query: Paid part of my state refund back last year; now must declare the initial amount as income?

positive: If you get 1099-G for state tax refund, you need to declare it as income only if you took deduction on state taxes in the prior year. I.e.: if you took standard deductions - you don't need to declare the refund as income. If you did itemize, you have to declare the refund as income, and deduct the taxes paid last year on your schedule A. If this year you're not itemizing - you lost the tax benefit. If it was not clear from my answer - the taxes paid and the refund received are unrelated. The fact that you paid tax and received refund in the same year doesn't make them in any way related, even if both refer to the same taxable year.

positive: "http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc503.html says you can deduct ""Any prior year's state or local income tax you paid during the year."" So I would say as long as you have good records, you can deduct the excess refund you had to pay back in the year in which you paid it. Whether or not your return was amended shouldn't affect whether or not it is deductible."

negative: When you itemize your deductions, you get to deduct all the state income tax that was taken out of your paycheck last year (not how much was owed, but how much was withheld). If you deducted this last year, then you need to add in any amount that you received in state income tax refunds last year to your taxes this year, to make up for the fact that you ended up deducting more state income tax than was really due to the state.  If you took the standard deduction last year instead of itemizing, then you didn't deduct your state income tax withholding last year and you don't need to claim your refund as income this year. Also, if you itemized, but chose to take the state sales tax deduction instead of the state income tax deduction, you also don't need to add in the refund as income.  For whatever reason, Illinois decided that you don't get a 1099-G. It might be that the amount of the refund was too small to warrant the paperwork. It might be that they screwed up. But if you deducted your state income tax withholding on last year's tax return, then you need to add the state tax refund you got last year on line 10 of this year's 1040, whether or not the state issued you a form or not.  Take a look at the Line 10 instructions  starting on page 22 of the 1040 instructions to see if you have any unusual situations covered there that you didn't mention here. (For example, if you received a refund check for multiple years last year.) Then check your tax return from last year to verify that you deducted your state income tax withholding on Schedule A. If you did, then this year add the refund you got from the state to line 10 of this year's 1040.

negative: The money in the checking account was already taxed. It was income this year or last, or a gift from somebody, or earned interest that will be taxed. If it was a deductible IRA you would declare it next April and get a refund from the government.

negative: If you don't itemize your deductions, your state tax refund is not considered income to you. Even if you didn't receive the actual 1099-G, you know how much refund you got, so you can calculate if you need to add it back to your income this year using the worksheet on page 23 of the instructions.

negative: "IRS Pub 554 states (click to read full IRS doc):  ""Do not file a federal income tax return if you do not meet the filing requirements and are not due a refund. ... If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, you must file a return if your gross income for the year was at least the amount shown on the appropriate line in Table 1-1 below. "" You may not have wage income, but you will probably have interest, dividend, capital gains, or proceeds from sale of a house (and there is a special note that you must file in this case, even if you enjoy the exclusion for primary residence)"

negative: >On Monday he declared victory, saying he had wanted since February to get reform of Horizon.  >But the legislation was a far cry from the initial proposal, which would have allowed the state to use Horizon surplus to fund opioid treatment. Instead any surplus above a capped amount must go back to policyholders.  >Christie said it was a win because there was no cap on surplus before he stepped in to regulate the company.  And I thought Republicans were anti-regulation.

negative: "Form W-9 (officially, the ""Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification"") is used in the United States income tax system by a third party who must file an information return with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). It requests the name, address, and taxpayer identification information of a taxpayer (in the form of a Social Security Number or Employer Identification Number). A W-9 is typically required when an individual is doing work, as a contractor or as an employee, for a company and will be paid more than $600 in a tax-year.  The company is required to file a W-2 or a 1099 and so requests a W-9 to get the information necessary for those forms. I cannot say if it is incompetence on the part of the accounting department or a deliberate ploy to make the refund process more onerous, but do not comply.  Politely nsist on a refund without any further information.  If the company refuses, request a charge-back from the credit-card company, file a complaint with the consumer-protection department of the state where the company is located, and write a bad review on Yelp or wherever else seems appropriate."

negative: "No to both. The deposit refund is not taxable, but in states where security must earn interest, that small amount is subject to tax. I just returned a $750 deposit to a tenant, and after a year, it accrued $0.24.  A rebate of fees you pay such as ATM fees is just you getting back your own money. As is ""cash back"" on credit card purchases. Not taxable."

negative: The only way you will incur underpayment penalties is if you withhold less than 90% of the current year's tax liability or 100% of last years tax liability (whichever is smaller).  So as long as your total tax liability last year (not what you paid at filing, but what you paid for the whole year) was more than $1,234, you should not have any penalty. What you pay (or get back) when you file will be your total tax liability less what was withheld. For example, you had $1,234 withheld from your pay for taxes.  If after deduction and other factors, your tax liability is $1,345, you will owe $111 when you file.  On the other hand, if your tax liability is only $1,000, you'll get a refund of $234 when you file, since you've had more withheld that what you owe. Since your income was only for part of the year, and tax tables assume that you make that much for the whole year, I would suspect that you over-withheld during your internship, which would offset the lack of withholding on the other $6,000 in income.

negative: Unfortunately, the tax system in the U.S. is probably more complicated than it looks to you right now. First, you need to understand that there will be taxes withheld from your paycheck, but the amount that they withhold is simply a guess.  You might pay too much or too little tax during the year.  After the year is over, you'll send in a tax return form that calculates the correct tax amount.  If you have paid too little over the year, you'll have to send in the rest, but if you've paid too much, you'll get a refund.  There are complicated formulas on how much tax the employer withholds from your paycheck, but in general, if you don't have extra income elsewhere that you need to pay tax on, you'll probably be close to breaking even at tax time. When you get your paycheck, the first thing that will be taken off is FICA, also called Social Security, Medicare, or the Payroll tax.  This is a fixed 7.65% that is taken off the gross salary.  It is not refundable and is not affected by any allowances or deductions, and does not come in to play at all on your tax return form. There are optional employee benefits that you might need to pay a portion of if you are going to take advantage of them, such as health insurance or retirement savings.  Some of these deductions are paid with before-tax money, and some are paid with after tax money. The employer will calculate how much money they are supposed to withhold for federal and state taxes (yes, California has an income tax), and the rest is yours. At tax time, the employer will give you a form W-2, which shows you the amount of your gross income after all the before-tax deductions are taken out (which is what you use to calculate your tax).  The form also shows you how much tax you have paid during the year. Form 1040 is the tax return that you use to calculate your correct tax for the year.  You start with the gross income amount from the W-2, and the first thing you do is add in any income that you didn't get a W-2 for (such as interest or investment income) and subtract any deductions that you might have that are not taxable, but were not paid through your paycheck (such as moving expenses, student loan interest, tuition, etc.)  The result is called your adjusted gross income. Next, you take off the deductions not covered in the above section (property tax, home mortgage interest, charitable giving, etc.).  You can either take the standard deduction ($6,300 if you are single), or if you have more deductions in this category than that, you can itemize your deductions and declare the correct amount. After that, you subtract more for exemptions.  You can claim yourself as an exemption unless you are considered a dependent of someone else and they are claiming you as a dependent.  If you claim yourself, you take off another $4,000 from your income. What you are left with is your taxable income for the year.  This is the amount you would use to calculate your tax based on the bracket table you found. California has an income tax, and just like the federal tax, some state taxes will be deducted from your paycheck, and you'll need to fill out a state tax return form after the year is over to calculate the correct state tax and either request a refund or pay the remainder of the tax.  I don't have any experience with the California income tax, but there are details on the rates on this page from the State of California.

negative: Can I transfer these money to India in my saving account? What will be tax implication to me? Yes you can. Whether you transfer to India or not does not change your tax obligation. If I understand correctly you are being paid an allowance in UK to cover your expense. If you are saving; then the saving portion is treated as income and you have to self declare this and pay tax according to you tax bracket. Can I transfer these money to my wife's account as a gift? What will be tax implication to me and my wife? There is no tax obligation to your wife. The tax obligation remain same to you as in first point. What if i transfer these money as loan refund to my friend? What will be tax implication for these to me and my friend? If there is proper paper trial to show your friend loaned you a sum at zero percentage and you have paid back; amounts are not to large; then there is no tax obligation to your friend. The tax obligation remains same to you as in point 1.

negative: There are a few methods you can use to estimate your taxes. On the results screen, the app will show you your estimated tax burden, your estimated withholding for the year, and your estimated overpayment/refund or shortfall/tax due.  It may also have recommendations for you on how to adjust your W-4 (although, this late in the year, I think it only tells you to come back next year to reevaluate).   Your state might also have income tax, and if you are curious about that, you can find the state tax form and estimate your state income tax as well. My guess is that you will be getting a refund this year, as you have only worked half of the year.  But that is only a guess.

