[continued from previous message]

Of course, because it wasn't in a tax-advantaged account.

This is not the sheltered money that's going to charity someday. I invested the after-tax stock
sale proceeds in an income-producing fund. In a way this is similar to a Roth conversion, but
the Federal tax rate on the LTCG was much lower than the ordinary income rate, not just a few points.

As LTCG's invariably are - but that's because it wasn't a tax advantaged account.

Current 401k and IRA funds are all substantial in my financial picture.

That's fairly consistent with your prior financial claims.

I can do all the current QCD I want from the current IRA RMD.

Which merely implies that the IRA is not going to have all of its annual RMD be (offset) spent as QCD's.

However, I am the 401k admin. Moving the 401k to IRA removes the admin burden, nothing else changes.

Smart move on your part. It also increases the funds notionally available for QCD'ing, if so inclined.

QCD is not the issue, it's what happens when the funds go to the next owner other than the spouse.

Except that that is Estate planning, which has factors other than merely if something is in a tax-advantaged
account or not. My general thoughts are that with the demise of the Stretch IRA, passing along a tax-advantaged
IRA to a non-spousal heir is now a bit of a pain (to put it mildly) and probably better if it could be avoided.

Again, just part of the picture.

With only those portions of the picture which you've chosen to reveal, of course,
which means any incompleteness is of your own deliberate making.

But you will keep on flailing about based on 3 point difference in FIT rate.

Merely because it is a "pay less now vs pay more later", so to ignore it is to be leaving free money on the table.
Granted, its just $3K per $100K, but even at just that level, you can't now try to claim that it is insignificant
because that's already 50% larger than the "two brackets" Medicare rate bump you've complained about.

-hh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

[continued from previous message]

“False, because I’ve already said to *not* apply this to funds you intend to donate via QCD.”

So if you want to sound knowledgable, then explain why you didn’t choose to use something
like a CRT back in 2022 to prevent your income spike which raised your Medicare rates.
There’s IIRC a half dozen or so permutations to consider, so don’t try to claim that the
example of just CRT doesn’t “fit” your needs…main reason I can think of offhand is that
you’re not fully confident in having sufficiently surplus wealth to commit to charities.

Oh my, you are so operating in a vacuum, making assumptions based on facts not in evidence.

Not so, for you've made claims here & in the past which parametrized your numbers, such as above.

Likewise, from 2019, commenting on your 2017 balances:

"$820 + $615 + $300 = $1,735,000 Those are the big pieces."

<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/c/geTOAl7NWog/m/RCUyMKcrDwAJ>

I am never going to disclose all the data.

Of course you're not going to be fully transparent, for it doesn't serve your interests.

But to start, in 2022 I sold a stock portfolio. The LTCG and RMD income is what pushed me into
higher Medicare rates. Yes, the money had been in the stock fund for a long time, the gains were
over $150k.

Which because you've said was two brackets bump and you've also noted being in the 22% marginal
tax bracket resulted in the above parameterizing of your nominal retirement income (pensions+SSs+RMDs)

Potentially similar to the income you are proposing for a Roth conversion.

Potentially.

But the FIT LTCG rate was only 15%.

Of course, because it wasn't in a tax-advantaged account.

This is not the sheltered money that's going to charity someday. I invested the after-tax stock
sale proceeds in an income-producing fund. In a way this is similar to a Roth conversion, but
the Federal tax rate on the LTCG was much lower than the ordinary income rate, not just a few points.

As LTCG's invariably are - but that's because it wasn't a tax advantaged account.

Current 401k and IRA funds are all substantial in my financial picture.

That's fairly consistent with your prior financial claims.

I can do all the current QCD I want from the current IRA RMD.

Which merely implies that the IRA is not going to have all of its annual RMD be (offset) spent as QCD's.

However, I am the 401k admin. Moving the 401k to IRA removes the admin burden, nothing else changes.

Smart move on your part. It also increases the funds notionally available for QCD'ing, if so inclined.

QCD is not the issue, it's what happens when the funds go to the next owner other than the spouse.

Except that that is Estate planning, which has factors other than merely if something is in a tax-advantaged
account or not. My general thoughts are that with the demise of the Stretch IRA, passing along a tax-advantaged
IRA to a non-spousal heir is now a bit of a pain (to put it mildly) and probably better if it could be avoided.

Again, just part of the picture.

With only those portions of the picture which you've chosen to reveal, of course,

which means any incompleteness is of your own deliberate making.

But you will keep on flailing about based on 3 point difference in FIT rate.

Merely because it is a "pay less now vs pay more later", so to ignore it is to be leaving free money on the table.
Granted, its just $3K per $100K, but even at just that level, you can't now try to claim that it is insignificant
because that's already 50% larger than the "two brackets" Medicare rate bump you've complained about.

-hh

-hh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

[continued from previous message]

Nah, I parsed that part aside in my statement already, since you’ve neither disclosed
what your IRA balance is, nor your level of charitable giving to know if it’s 100% or not.

