (it was 4.5% when I joined back in 2007 but dropped after the financial crash and is currently only 0.5%).

I would strongly recommend reading some books. Two that come to mind are
1) A Random Walk Down Wall Street. Among other things, this provides an overview of places you can put money, starting from a bank account and moving all the way up to stocks, options, and futures.
2)The Intelligent Investor. This is the classic investing book that everyone should read. It focuses more on stocks and bonds, but still I wouldn't invest a single dollar without reading it (because everyone else has read it).

As to your specific situation, I would consider either a CD or some type of money fund from a brokerage. For example, Schwab has a money fund that currently yealds around 5%... Here and Here If you are looking for online information, Investopedia is a good place to start.

I would strongly recommend reading some books. Two that come to mind are
1) A Random Walk Down Wall Street. Among other things, this provides an overview of places you can put money, starting from a bank account and moving all the way up to stocks, options, and futures.
2)The Intelligent Investor. This is the classic investing book that everyone should read. It focuses more on stocks and bonds, but still I wouldn't invest a single dollar without reading it (because everyone else has read it).

As to your specific situation, I would consider either a CD or some type of money fund from a brokerage. For example, Schwab has a money fund that currently yealds around 5%... Here and Here If you are looking for online information, Investopedia is a good place to start.

Schwab Global Investing Services is the link you were looking for. I don't know what accounts it is available in, but I would guess it is not available in their regular accounts. There's a phone number there. See my other post in this thread for details re: foreign issues.

I too got shoved to Ameritrade from Datek. Here are some alternatives:

E-Trade: In their FAQ they say that they support both FIFO and specific shares cost basis accounting. I do not have an investment account with them, so I'm not sure how this gets reported-to or modified-by you. Something to look into. They are more expensive than Ameritrade, but they pretty much offer every financial service around.

Fidilty: I don't particularly care for them, but looks like the provide cost basis info downloading.

Schwab probably offers this service as well, but couldn't find anything on their site

Most discount online brokerages will not offer this service, so you'll end up paying higher commissions or fees.

My company PACE offers up to 25% in a combined IRA 401k program. The account is thru Schwab and I can purchase any stock that is available on the market. --DAMON

I really hate the whole "subscription" content thing sometimes.

I read this from The Economist when it was new, now it's subscription only. Basically, they said the "gridlock is good" mantra is crap, that bad legislation tends to get passed either way, and that more bad legislation may pass during a "gridlock" session because the compromise tends to be "do both" instead of "do neither". They pointed to specific examples of bad and good legislation passed under "gridlock" and "non-gridlock" presidencies, specifically going back to the Carter and early Clinton years before the Republican Revolution in Congress (aka the "Contract with America").

I also read something from Charles Schwab that tends to agree with your point, but without any numbers or examples to back it up.

I'm not sure which way is the right way. Our Constitution is specifically built to make passing laws hard, because every law passed represents something taken away from people.

Look at both Clinton and Bush not being able to get judicial appointments confirmed, it didn't really matter who controlled the Senate, it was close enough that in effect neither party controls enough to get certain business done. The resulting gridlock has caused many trial/appellate dates to be pushed back, which I don't think helps the "fair and speedy trial" situation.

Reagan got a lot of interesting laws and appointments passed in a Democratic Congress, mostly by appealing directly to the people. Kerry doesn't have the charisma to pull that off though, so it's probably a bad example.

History hasn't really shown that either a gridlocked or non-gridlocked arrangement is better. Clinton had a straight-through majority on both side the first two years of his presidency and couldn't get anything passed on his agenda. Bush 2, on the other hand, has gotten some legislation passed on a post-9/11 bounce, but he hasn't gotten many judicial appointments through, he's had to make a lot of compromises in the legislation that did go through. Remember that Ashcroft wanted a lot more than what he got in the Patriot act, and the resulting bill was a lot milder than what could-have-been, which represents a great amount of compromise in a time of non-gridlock.

So, gridlock doesn't mandate compromise, and non-gridlock doesn't rule out compromise. So this really isn't a good voting issue.

I'm not telling it like it ought to be. I'm telling it like it is. I've dabbled in options with three different discount brokers: Olde (a long time ago), Schwab, and E*Trade. Read the "Characteristics" pamphlet or ask your broker about being approved to trade options if you wish.

Here's E*Trade's Margin/Option Account Upgrade form. You will note in the margin section that it specifies three levels of options activity.

On page 2 of Schwab's 12-page form you will see four levels of options activity.

Ameritrade/Datek has the following (can't link to it):

"Currently, we offer the purchase and sale of long calls and puts, put writing, spreads and covered and uncovered call writing.*

Level I: Covered call writing.

Level II: Covered call writing and purchasing calls and puts.

Level III: Covered call writing, purchasing calls and puts, trading qualified spreads.

Level IV: Covered call writing, purchasing calls and puts, trading qualified spreads, uncovered call and put writing.**"

This is why I don't give PayPal my banking details no matter how much they try to bluff them out of me.

Schwab has deposit-only account/routing numbers for all their accounts (they're the ones given out for direct deposit, currently under Account -> Transfers & Payments -> Direct Deposit). If money is attempted to be removed using the same numbers, an "account not found" error is given (saving the fees from both ends associated with the "account overdrawn" error). This works with PayPal, because they verify your account by depositing small amounts of money into it (which will work).

Granted, you have to have quite a bit of dough for it to make sense to use Schwab for checking, but it would be interesting to know if any other banks provide this kind of service. Of course, it would be more useful if one could pressure all banks to provide this. Then again, I guess the ultimate solution would be to have the same consumer protections that apply to credit cards also apply to one's account/routing numbers.

This is why I don't give PayPal my banking details no matter how much they try to bluff them out of me.

Schwab has deposit-only account/routing numbers for all their accounts (they're the ones given out for direct deposit, currently under Account -> Transfers & Payments -> Direct Deposit). If money is attempted to be removed using the same numbers, an "account not found" error is given (saving the fees from both ends associated with the "account overdrawn" error). This works with PayPal, because they verify your account by depositing small amounts of money into it (which will work).

Granted, you have to have quite a bit of dough for it to make sense to use Schwab for checking, but it would be interesting to know if any other banks provide this kind of service. Of course, it would be more useful if one could pressure all banks to provide this. Then again, I guess the ultimate solution would be to have the same consumer protections that apply to credit cards also apply to one's account/routing numbers.

I use Schwab for handling investments. You might think it'd be annoying to have my money split up like that, but actually I hardly notice. Transferring money from one institution to another is just as easy as transferring between accounts within a single place. I have, on a couple occasions, found it useful to have local branch offices. Their online support is also excellent. I always get prompt replies to email, and more importantly, they even answer my questions (whereas most email support teams just send me the most appropriate irrelevant form letter).