negative: "Now today I received another refund in the same amount for the same property. What can legally happen if I cash it? Legally the money is not yours. The best course for you is to return the check via certified mail, notifying them that you were already paid. Just because someone made an error, does not mean the money belongs to you. If you don't and rather cash the check; sooner or later depending on the amount, it would be found out by the company as part of reconciliation/audit; they will/can then demand the same back from you.  It is up to the company to decide if simply refund is sufficient; or refund plus some interest or start a legal proceeding against you as ""intentional theft""."

negative: I am not an accountant, but I do run a business in the UK and my understanding is that it's a threshold thing, which I believe is £2,500. Assuming you don't currently have to submit self assessment, and your additional income from all sources other than employment (for which you already pay tax) is less than £2,500, you don't have to declare it. Above this level you have to submit self assessment. More information can be found here I also find that HMRC are quite helpful - give them a call and ask.

negative: As a sole trader you would fill out an Individual Tax Return and complete the Business and Professional Items Section P1 to P19, then enter the amounts from that section into Item 15 in the Supplementary Section of the Tax Return. Any business income as a sole trader will be included into your taxable income for the year together with other sources of income you may have earned in the same income year. Whether you get a tax refund will depend on the amount of taxable income you make, the amount of tax you have already paid in instalments throughout the year, and any tax deductions and tax offsets you can claim.

negative: "Look at how much tax you paid last year, including withholding and any additional amount that might have been due with the tax return. Look at the instructions for the W-4 form, which sets how much tax you want your employer to withhold. Adjust the numbers on that form until the total withheld during the year is close to what you expect this year's total to be -- remember, though, that there's no penalty for over-withholding but could be for under-withholding. Submit the W-4 form to your employer.  Remember that we're a few weeks into the year, so even if you adjust withholding now there will have been several paychecks at the prior setting; you can try to build that into your guesstimate of how to reset the withholding, or just not worry about it. Do the same with your state's withholding adjustments form. Repeat on a yearly basis, to account for raises, changes in other income, changes in filing status, etc. until it's close enough that you're satisfied with it. Then reconsider if/when your financial situation changes. Personally I find that exercise more effort than it's worth, and have simply set my withholding at ""close enough"". I usually get some money back from the feds and owe some to the state, but either is handled happily by my normal bank account balance."

negative: It should be reported as Miscellaneous Income. Congratulations for wanting to report this income.

negative: "Ed: Saw your comment, thank you. The short answer (a rough simplification), seems to be that you pay PA income tax for income made in PA. You pay IL income tax for income made in IL, not income made across both states. And you make sure the IL amount paid is correct via a credit calculated on Schedule CR. It looks to me (bear with me, I am no expert on tax law in IL, PA, or in general, so consult a professional for ""good"" advice :), like you basically do this on Schedule CR: It looks like there may be some more pertinent info on Publication 111, so that may potentially change the math a bit too. This check is 2014 income, during which you are a resident of IL. It's income from a PA employer. You must file a tax return in PA regardless, since you ""earned income in PA"". Did your former employer withhold PA income taxes on this particular paycheck? I'm not seeing where it says you should not include tax withheld; could you please point that out? Perhaps they mean you should only include tax actually considered ""due"" on the PA tax return. From IL's Schedule CR instructions: What is the purpose of Schedule CR?   Schedule CR, Credit for Tax Paid to Other States, allows you to   take a credit for income taxes you paid to other states on income   you received while a resident of Illinois. You are allowed this credit   only if you filed a required tax return with the other state. You must   use information from the tax return you filed with the other state to   complete Schedule CR.   ...    What taxes qualify for the credit?   Taxes that qualify for the credit are income taxes you paid to another   state of the United States,"

negative: "With the standard ""I am not a lawyer"" disclaimer, consider this question: If you and your girlfriend split up sometime after purchasing the house but before getting married, would you expect her to repay you for the closing costs and downpayment?  That is, if you write her a check for $5k, and 6 months after she signs the papers for the house one of you decides to break up with the other, would you expect her to write you a check for $5k in return?   That is the difference between ""a gift"" and ""a loan disguised as a gift"".  If the answer is no, you don't expect it back, then everything is fine and you're in the clear - it's perfectly legal to give someone money.  If the answer is yes, you would want to be ""paid back"", then it's not a gift and you run the risk of running afoul of the regulations.   With respect to a previous answer about ""gifting money that is not taxed"", in the US one person can give another up to $14,000 without worrying about gift taxes, and even in the event that you exceed that amount, the excess would simply eat into the lifetime exemption of $5,250,000.  (Individual states may have different rules and exempt amounts that would apply to state taxes.)   Please also consider the income issue for your ""rental agreement"".  Your GF would be expected to declare that amount and pay income tax on it as a business.  She might also declare part of that amount as expected income for purposes of securing the loan, but that may run into its own issues (you're not a roommate, and presumably the home is not a duplex or set up as apartments, and presumably she would not offer a similar deal to someone other than you)."

negative: This answer assumes you're asking about how to handle this issue in the USA. I generally downvote questions that ask about a tax/legal issue and don't bother providing the jurisdiction. In my opinion it is extremely rude. Seeing that you applied for an LLC, I think that you somehow consider it as a relevant piece of information. You also attribute some importance to the EIN which has nothing to do with your question. I'm going to filter out that noise. As an individual/sole-proprietor (whether under LLC or not), you cannot use fiscal years, only calendar years. It doesn't matter if you decide to have your LLC taxed as S-Corp as well, still calendar year. Only C-Corp can have a fiscal year, and you probably don't want to become a C-Corp. So the year ends on December 31, and whether accrual or cash - you can only deduct expenses you incurred until then. Also, you must declare the income you got until then, which in your case will be the full amount of funding - again regardless of whether you decided to be cash-based or accrual based. So the main thing you need to do is to talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your state) and learn about the tax law relevant to your business and its implications on your actions. There may be some ways to make it work better, and there are some ways in which you can screw yourself up completely in your scenario, so do get a professional advice.

negative: You need to fill out form 8606.  It's not taxable, but you still need to report it

negative: Such activity is normally referred to as bartering income. From the IRS site - You must include in gross income in the year of receipt the fair market value of goods or services received from bartering. Generally, you report this income on Form 1040, Schedule C (PDF), Profit or Loss from Business (Sole Proprietorship), or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ (PDF), Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship). If you failed to report this income, correct your return by filing a Form 1040X (PDF), Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Refer to Topic 308 and Amended Returns for information on filing an amended return.

negative: Please find out whether you are considered to be a tax resident of the US from the date that you received the permanent immigrant visa or from the date that you first enter the US on that visa. If the former, and you received the visa after April 30, you might be a part-year resident of India for Indian Income Tax purposes for the current tax year. You need to convert your bank accounts including Fixed Deposits (the FDs that you mention) to NRO accounts as soon as possible. You will need to keep at least one NRO account open for a year or more to receive the final interest payments on your FDs as well as the proceeds of cashing in the FDs, not to mention any refunds of Indian Income Tax that may be due to you for last year or the current year. Once you are done with all these, follow the procedures outlined in this excellent answer by @Dheer to transfer the money to your US account.  At this point, you can close the NRO account if you wish. As PeterK's comment says, it is not a good idea to bring a large sum of cash with you unless you are really really paranoid about banking channels. Note that if you insist on bringing cash (whether it is INR or USD) or negotiable instruments (checks or bank drafts) with you when you land in the US, these will have to be declared on entry if the total exceeds US$ 10K. There is no limit to how much you can bring with you as long as you declare it. Transfers of your own money from India to the US is not taxable income to you in the US, and income tax will already have been paid/withheld on that money in India, and so there is no income tax liability in India either on the sum transferred.

negative: Yes that is not an unusual number. In some states the state tax rate is fairly flat, and unless you are highly paid the social security and medicare taxes are also flat. The big issue is the federal number. Several things can make make the federal taxes for the early paychecks larger than normal. later checks will include these pretax amounts which will reduce the taxable income, and the taxes. Though the net check will get smaller. Keep in mind that the size of the checks your first year are impacted by the fact that most recent graduates start in the summer. The tax tables assume that each of the paychecks you receive will be essentially the same. For those recent graduates the 1st real paycheck dwarfs the average paycheck for the first part of the year. This can put you in a higher bracket than you should be, and result in a large refund when you file in the spring.  You can adjust your withholding numbers after a few checks to counterbalance this. Of course the numbers will need to be changed back in year two to to avoid under withholding.

negative: "What kind of ""deductions"" are you talking about? Many deductions, like the standard/itemized deductions, come after the AGI, and do not affect the AGI, so I don't see how this would make any difference. Maybe you are talking about deductions that come before the AGI? If you want to increase your AGI legitimately, here's a way: Every year, itemize deductions on your federal return, and over-withhold your state income tax (assuming your state has income tax) by a lot, and/or make voluntary extra payments to your state income tax. As a result, you will get a huge refund on your state taxes the following year. Then you will need to include this refund as income on line 10 of the federal return that year, which will be included in the AGI. (Of course, you will also be able to deduct a lot of state income tax paid every year in the federal itemized deductions, but those come after the AGI.)"