I cannot convert to Roth and not reduce the funds they will receive.

And what if after you move more money from your 401k into IRA, as per above?

Again, you assume facts not in evidence to support your position. Why do you go off on
tangents and not ask questions? OH, I know. You just want to pretend you know what
you are talking about!

Nah, we know that you chronically cherry-pick and not clearly disclose the factors,
which is why I’ve anticipated you and included the appropriate caveats such as:
“That scenario assumes a 100% conversion to Roth. So just don’t convert 100%.”,
and
“False, because I’ve already said to *not* apply this to funds you intend to donate via QCD.”

So if you want to sound knowledgable, then explain why you didn’t choose to use something
like a CRT back in 2022 to prevent your income spike which raised your Medicare rates.
There’s IIRC a half dozen or so permutations to consider, so don’t try to claim that the
example of just CRT doesn’t “fit” your needs…main reason I can think of offhand is that
you’re not fully confident in having sufficiently surplus wealth to commit to charities.

Oh my, you are so operating in a vacuum, making assumptions based on facts not in evidence.

Not so, for you've made claims here & in the past which parametrized your numbers, such as above.

Likewise, from 2019, commenting on your 2017 balances:

"$820 + $615 + $300 = $1,735,000 Those are the big pieces."

<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/c/geTOAl7NWog/m/RCUyMKcrDwAJ>

I am never going to disclose all the data.

Of course you're not going to be fully transparent, for it doesn't serve your interests.

But to start, in 2022 I sold a stock portfolio. The LTCG and RMD income is what pushed me into
higher Medicare rates. Yes, the money had been in the stock fund for a long time, the gains were
over $150k.

Which because you've said was two brackets bump and you've also noted being in the 22% marginal
tax bracket resulted in the above parameterizing of your nominal retirement income (pensions+SSs+RMDs)

Potentially similar to the income you are proposing for a Roth conversion.

Potentially.

But the FIT LTCG rate was only 15%.

Of course, because it wasn't in a tax-advantaged account.

This is not the sheltered money that's going to charity someday. I invested the after-tax stock
sale proceeds in an income-producing fund. In a way this is similar to a Roth conversion, but
the Federal tax rate on the LTCG was much lower than the ordinary income rate, not just a few points.

As LTCG's invariably are - but that's because it wasn't a tax advantaged account.

Current 401k and IRA funds are all substantial in my financial picture.

That's fairly consistent with your prior financial claims.

I can do all the current QCD I want from the current IRA RMD.

Which merely implies that the IRA is not going to have all of its annual RMD be (offset) spent as QCD's.

However, I am the 401k admin. Moving the 401k to IRA removes the admin burden, nothing else changes.

Smart move on your part. It also increases the funds notionally available for QCD'ing, if so inclined.

QCD is not the issue, it's what happens when the funds go to the next owner other than the spouse.

Except that that is Estate planning, which has factors other than merely if something is in a tax-advantaged
account or not. My general thoughts are that with the demise of the Stretch IRA, passing along a tax-advantaged
IRA to a non-spousal heir is now a bit of a pain (to put it mildly) and probably better if it could be avoided.

Again, just part of the picture.

With only those portions of the picture which you've chosen to reveal, of course,

which means any incompleteness is of your own deliberate making.

But you will keep on flailing about based on 3 point difference in FIT rate.

Merely because it is a "pay less now vs pay more later", so to ignore it is to be leaving free money on the table.
Granted, its just $3K per $100K, but even at just that level, you can't now try to claim that it is insignificant
because that's already 50% larger than the "two brackets" Medicare rate bump you've complained about.

-hh

-hh

"My general thoughts are that with the demise of the Stretch IRA, passing along a tax-advantaged
IRA to a non-spousal heir is now a bit of a pain (to put it mildly) and probably better if it could be avoided."

Precisely. Which is only part of the reason that none of the recipients of our trusts should pay anything in federal or state income tax. The way it will pay out the family will get non-advantaged assets with step-up basis. The charitable organizations
will receive all IRA (the 401k will be rolled over before the end of 2023) funds with no taxes owed plus a bit more. The family members, some of whom are minors today, will have no probate or income taxes to worry about. It's simple and clean. We plan to
preserve the value of IRA assets as long as possible by taking only RMD withdrawals. If we live so long that those start to be in excess of expenses and long-term investment returns we will invest the after-tax funds into trust "Schedule A" assets. That
starts about 10 years from now, and accelerates rapidly if we live into our 90's. If we are so mentally disabled that we lose sight of this plan we will probably need all the RMD for the "memory care" option of assisted living!

I simply see no need to send the Feds and Indiana a big tax chunk today when in the long term all these assets will incur no tax at all. Yes, it might help us a bit in the short run. I don't care.

And, all of this has been discussed at length with our family attorney and our investment advisor. YMMV, especially if you don't plan to leave anything to tax-exempt entities. We do.

If the situation veers off in an unexpected direction we are prepared to make changes.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)