negative: If this is a business expense - then this is what is called reimbursement. Reimbursement is usually not considered as income since it is money paid back to you for an expense you covered for your employer with your after-tax money. However, for reimbursement to be considered properly executed, from income tax stand point, there are some requirements. I'm not familiar with the UK income tax law specifics, but I reason the requirements would not differ much from places I'm familiar with: before an expense is reimbursed to you, you should usually do this:  Show that the expense is a valid business expense for the employer benefit and by the employer's request. Submit the receipt for reimbursement and follow the employer's procedure on its approval. When income tax agent looks at your data, he actually will ask about the £1500 tab. You and you'll employer will have to do some explaining about the business activity that caused it. If the revenue agent is not satisfied, the £750 that is paid to you will be declared as your income. If the required procedures for proper reimbursement were not followed - the £750 may be declared as your income regardless of the business need. Have your employer verify it with his tax accountant.

negative: If you are being paid money in exchange for services that you are providing to your cousin, then that is income, are legally you are required to declare it as self-employment income, and pay taxes when you file your tax return (and if you have a significant amount of self-employment income, you're supposed make payments every quarter of your estimated tax liability. The deposit itself will not be taxed, however.

negative: "My employer decided to pay my salary in India after I submit a form W-8BEN. This means that the wages / salary is deemed accrued for work from India. Hence your employer need not withhold and pay taxes on this wage in US. Is this payment taxable in the States since I am staying outside of States? Should I declare this income to IRS in case if I go back to the States later this year? No tax is due as the work is done outside on US. If you go back this would be similar to as you had gone first. Depending on your ""tax residency status"" you would have to declare all assets. If my US employer wires my US salary to my NRE account is that taxable in India? This is still taxable in India. It is advised that you have the funds transferred into a regular savings account. Please note you have to pay taxes in advance as per prescribed due dates in Sept, Dec, March. how does the Indian tax man identify if it is a taxable income and not just the regular remittance. This question is off topic here. Whether income taxes finds out about this is irrelevant. By law one is required to pay taxes on income earned in India."

negative: When you adjust your investments the following will happen: Initial condition: Modified condition: This means that after this change you will note that the amount of federal tax you pay each month via withholding will go up. You are now contributing less pre-tax, so your taxable income has increased. If you make no other changes, then in April you will either have increased your refund by 6 months x the additional $25 a month, or decreased the amount you owe by the same amount. There is no change in the total 401K balance at the end of the year, other than accounting for how much is held pre-tax vs. Roth post-tax. Keep in mind that employer contributions must be pre-tax. The company could never guess what your tax situation is. They withhold money for taxes based on the form you fill out, but they have no idea of your family's tax situation. If you fail to have enough withheld, you pay the penalty — not the company. *The tax savings are complex because it depends on marital status, your other pre-tax amounts for medical, and how much income your spouse makes, plus your other income and deductions.

negative: In general, you are expected to pay all the money you owe in taxes by the end of the tax year, or you may have to pay a penalty. But you don't have to pay a penalty if: The amount you owe (i.e. total tax due minus what you paid in withholding and estimated taxes) is less than $1000. You paid at least 90% of your total tax bill. You paid at least 100% of last year's tax bill. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc306.html I think point #3 may work for you here. Suppose that last year your total tax liability was, say, $5,000. This year your tax on your regular income would be $5,500, but you have this additional capital gain that brings your total tax to $6,500. If your withholding was $5,000 -- the amount you owed last year -- than you'll owe the difference, $1,500, but you won't have to pay any penalties. If you normally get a refund every year, even a small one, then you should be fine. I'd check the numbers to be sure, of course. If you normally have to pay something every April 15, or if your income and therefore your withholding went down this year for whatever reason, then you should make an estimated payment. The IRS has a page explaining the rules in more detail: https://www.irs.gov/help-resources/tools-faqs/faqs-for-individuals/frequently-asked-tax-questions-answers/estimated-tax/large-gains-lump-sum-distributions-etc/large-gains-lump-sum-distributions-etc

negative: You appear to just have admitted to tax evasion. You need a lawyer. There's a good chance you don't actually owe any money, but you need legal advice. To be clear, you may well not have been obligated to file tax returns, but you have stated you had some income you didn't report, so there's really nothing else we can say other than recommend you seek legal advice.

negative: "You don't ""need"" your refund to be as small as possible, but you usually would want it to be as small as possible. The reason people say you should aim for a small refund is that getting a big refund means you paid more in taxes than you had to.  This means you gave away money that you could have done something else with.  You get the money back later as a tax refund, but you lost the ability to use it during the time the government had it. For instance, if as you say you are getting a $1000 tax refund, that's $1000 that you are giving to the government over the course of the year.  At the end of the year, you get it back, so you end the year with $1000.  If you instead kept the money, (by paying only exactly as much tax as you owe throughout the year) you could invest it somehow, so that by the end of the year it could potentially have grown to, say, $1050.  Thus at the end of the year you would have $1050 instead of $1000. Ideally you would have zero refund and owe zero extra at the end of the year.  However, since it is often difficult to make things work out so exactly, people often say you should aim for a small refund. Assuming you are in the USA, if your income is only $9000 you will likely not owe any federal income tax at all, so you could claim exemption from withholding and avoid paying any tax ahead of time.  You could check this when you file your taxes by seeing if the refund you get is equal to the total of taxes withheld from your paychecks over the course of last year."

negative: Federal income tax refunds received during 2016 are not taxable income for 2016 (or any other year) on either the Federal or the State tax return. The State income tax refund for 2015 received during 2016 is not taxable income on the State tax return for 2016. It is taxable income on the Federal tax return for 2016 only to the extent that you received a tax benefit (reduction in Federal income tax due) from deducting State income tax as an Itemized Deduction on your 2015 Federal return. If you didn't deduct State income tax because you deducted State sales tax instead, then the State income tax refund is not taxable income on the Federal tax return.


query: Bucketing investments to track individual growths

positive: Some personal finance packages can track basis cost of individual purchase lots or fractions thereof. I believe Quicken does, for example. And the mutual funds I'm invested in tell me this when I redeem shares. I can't vouch for who/what would make this visible at times other than sale; I've never had that need. For that matter I'm not sure what value the info would have unless you're going to try to explicitly sell specific lots rather than doing FIFO or Average accounting.

negative: When I was a kid, the sets were built, then taken apart, thrown in a big box, and rebuilt 100s of times into 100s of different things. Now they get built once, and sit on a shelf as decorations. IMO lego lost its way when it moved away from a 'bucket of discovery' , toward branded show pieces. Thankfully I still have my 40 year old bucket of lego our kids can still innovate and explore with...that bucket sees far more use than any set we've bought in recent years.

negative: Legally, I can't find any reason that the LLC could not lend money to an individual. However, I believe the simplest course of action is to first distribute money from your company to your personal account, and then make it a personal loan. Whether the loan is done through the business or personally, financially I don't think there is much difference as to which bucket the interest income goes into, since your business and personal income will all get lumped together anyway with a single person LLC. Even if your friend defaults on the loan, either the business or you personally will have the same burden of proof to meet that the loan was not a gift to begin with, and if that burden is met, the deduction can be taken from either side. If a debt goes bad the debtor may be required to report the debt as income.

negative: Home security systems are a must have for families and individuals that live in the city districts. Crime is one the high in these areas and an investment in a solid home security system such as the GE Wireless Home Security System can really reduce the chances of falling victim to home related crimes. The GE home security system is wireless and cellular based and works with FrontPoint's cellular monitoring. The cellular monitoring from FrontPoint allows you to keep track of who enters and exits your home through instant text alerts and also allows you to see live video of the inside and outside of your home live from your smartphone such iPhone or Android phone!

negative: "The answer to your question depends on what you mean when you say ""growth"".  If you mean a literal increase in the aggregate market capitalization of companies, across the entire market, then, no, this sort of growth is not possible without concomitant economic growth.  The reason why is that the market capitalization of each company is proportional to its gross revenue, and the sum of all revenue from selling ""final goods"" (i.e., things purchased and used by consumers) is, apart from a few technicalities, the definition of GDP.  The exact multiplier might fluctuate up or down depending on investors' expectations about how sales will grow or decline going forward, but in a zero-growth economy this multiplier should be stable over the long run.  It might, however, still fluctuate over the short term, but more about that in a minute.   Note that all of this applies to aggregate growth across all firms.  Individual firms can still grow, of course, but as they must do this by gaining market share from other companies such growth would be balanced by a decline for some other firm.  Also, I've assumed zero net exports (that's one of the ""technicalities"" I mentioned above) because obviously you could have export-driven growth even if the domestic economy were stationary. However, often when people talk about ""growth"" in the market, what they really mean is ""return"".  That is, how much does your investment earn for you.  This isn't really the same thing as growth, but people often think of it that way, particularly in the saving phase of their investing career, when they are reinvesting their returns, and therefore their account balances are growing.  It is possible to have a positive return, averaged across the market, even in a stationary economy.  The reason why is that there are really only two things a firm can do with its net profits.  One possibility is that it could invest it in growing the business.  However, there is not much point in doing that in a stationary economy because by assumption no increase in aggregate consumption (and therefore, in the long run, aggregate production) are possible.  Therefore, firms are left with only the second option, which is to pay them out to investors as dividends.  Those dividends provide a return that is independent of economic growth. Would the stock market still be a good investment in such an economy?  Yes.  Well, sort of.  The rate of return from firms' dividend payouts will depend on investors' demand (in aggregate) for returns on their investments.  Stock prices will rise or fall, causing returns to respectively fall or rise, to find that level.  If your personal desire for returns is lower than the average across the investing public, then the stock market would look like a good investment.  If your desired return is higher than the average, then it will look like a poor investment.  The marginal investor will, of course be indifferent.  The practical upshot of this is that the people who invest in the stock market in this scenario will be precisely the ones for whom the stock market is a good investment, given their personal propensity to save and desire for returns, and so forth. Finally, you mentioned that in your scenario the GDP stagnation is due to declining population.  I am less certain what this means for investment, but my first thought is that you would have a large retired population selling its investments to fund late-life consumption, and you would have a comparatively small (relative to history) working population buying those assets.  This would lead to low asset prices, and therefore high rates of return.  However, that's assuming that retirees need to sell assets to fund their retirement consumption.  If the absolute returns on retirees' assets are large enough to fund their retirement consumption then you would wind up with relatively few sellers, resulting in high prices and therefore relatively low rates of return.  It's not obvious to me which effect would dominate, and so it's hard to say whether or not the resulting returns would look attractive to the working-age population."

negative: There is more than one kind of tax. It is a little confusing because in reality the tax revenues collected by the Government aren't earmarked to a particular usage based on where they came from, usually. Well, the Gov't often CLAIMS they do, but for all practical matters it all goes in a big bucket. So just because a business or individual isn't paying income taxes doesn't mean they aren't paying anything for the use of Government furnished infrastructure/services. You are limiting the scope of your question to Income Taxes, which are taxes paid on profits to a business or individual. It makes perfect sense that you wouldn't pay a tax on something you didn't get. However, you aren't considering taxes that ARE being paid even by a company that isn't profitable. For example consumption taxes, employment taxes, and other fees. That same company paid sales tax on all the supplies it purchased, and probably collected/paid sales taxes on anything it sold. To take one of your examples, it paid for its share of using the roads through Government imposed taxes on fuel.  Don't worry about the Government. They know how to get theirs. They might not pull it from your right pocket, but they will make sure to get it from the left.

negative: "Aside from the fact that everyone - absolutely everyone, from the level of the individual to the government as a whole - treats ""free"" money frivolously, wastes it, misappropriates it, etc...  I do see one benefit to something like this.   The whole idea of the stock market isn't millisecond trading to game the casino that is Wall Street.  Optimistically, you purchase stocks as a long-term investment in companies to enable their continued growth and stability, they make profits, they pass along these profits to you, and everyone benefits.  Suppressing this sort of roulette wheel speculation, constant changing of hands, fractional gains and the like seems like it would stabilize markets, improve growth, stop the damn CEO's and their golden parachute tactics in killing companies, and all that jazz.  Joe Shmoe isn't going to care about a tax like this - he buys into whatever he wants and usually hangs on to it for the long term.  I'm a layman, and admittedly a damned rusty one at economics, so give me a little slack if I'm wrong or just misguided altogether."

negative: Great news.  Lack of collateral options for the poor is a huge problem in developing countries that leads to lack of development and a poor entrepreneur environment.  If a farmer is now allowed to use livestock to secure a loan, it means more  economic growth from the poorest individuals.

negative: Your search for Sydney Handyman ends with Sydney Handyman Hire. Our growth in the last few years has come by earning the trust and building good relationships with clients. We have a track record of providing excellent services which allows our clients to focus on their work.  Address: 6/17-21 Bowden Street, Alexandria, NSW 2015,   Phone No: 1300 336 547

negative: "when you contribute to a 401k, you get to invest pre-tax money. that means part of it (e.g. 25%) is money you would otherwise have to pay in taxes (deferred money) and the rest (e.g. 75%) is money you could otherwise invest (base money).  growth in the 401k is essentially tax free because the taxes on the growth of the base money are paid for  by the growth in the deferred portion.  that is of course assuming the same marginal tax rate both now and when you withdraw the money. if your marginal tax rate is lower in retirement than it is now, you would save even more money using a traditional 401k or ira. an alternative is to invest in a roth account (401k or ira). in which case the money goes in after tax and the growth is untaxed.  this would be advantageous if you expect to have a higher marginal tax rate during retirement. moreover, it reduces tax risk, which could give you peace of mind considering u.s. marginal tax rates were over 90% in the 1940's. a roth could also be advantageous if you hit the contribution limits since the contributions are after-tax and therefore more valuable. lastly, contributions to a roth account can be withdrawn at any time tax and penalty free. however, the growth in a roth account is basically stuck there until you turn 60. unlike a traditional ira/401k where you can take early retirement with a SEPP plan. another alternative is to invest the money in a normal taxed account.  the advantage of this approach is that the money is available to you whenever you need it rather than waiting until you retire.  also, investment losses can be deducted from earned income (e.g. 15-25%), while gains can be taxed at the long term capital gains rate (e.g. 0-15%). the upshot being that even if you make money over the course of several years, you can actually realize negative taxes by taking gains and losses in different tax years. finally, when you decide to retire you might end up paying 0% taxes on your long term capital gains if your income is low enough (currently ~50k$/yr for a single person). the biggest limitation of this strategy is that losses are limited to 3k$ per year. also, this strategy works best when you invest in individual stocks rather than mutual funds, increasing volatility (aka risk). lastly, this makes filing your taxes more complicated since you need to report every purchase and sale and watch out for the ""wash sale"" rules. side note: you should contribute enough to get all the 401k matching your employer offers.  even if you cash out the whole account when you want the money, the matching (typically 50%-200%) should exceed the 10% early withdrawal penalty."

negative: "There are a LOT of reasons why institutional investors would own a company's stock (especially a lot of it). Some can be: The company is in one of the indices, especially big ones. Many asset management companies have funds that are either passive (track index) or more-or-less closely adhere to a benchmark, with the benchmark frequently being (based on/exactly) an index. As such, a stock that's part of an index would be heavily owned by institutional investors. Conclusion: Nothing definitive. Being included in an equity index is usually dependent on the market cap; NOT on intrinsic quality of the company, its fundamentals or stock returns.  The company is considered a good prospect (growth or value), in a sector that is popular with institutional investors. There's a certain amount of groupthink in investing. To completely butcher a known IT saying, you don't get fired for investing in AAPL :)  While truly outstanding and successful investors seek NON-popular assets (which would be undervalued), the bulk is likely to go with ""best practices""... and the general rules for valuation and analysis everyone uses are reasonably similar. As such, if one company invests in a stock, it's likely a competitor will follow similar reasoning to invest in it.  Conclusion: Nothing definitive. You don't know if the price at which those institutional companies bought the stock is way lower than now. You don't know if the stock is held for its returns potential, or as part of an index, or some fancy strategy you as individual investor can't follow. The company's technicals lead the algorithms to prefer it. And they feed off of each other. Somewhat similar in spirit to #2, except this time, it's algorithmic trading making decisions based on technicals instead of portfolio managers based on funamentals.  Obviously, same conclusion applies, even more so. The company sold a large part of the stock directly to institutional investor as part of an offering. Sometimes, as part of IPO (ala PNC and BLK), sometimes additional capital raising (ala Buffett and BAC) Conclusion: Nothing definitive. That investor holds on to the investment, sometimes for reason not only directly related to stock performance (e.g. control of the company, or synergies). Also, does the fact that Inst. Own % is high mean that the company is a good investment and/or less risky? Not necessarily. In 2008, Bear Stearns Inst Own. % was 77%"

negative: I would **highly recommend** taking a couple of courses in Google Analytics (beginner and advanced) to learn how to track your site's traffic and audience. These courses will teach you how to create live analytic reports, track traffic by individual page, and view countless metrics like bounce rates, average time spent on a page, and which find out pages are typical landing pages. You can also find from where most of your traffic is sourced, and what channels access your site most. In addition, you can track your own ad campaigns and their effectiveness.   For advertising, I would strongly recommend a course in Google AdWords. This course will teach you the top methods of producing effective online ads (in-app mobile, YouTube, graphic displays, text-based ads on search results, etc.).  These courses are both **free** on the Google Analytics Academy, and a certification in them looks great on a resume.  Cheers!

negative: This depends on: Here in the US where I am, interest rates were around 3.9% when I fixed my mortgage. This underperforms the market, e.g., a total market ETF like $VTI or an SP500 ETF like $VOO have expected returns of ~7+%, the current market growth rate. So, in theory I am better off paying into the market, and making returns greater than my interest rate, rather than paying into the equity.  HOWEVER, past market returns do not guarantee future market returns. The market could reset. It could crash. Are you willing to accept this risk? You have to analyze what happens if the market suffers say a 30% correction and you lose a lot of money quickly.  I would certainly not invest in individual (non-ETF) stocks, or you are really exposing yourself to risk.

negative: "Everything that I'm saying presumes that you're young, and won't need your money back for 20+ years, and that you're going to invest additional money in the future. Your first investments should never be individual stocks. That is far too risky until you have a LOT more experience in the market. (Once you absolutely can't resist, keep it to under 5% of your total investments. That lets you experiment without damaging your returns too much.) Instead you would want to invest in one or more mutual funds of some sort, which spreads out your investment across MANY companies. With only $50, avoiding a trading commission is paramount. If you were in the US, I would recommend opening a free online brokerage account and then purchasing a no-load commission-free mutual fund. TD Ameritrade, for example, publishes a list of the funds that you can purchase without commission. The lists generally include the type of fund (index, growth, value, etc.) and its record of return. I don't know if Europe has the same kind of discount brokerages / mutual funds the US has, but I'd be a little surprised if it didn't. You may or may not be able to invest until you first scrape together a $500 minimum, but the brokerages often have special programs/accounts for people just starting out. It should be possible to ask. One more thing on picking a fund: most charge about a 1% annual expense ratio. (That means that a $100 investment that had a 100% gain after one year would net you $198 instead of $200, because 1% of the value of your asset ($200) is $2. The math is much more complicated, and depends on the value of your investment at every given point during the year, but that's the basic idea.) HOWEVER, there are index funds that track ""the market"" automatically, and they can have MUCH lower expense fees (0.05%, vs 1%) for the same quality of performance. Over 40 years, the expense ratio can have a surprisingly large impact on your net return, even 20% or more! You'll want to google separately about the right way to pick a low-expense index fund. Your online brokerage may also be able to help. Finally, ask friends or family what mutual funds they've invested in, how they chose those funds, and what their experience has been. The point is not to have them tell you what to do, but for you to learn from the mistakes and successes of other experienced investors with whom you can follow up."

negative: My super fund and I would say many other funds give you one free switch of strategies per year.  Some suggest you should change from high growth option to a more balance option once you are say about 10 to 15 years from retirement, and then change to a more capital guaranteed option a few years from retirement. This is a more passive approach and has benefits as well as disadvantages. The benefit is that there is not much work involved, you just change your investment option based on your life stage, 2 to 3 times during your lifetime. This allows you to take more risk when you are young to aim for higher returns, take a balanced approach with moderate risk and returns during the middle part of your working life, and take less risk with lower returns (above inflation) during the latter part of your working life. A possible disadvantage of this strategy is you may be in the higher risk/ higher growth option during a market correction and then change to a more balanced option just when the market starts to pick up again. So your funds will be hit with large losses whilst the market is in retreat and just when things look to be getting better you change to a more balanced portfolio and miss out on the big gains. A second more active approach would be to track the market and change investment option as the market changes. One approach which shouldn't take much time is to track the index such as the ASX200 (if you investment option is mainly invested in the Australian stock market) with a 200 day Simple Moving Average (SMA). The concept is that if the index crosses above the 200 day SMA the market is bullish and if it crosses below it is bearish. See the chart below:  This strategy will work well when the market is trending up or down but not very well when the market is going sideways, as you will be changing from aggressive to balanced and back too often. Possibly a more appropriate option would be a combination of the two. Use the first passive approach to change investment option from aggressive to balanced to capital guaranteed with your life stages, however use the second active approach to time the change. For example, if you were say in your late 40s now and were looking to change from aggressive to balanced in the near future, you could wait until the ASX200 crosses below the 200 day SMA before making the change. This way you could capture the majority of the uptrend (which could go on for years) before changing from the high growth/aggressive option to the balanced option. If you where after more control over your superannuation assets another option open to you is to start a SMSF, however I would recommend having at least $300K to $400K in assets before starting a SMSF, or else the annual costs would be too high as a percentage of your total super assets.

negative: 2 billion is a drop in the bucket compared to other government costs. We spent 400 billion on  a fighter jet that cant fly at night or in clouds. I would gladly take 200 years of postal service over military waste.

negative: Negative coupons are not the same as a negative yield. A $1000 bond that you purchase, at a premium, for $2100 that produces 10 annual coupons of $100 and a redemption of $1000 has a real, positive coupon ($100). The holder of the bond gets this coupon, and the maturity value However, you get back less than your initial investment.  There is no growth; the original investment shrinks, or has a negative growth rate.  Most mortgage or bond calculators choke on this situation...

negative: The state isn't that blue. Chicago is, but much of the rest of the state is a reddish purple. Large chunks of the pension problem come from mismanagement of the plans and over ambitious outlooks on the plan assets (ex chasing risky investments in a low growth environment because the liabilities of the plan had assumed 8% growth). There's also the corruption, but...


query: Income Tax and Investments

positive: The $50k is subject to the appropriate income taxes, which may include FICA taxes including the employer share if you are self employed. The after tax money can then be invested with the amount invested being the cost basis (I.e., if you invest $40k you will have a cost basis of $40k).  In future years you will have taxes due if any of those investments pay dividends (or capital gain distributions). Once you sell you will have a capital gain or loss that you will pay taxes on (or take a deduction if a loss). Now you can improve this picture if you are able to put some of your money into a retirement account (either a tax deductible or a ROTH). With retirement accounts you do not pay tax on the capital gains or dividends. If you use a tax deferred account your tax is higher but that is because you were also investing Uncle Sam's portion of your pay check.

positive: Unless you make those investments inside a tax-deferred account, you will have to pay income-taxes on that money this year. Because you made that money through your own business, you will also have payroll taxes due on that money this year.

negative: Basically there are 2 ways you can make money from an investment, through income (eg: rent or dividends) and through the price of the investment going up (capital growth or gains). Most people associate negative gearing with investment properties but it can be done with shares and other investments where you borrow money to buy the investment and it produces an income of some sort. If the investment does not produce an income then you cannot negative gear it. Using a property as an example (in Australia), if all your expenses each month (loan interest payments, council and water rates, insurance and/or strata, advertising and management fees, depreciation, and maintenance expense) are greater than your income (rent), then you are negative gearing the investment property. This is a monthly loss on your investment which can be used to offset and reduce the amount of tax you pay during the year. So most people negative gearing an investment property will get a nice sum back when they do their tax returns. The problem with negative gearing is that you have to lose money in order to save some tax. So as an example, if you are on a marginal tax rate of 30%, for every $1 you lose from the investment property you will save 30c in tax. If your marginal tax rate is 45% then will save 45c in tax for every $1 lost on the investment property. Thus negative gearing becomes more tax effective the higher your income (and tax bracket). But you are still losing money overall. The problem is that most novice investors buy an investment property for the main purpose of reducing their taxes. This can be dangerous because the main reason to buy any investment should be that you consider it to be a good investment, not to save you tax. Because if the investment is not a good one, then you will not only lose money on the income side but also on the capital side. Negative gearing should be looked at as a bonus or additional benefit when chosing a good investment to buy, not as the reason to buy the investment.

negative: "Your premise is false.  When you withdraw money from a Tax Free Savings Account (TFSA), there is no tax due.  Yes, you can read that again:  withdrawals from a TFSA are tax free.  They are labeled ""tax free"" for a good reason!  After-tax money is deposited, and then from that point forward, no tax, no tax, no tax.  :-) On a ""normal"", non-registered investment or savings account with no special treatment, your investment earnings will be taxed whenever gains are realized or income received (e.g. dividends or interest).  You will necessarily have less in a normal non-registered investment or savings account compared to a TFSA, as long as the rate of return was positive, i.e. growing. Perhaps you were thinking not of comparing a regular investment account to a TFSA, but rather to a Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP)? In the case of an RRSP, there is an up-front tax deduction, then earnings grow tax-deferred, and then on withdrawal, income tax is paid at regular rates.  Even then, with RRSPs, if your marginal tax rate remains the same over time (not necessarily a reasonable assumption, but let's go with it) then you should still realize more after-tax income from your RRSP than from a normal non-registered investment or savings account.  (Though, there's likely an exception case when most income came as qualified dividends and the capital itself hasn't appreciated.)"

negative: In the US, dividends have special tax treatment similar to, but not the same as Capital Gains. No easy way to transform one to the other, the very fact that you invested your money in a company that has returned part of your capital as income means it is just that, income. Also in the US, you could invest in Master Limited Partnerships. These are companies that make distributions that are treated as a return of capital, instead of dividends. Throughout the life of the investment you receive tax forms that assign part of the operating expense/loss of the company to you as a tax payer. Then at the end of the investment life you are required to recapture those losses as Capital Gains on sale of the stock. In some ways, these investments do exactly what you are asking about. They transform periodic income into later capital gains, basically deferring tax on the income until the sale of the security. Here is an article I found about MLPs coming to the UK through an ETF: Master Limited Partnerships in the UK

negative: Investing it in what? Unless you're putting it into an account that lets you avoid taxes on the income, your $100k becomes about $74k after federal income taxes. If you take $50k of that and invest it, you're now at $24k. You're living a very barebones life at that point.

negative: No. Income inside an RRSP is sheltered from income tax until you withdraw it. That is, indeed, the major benefit of RRSPs. Note that you will eventually declare this as income. Consider the following case: - in 2015, you make $1000 in income. - in 2015, you contribute $100 to your RRSPs. You store this in an account that pays interest, rather than investing it in stocks, bonds, or mutual funds. - between 2015 and 2025, your money makes an additional $100 in interest. - in 2025, you are retired and pull out the entire amount in your RRSP, i.e. $200. Now, between 2015 and 2025, you did not declare the income from interest. You'd have had to do this if the money was in a regular bank account (instead of an RRSP or a TFSA). Indeed, your bank would have issued tax forms in that case. But you don't report income sheltered in an RRSP. This is good, as it increases the power of compounding. In 2015, you pay tax on only $900 rather than the full $1000. In 2025, you pull out the entire $200. You report all $200 as income (or, actually, as a withdrawal from your RRSP, but it's the same thing). You pay tax on the initial $100 investment (which you did not do in 2015), and you also pay tax on the $100 that your investment has made (and which you are now pulling out). The hope is that your income is now lower, as you are retired. So you'll end up paying less income tax. Plus, your investment has had many years of opportunity to compound, tax-free. TL;DNR: You don't pay tax on, or report gains in, an RRSP account. The bank or investment house won't even issue tax forms, not until you withdraw the money.

negative: "> If you are a corporation residing in Canada, you still pay Canadian taxes on worldwide income, even if that income is sourced in another country.  For corporate tax, that's not exactly true see the Foreign Accrual Property Income rules (FAPI). Only for what is considered ""investment business"" income does the company have to pay Canadian taxes on worldwide income. ""Active business"" income, which would but pretty much everything BK is doing, is repatriated tax free like any other inter-company dividend. In the US that active business income would be subject to a CFC tax."

negative: My $.02 is that the problem boils down to the disparity in the tax rates.  Money is taxed at a lower rate than people---in other words, money made by money (capital gains) is taxed at 15% and money made by people (income) is taxed at 35%.  Over time, money will naturally flow to wherever the tax is lowest because tax rates factor heavily into ROI.  We should equal the playing field, or even tax people at a lower rate than money.  Then there will be job creation, and more money will flow to employee's pockets as income, since it's no longer hugely advantageous to hold the money and invest it.  Consider employees to be another investment class, and lower the barriers to investing in that class.  Anyone care to opine on this?

negative: The other alternative: just invest it in tax-efficient investments. You will have limited tax-deferral options outside of your 401k, but don't let that limit you. You can invest in a variety of ETFs, stocks and mutual funds for growth, and tax-free investments like municipal bonds as you get older and need to draw income.

negative: If you're maxing out your 401k, just save in tax-efficient investments like stocks and tax efficient funds.  If you live in a state with income taxes, look at municipal bond funds for some tax-free income. In 2011, be careful with bond funds and look for short duration funds.

negative: The thing is, corporate taxes aren't paid on revenues or costs; they're paid on net income.   Meaning no matter what happens, any investment the company makes that improves their net income automatically means more money for the company.    So let's say 12% vs 14% tax.   A 2% increase in tax means a 2% lower net ROI on the investment.    But so long as the incremental improvement to your bottom line is there, the investment is sound, with or without taxes.   EVEN at a 50% corporate tax rate.   You hire one more person at $60k/yr and they make $120k/yr in net income for you.   You still keep $30k of the profits.    It's an incremental increase regardless.  And if that person doesn't make you money?  Say the incremental benefit is 0?   Well your net income just dropped $60/yr.   And you just paid $30k less in taxes.   Meaning the true cost of that hire is $30k to your bottom line.  Where it hurts business is that your retained earnings don't build up as fast.   It makes the next investment harder to make is all.   And as a corporation, if you're not paying dividends you need to keep reinvesting your retained earnings./

negative: "The likely reason the mortgage is ""tricky to get"" is the adviser is probably recommending an interest-only mortgage in which there is no repayment of principle before maturity.  That would allow you to deduct the amount of the interest expense from your taxable income.  Your investment grows compound tax deferred and the principal invested (the mortgage balance) is completely tax free since it never qualifies as income for tax purposes. Example ideal scenario: Refinance $100,000 on a 5/1 ARM-interest only at 3%.  Invest the $100,000 at 6%.  Each year you effectively pay taxes on only the gains greater than interest.  If you reinvest the profits it looks something like: Net Profit:    $12,309 Effective Tax Rate:  13.21%"

negative: When you pay interest on a loan used to fund a legitimate investment or business activity, that interest becomes an expense that you can deduct against related income. For example, if you borrowed $10k to buy stocks, you could deduct the interest on that $10k loan from investment gains.  In your case, you are borrowing money to invest in the stock of your company.  You would be able to deduct the interest expense against investment gain (like selling stock or receiving dividends), but not from any income from the business. (See this link for more information.) You do not have to pay taxes on the interest paid to your father; that is an expense, not income.  However, your father has to pay taxes on that interest, because that is income for him.

negative: If you are the beneficiary of an annuity, you might receive a single-sum distribution when the annuity owner dies. The amount of this death benefit might be the current cash value of the annuity or some other amount based upon contract riders that the owner purchased. The tax on death benefits depends on a number of factors. Death benefits are taxed as normal income. Unlike other investments, the named beneficiary of a non-qualified annuity does not get a step-up in tax basis to the date of death. However, that doesn't mean the beneficiary will have to pay taxes on the full amount. Because the purchaser of the annuity made the investment with after-tax dollars, only the amount attributable to investment income is taxed, but it will be taxed as ordinary income and not enjoy any special capital gains treatment. When there is a death benefit that exceeds the value of the account, that additional amount is also taxed as ordinary income.  Taxes on annuities depend on several circumstances: For more information on distribution of inherited annuities and taxes - go to Annuities HQ-- http://www.annuitieshq.com/articles/distribution-options-inherited-annuity/ they go into details that could help you even more.  One thing that Annuities HQ points out is if you take the lump sum payout, you may be pushed into a higher tax bracket.  Along with doing research I would also contact a financial advisor!

negative: "Where are you from? The Netherlands has tax treaties with different countries that may offer you some additional options. The Netherlands calculates a maximum tax free contribution to your pension each year based on your income. If you contributed less than you were allowed to (pensioengat), you can invest the difference between your actual and allowed contributions in special retirement investments that usually offer tax advantages. A gap like this can be due to getting a bonus or a raise. After looking around, the investments available are either a special savings account (banksparen) or an annuity (lijfrente).  Your allowed contributions to both will be tax deductible and the investment itself is excluded from wealth tax (box 3 taxes).  I also see Aegon offering an ""investment annuity"" that lets you invest in any of 7 of their mutual funds until a certain date at which time you liquidate and use the proceeds to fund an annuity. With the Dutch retirement options, wou will not in general get the same freedom of choice or low costs associated with IRAs in the US.  I'm not sure about ISAs in the UK.  It's also important to check any tax agreements between countries to ensure your chosen investment vehicle gets the tax advantaged treatment in your home country as it does in the Netherlands.  For US citizens, this is important even when living abroad.  For others, it is important if you return to your home country and still have this investment. If you are a US citizen, you have an additional option.  The US / Dutch tax treaty allows you to make these contributions to preexisting (i.e. you had these before moving to NL) retirement accounts in the US like an IRA. Note that in practice it may be difficult to contribute to an existing Roth IRA because you would need to have earned income after the foreign income tax deduction but less than the maximum income for a Roth contribution."

negative: Both types of plans offer a tax benefit.  A traditional IRA allows you to invest pre-tax money into the account and it grows tax free. Once you withdraw the money it then gets taxed as though it were income based on the amount you withdraw for that calendar year. A Roth IRA has you invest post-tax money and also grows tax free. However, when you make withdraws in retirement that money is then tax free.  Neither plan is right for everybody. If you have a very high income now and plan on being in a smaller tax bracket later when you'll be making withdraws then the traditional IRA is better. If you will be in a higher bracket later, then the Roth IRA will serve you more. Depending on the way you manage your retirement investing you can likely invest in both if you are unsure as to which would be better. The same type of investments should be able to be nested within each type.

negative: Your approach sounds solid to me.  Alternatively, if (as appears to be the case) then you might want to consider devoting your tax-advantaged accounts to tax-inefficient investments, such as REITs and high-yield bond funds.  That way your investments that generate non-capital-gain (i.e. tax-expensive) income are safe from the IRS until retirement (or forever).  And your investments that generate only capital gains income are safe until you sell them (and then they're tax-cheap anyway). Of course, since there aren't really that many tax-expensive investment vehicles (especially not for a young person), you may still have room in your retirement accounts after allocating all the money you feel comfortable putting into REITs and junk bonds.  In that case, the article I linked above ranks investment types by tax-efficiency so you can figure out the next best thing to put into your IRA, then the next, etc.

negative: "Mortgage interest in Canada is not generally tax deductible for individuals. (Where did you read otherwise?) As an individual, the only mortgage interest you may be able to deduct is when you borrow the money to purchase an income-producing asset, e.g another property you can rent out, or investments producing dividends or other income.  In these cases, the interest you pay on the borrowed funds, i.e. the ""carrying costs"" for your investments, would be deductible against the income produced by the investments purchased."

negative: 0% bonds are desirable for some individuals. It depends on your situation. 0% bonds are usually sold well below par value (eg a 100$ face value bond for 2020 might sell for 90$ today) Hence, your gains will be CAPITAL GAINS. A similar investment paying interest would be taxed as INCOME, and smaller portion of capital gains. In many countries (US, Canada) Capital gains are taxed at a more favourable rate then income. This is especially true when holding these investments in corporations.

negative: Eeeeeeh... No, you don't. In Canada, and pretty much any country with common sense they will rarely charge you for income made outside its borders. In the worst case scenario you're taxed on income deemed resulting from investment (stocks, bonds, etc.), but the general rule is... You don't pay taxes on income made abroad.

negative: As far as I know, there is no direct equivalent. An IRA is subject to many rules.  Not only are there early withdrawal penalties, but the ability to deduct contributions to an IRA phases out with one's income level.  Qualified withdrawals from an IRA won't have penalties, but they will be taxed as income.  Contributions to a Roth IRA can be made post-tax and the resulting gains will be tax free, but they cannot be withdrawn early. Another tax-deductable investment is a 529 plan.  These can be withdrawn from at any time, but there is a penalty if the money is not used for educational purposes. A 401K or similar employer-sponsored fund is made with pre-tax dollars unless it is designated as a Roth 401K.  These plans also require money to be withdrawn specifically for retirement, with a 10% penalty for early withdrawal.  Qualifying withdrawals from a regular retirement plan are taxed as income, those from a Roth plan are not (as with an IRA). Money can be made harder to get at by investing in all of the types of funds you can invest in using an IRA through the same brokers under a different type of account, but the contribution will be made with post-tax, non-deductable dollars and the gains will be taxed.

negative: > I would dare say that in most cases, people end up paying more in taxes, because they pay it as regular income rather than LTCG.  That's not how it works.  There's no LTCG tax on Roth accounts.  And on regular investment accounts you're taxed twice.  You first pay regular income tax and then pay LTCG tax on any gains.  The main advantage of 401ks is that you don't ever pay capital gains tax.  You're only taxed once on the money.

negative: Basically, yes. That doesn't mean that it's easy to do. The government provides a dividend tax credit since an individual takes on more risk to invest in dividend-paying corporations rather than trading their human capital for an income. Thus, for the most part, $1 earned from dividends is taxed much less than $1 earned from income or interest. Finally, note that foreign dividends are not eligible for the dividend tax credit, and are not preferentially taxed.

negative: In the US, the key to understanding the benefits of retirement accounts is to understand capital gains taxes and how they work. Retirement accounts are designed for making investments throughout your career, then after several decades of contributions, withdrawing that money to pay for your needs when your full-time employment has concluded. Normally when you invest money in a brokerage account, if the value of your investment increases, and you sell in less than a year, those investments are considered short-term gains and taxed as ordinary income. If you hold that same investment for over a year, the same investment is taxed at a lower capital gains rate (depending on which tax bracket you are in during that year, the amount due could be up to 20%, but much lower than your regular income tax rate). When you place your money in a retirement account, you are choosing to either pay the tax due on the income when you put it in the account, or put the money in tax free and pay the tax when you withdraw (these are called tax-deferred accounts). When you have money invested several decades, the raw dollar amount increases greatly, but inflation is also reducing the value of those dollars. Imagine you bought some bonds that payed 4% over 40 years, but inflation was 2% during those same years. When you sell those bonds 40 years later, you will owe capital gains on the entire gain even though half of the gain came from inflation. Retirement accounts allow you to buy and sell according to your investment needs and goals without any consideration about whether the gains are short-term or long-term, and they also allow you to pay taxes just once, either when you put it in, or when you take it out, with no worries about whether you're paying taxes on inflated gains.

negative: Can you deduct interest paid to your father on your personal income taxes? Interest paid on passive investments can be deducted from the amount earned by that investment as an investment expense as long as the amount earned is greater than the total paid for the interest expense. Also beware if the amount of interest paid is greater than the yearly gift tax exclusion, as the IRS might interpret this as a creative way of giving gifts to your father without paying gift tax. Do you pay taxes on the interest you pay?  No, because is an expense, not income, you would not count interest paid to him as taxable income. Does your father owe taxes on the interest he collects from you? Yes, that is income to him. And the last question you didn't ask, but I expect it is implied: Do you owe taxes on the quarterly profits? Yes, that is income to you.   The Forbes article How To Arrange A Loan Between Family Members is a bit dated, but still a good source of information. You really should write a formal note (signed by both you and your father) indicating the amount borrowed, the interest rate you are paying on that amount, and when the loan will be repaid. If your father has set the interest rate too low, this could also be considered a gift to you, though we would really be talking about large amounts of money to hit the gift tax limit on interest alone.

negative: "So, what's your actual plan/strategy/suggestion to combat this, again?   Are you planning on buying physical gold, other precious metals (again, tangible--not paper), and buying & investing in real estate?       This isn't a sarcastic question; I want to go down this hypothetical path in the thought experiment a bit further.       For example: for a US investor, could *part* of the strategy be to ""move to a state with no state income tax"" to preserve as much income as possible in order to invest that income in one of the target categories?     Is careful selection of primary residence (real estate) in a location most likely to appreciate part of the strategy?      Is moving your investment accounts offshore to a tax haven part of the strategy?"

negative: "For an RRSP, you do not have to pay taxes on money or investments until you withdraw the money. If you do not reinvest the dividends but instead, take them out as cash, that would be withdrawing the money. For mutual funds, you would normally reinvest the dividends if holding the investment inside an RRSP. For stocks, I believe the dividends would end up sitting in the cash part of your RRSP account (and you'd probably use the money to buy more stocks, though would not be required to do so). Either way, you do not pay tax on this investment income unless you withdraw it from your RRSP. For example, you invest $10,000 inside your RRSP. You get the tax benefit from doing so. You get dividends of $1,000 (hey, it was a good year), and use these to buy more stock. As the money never left your RRSP account, you are considered to have invested only your initial $10,000. If instead, you withdraw the $1,000 in dividends, you are taxed on $1000 income. TFSA are slightly more complicated. You don't get a tax benefit from your initial contribution, but then do not pay tax when you withdraw from the TFSA. Your investment income is still tax-free, and you are (generally) much more limited in how much you can contribute. For example, you invest $10,000 inside your TFSA. You get dividends of $1,000, and use these to buy more stock. Your total contributions to your TFSA remains at $10,000 as the money never left your account. You could instead withdraw the $1000 from your TFSA and would not pay tax on it. In the next calendar year (or later) after the withdrawal, you could ""repay"" the $1000 you took out without suffering an overcontribution penalty. This makes TFSA an excellent place to park emergency funds, as you can withdraw and subsequently replace the investment while continuing to get the tax benefits on your investment income. RRSPs are better for retirement or for the home buyers plan. In general, you should not be withdrawing money from either your TFSA or RRSP, except in emergencies, when retiring, or when purchasing a home. I prefer indexed mutual funds or money market accounts for both my RRSP and TFSA rather than individual stocks, but that's up to you."

negative: You're misunderstanding the concept of retirement savings. IRA distributions are taxed, in their entirety, as ordinary income. If you withdraw before the retirement age, additional 10% penalty is added. Investment income has preferential treatment - long term capital gains and qualified dividends are taxed at lower rates than ordinary income. However, IRA contributions are tax deductible. I.e.: you don't pay taxes on the amounts contributed to the IRA when you earned the money, only when you withdraw. In the mean time, the money is growing, tax free, based on your investments. Anything inside the IRA is tax free, including dividends, distributions (from funds to your IRA, not from IRA to you), capital gains, etc. This is very powerful, when taking into account the compounding effect of reinvesting your dividends/sale proceeds without taking a chunk out for taxes. Consider you make an investment in a fund that appreciated 100% in half a year. You cash out to reinvest in something less volatile to lock the gains. In a regular account - you pay taxes when you sell, based on your brackets. In the IRA you reinvest all of your sale proceeds. That would be ~25-35% more of the gains to reinvest and continue working for you! However, if you decide to withdraw - you pay ordinary rate taxes on the whole amount. If you would invest in a single fund for 30 years in a regular account - you'd pay 20% capital gains tax (on the appreciation, not the dividends). In the IRA, if you invest in the same fund for the same period - you'll pay your ordinary income rates. However, the benefit of reinvesting dividends tax-free softens the blow somewhat, but that's much harder to quantify. Bottom line: if you want to plan for retirement - plan for retirment. Otherwise - IRA is not an investment vehicle. Also consider Roth IRA/conversions. Roth IRA has the benefit of tax free distributions at retirement. If your current tax bracket is at 20%, for example, contributing $5K to Roth IRA instead of a traditional will cost you $1K of taxes now, but will save you all the taxes during the retirement (for the distributions from the Roth IRA). It may be very much worth your while, especially if you can contribute directly to Roth IRA (there are some income limitations and phaseouts). You can withdraw contributions (but not earnings) from Roth IRA - something you cannot do with a traditional IRA.

negative: The main reasons are that investment are deducted from your gross income and earnings are not taxed until withdrawal. This applies to both traditional IRAs and 401Ks. Roth accounts have different rules but valuable benefits. My effective income tax rate is around 35%. This means that for every $1000 I earn in wage I only get to keep $650. Since my 401K contributions are deferred reductions from my income I can invest 35% more money into my 401K than I would be able to invest in a non-tax-advantaged account. Where I can invest $1000 into my 401K I would only be able to invest $650 into a non-advantaged account with the same wages. If I put $650 into an account yielding 10% then my one-year return on my income is $65 The 10% return on my $1000 is $100. Compared to what I would have been able to take home in the first place this makes my ROI $100/$650 = 15.3% Interest earned in non-advantaged accounts incurs taxes every year. Interest earned in advantaged accounts does not incur taxes until withdrawn. Compounding 10% annually for 20 years is significantly more than 6.5% compounded annually for 20 years. Imagine 10% on a 1000 investment with no additional cash flows over 20 year. The result is $6727, or 672%. Imagine your income tax rate does not reduce below 35%, your after-tax return is 4372, or %437 return. Now imagine you pay taxes every year on 10% take, so your take annually is only 6.5%... Now over 20 years you have $3523 (but you've already paid all taxes on this) and your return is %352 You have earned 24% more money because taxes were deferred until withdrawal! EDIT: Some tabular info for the commenters Your take home from the investment is $3752 because you have diligently paid your taxes every year on the earnings. Now, with the tax deferred until withdrawal! You then owe 35% tax on the withdrawal so you keep 7400 * .65 = $4810 $4810 versus $3750 means you have made an additional $1060, or 28%, from the compounding against tax-advantaged earnings. But Matthew! you say... Annual proceeds from your investments are not taxed at your income tax rate. This is true for now but the political winds are pushing this direction. However, even if you use a reduced rate in the first situation (let's say 30% instead of 35%, if you're a California resident) then the effect is $4140 rather than $3750. Less of a gain, but still a gain. In fact your capital-gains rate would have to be as low as 22% to even this difference out (versus a 35% income tax rate).... And remember that this assumes you're in the same bracket at retirement (which more people are not) You may also note that I used $1000 as the principle in both calculations. This was intentional to show the effects of compounding the taxable earnings alone. If you replace the taxable principle with $650 instead of $1000 then the effect is even more pronounced and only balanced out if your capital gains rate is actually zero!

negative: You only pay tax on the capital gain of the bond, not the principal, unless the source of the money for the principal was gain from another investment, if that makes sense.   In other words, if you bought the bond with income earned from your job, that money was already taxed as income, so it isn't subject to taxation again when you redeem the bond.  On the other hand, if you cashed out of one investment and used those proceeds to buy a bond, then the entire amount might be taxable.

negative: "I believe that an understanding of the taxation system can help to understand our place in it, and how that impacts each of our personal finances. I will try to remain unbiased here but this is a somewhat subjective question, so please bear with me if you disagree on any point. Some of these tax savings are well-advertised, and can be used by many people, such as tax credits for mass-transit passes which exists in some countries. But some of these tax savings are things you never heard of before, until it winds up on the news. Why do some people seem to get tax savings that you and I cannot get, and why do those people always seem to have so much more money than us? A simplistic answer can show this in three parts: (1) The source of one's income; (2) Transaction costs; and (3) ""tax loopholes"". Tax savings occur proportionately to one's income, and if the savings apply to investment income, they occur proportionately to one's wealth. If someone living paycheck to paycheck with a minimal amount in a bank account ""saves tax on investment income"", they might reduce their taxable interest from $50 to $0. That's because they simply don't have any other investment income to reduce. All of their income comes in the form of employment, which is typically very hard to save taxes on. Most governments have a very firm grasp on the taxation of employment income, because it is a huge proportion of income in the country (and therefore has the largest amount of tax associated), and because it is very straightforward (work for someone = employment income). A more cynical person than I might point out that investment income is earned by the very wealthy, who can afford to lobby for politicians to pass favourable investment income laws. Even very straightforward tax saving opportunities may cost money to enable. The simplest example would be: if a tax saving opportunity is so complicated that an average person can't understand it themselves, then an accountant, lawyer, or banker will need to be the one to explain it. And that can cost you money. If your tax isn't so much to begin with, then the transaction costs to achieve the tax savings could be higher than the tax savings themselves. For example, most countries have tax savings / deferrals if you start a corporation. These rules typically exist to promote investment in the local economy. But someone who earns $10k in a side-business might not be able to afford the $3k in incorporation costs just to save $2k in taxes. The more income and wealth you have, the more these transaction costs become worthwhile. I'm going to generally define ""tax loopholes"" for the purposes of this answer as something where a somewhat arbitrary situation allows for taxes that a layman would consider unfair or unexpected. This often occurs with good intentions but poor legislation - the government tries to provide a benefit to a deserving group or to promote an activity, but ends up allowing another group to take advantage.  For example in Canada, there existed until a few years ago tax saving rules about passing on wealth to children at lower tax rates, only when a close family member is near-death [setting up a 'testamentary trust' between a grandparent and a grandchild could in some circumstances allow that trust to be created with additional 'tax brackets', meaning more income would be taxed at a less-than top tax rate before being distributed to the grandchildren].  The rules were put in place with the idea that ""oh gee, a family member has died, and the dang ol' family is grieving so hard they can't distribute the wealth to the next generation for a few months on account of all the crying. We should make it so that the estate is taxed like a person, and if they earn only a little income, they have a low tax rate, and they only get taxed at the full rate if they have a lot of income"". Seems reasonable enough, but if a family is ready to pass on wealth at the same time as someone is nudging the bucket with their foot, a morbid discussion with your lawyer and accountant could set your children up for life with forever reduced taxes on massive inheritances.  In the case of the Panama / Paradise leaks, tax savings are due to all 3 of the above: Those who have massive wealth (and therefore earn the majority of their income from investments instead of employment) can afford the transaction costs associated with taking advantage of specific ""tax loopholes"". The simplest example of which is just that income earned in a foreign country might have a lower tax rate than income earned domestically. This is often a result of ""cracks"" in the foreign tax treaties between countries, which exist generally to promote business between countries and prevent double-taxing individuals who need activity in both countries for whatever reason. Take for example the ""Apple loophole"". Apple has operations around the world. Some activity occurs in low-tax jurisdictions. Apple reports a high percentage of the value of R&D as being associated with those jurisdictions. Those branches in low-tax jurisdictions charge the high-tax branches (such as the US) with fees for use of their valuable research. So much of Apple's income is reported in those foreign jurisdictions. It won't be taxed in the US until Apple ""repatriates"" the cash back to the US. Until then, the cash sits in the foreign jurisdiction, accruing less tax. This and similar rules can be used by individuals wealthy enough to hold corporations in foreign jurisdictions with low tax rates. How each particular rule / ""loophole"" works will depend on the nature of a specific case - tax law is complex, and the rules between countries are even more so. These foreign tax loopholes are closing every year. It is getting harder and harder to hide money offshore, and it is getting less and less likely that you will be able to find a country with juuuust the right loopholes for your own offshore wealth. These types of news leaks will only help to expedite those changes."

negative: When you look at managed funds the expense ratios are always high. They have the expense of analyzing the market, deciding where to invest, and then tracking the new investments. The lowest expenses are with the passive investments.  What you have noticed is exactly what you expect. Now if you want to invest in active funds that throw off dividends and capital gains, the 401K is the perfect place to do it, because that income will not be immediately taxable. If the money is in a Roth 401K it is even better because that income will never be taxed.

negative: Your analysis is not comparing apples to apples which is why it looks like investing money in a non-qualified account is better than a 401k (traditional or Roth).  For the non-qual you are using post tax dollars (money that has already been taxed). Now on top of that original tax you are also going to pay capital gains tax for any growth plus dividend rates for any dividends it throws off.  For the 401k, let's assume for the moment that $10,000 is invested in a traditional and that the marginal tax rate is always 20%. And for growth let's assume 10x. With a traditional your money will grow to $100,000 and then the IRS gets $20,000 as you pull the money out. The result is a net 80,000 for you.  For a Roth 401k, it is taxed first so only $8,000 gets invested. This then grows by the same multiplier to $80,000. (Until you consider changing tax rates the Roth and traditional give the same growth of money). Considering the non-qual option, like with the Roth we only have $8,000 to invest. However in this case you will not realize the full 10x growth as you will have to pay taxes on $72,000. These are taxes that the 401ks (and also IRAs) do not pay. There are other reasons to consider non-qual over maxing out your 401k. Liquidity, quality of investments, and fees being some of those. But the capital gains rate vs. ordinary income rate is not one, as the money in the non-qual still has to go through that ordinary income tax first before it is available to even invest.