Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Their contributions can be withdrawn at any time without taxes or penalties. The earnings must stay in. Do your homework before you make ignorant statements.

You sound like a total jerk. The last sentence was necessary ... why? Gotta love the sort of poster this thread attracts.

Eh, the knowledgable pp here's got a point. And "the sort of poster this thread attracts"? That's a joke, right?

A jerk is a jerk is a jerk.

It's perfectly fine to ask questions about finance, but to post about how your tax strategy involves million dollar IRAs and $350k in taxes and is anyone paying as much is, as someone else said, classless at best.

I think if you are someone who is worried about the generation skipping tax, and how to shelter millions of dollars indefinitely (a la Mitt Romney), you probably can't expect that discussion of those strategies in this forum will remain entirely neutral.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're having our teens open Roth IRAs with the amount each made in their summer jobs.

I bet that'll make them want to get a summer job next year.

We're doing this with part of their earnings. It's a great idea.

But it looks like the first PP is making her kids put the entire amount in the IRAs. (And Roth IRAs for kids, not regular IRAs?) Unless she's reimbursing her kids, they are coming out with nothing.

The kids never come out with nothing. Believe me.

+1 The kids benefit from the Roth IRAs in their names, not the parents!

Right, when they turn 59 1/2 years old they can withdraw it. That's 40+ years from now.

Or are you teaching your kids this lesson: get a job and your parents will pay you "fake" wages. Because if the kids aren't allowed to keep at least some of their own earnings, you know that mommy and daddy are compensating them in some other way. Indeed, the kids never come out with nothing, like PP says. So mommy and daddy buy them an iPad as a "reward" for working and saving for retirement.

Starting to save when you're young is key to retirement security. But how do you think clear-eyed kids are interpreting this little charade?

All things considered, we're better off if teens are saving for retirement, don't you think?

Yes. But forcing them to save, and then paying them back with presents or whatever, doesn't seem to be sending that exact message, does it?

It's hard to have everything, but I think on balance, you'd rather have the teen saving in a Roth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Their contributions can be withdrawn at any time without taxes or penalties. The earnings must stay in. Do your homework before you make ignorant statements.

You sound like a total jerk. The last sentence was necessary ... why? Gotta love the sort of poster this thread attracts.

Eh, the knowledgable pp here's got a point. And "the sort of poster this thread attracts"? That's a joke, right?

Anonymous wrote:
Their contributions can be withdrawn at any time without taxes or penalties. The earnings must stay in. Do your homework before you make ignorant statements.

You sound like a total jerk. The last sentence was necessary ... why? Gotta love the sort of poster this thread attracts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're having our teens open Roth IRAs with the amount each made in their summer jobs.

I bet that'll make them want to get a summer job next year.

We're doing this with part of their earnings. It's a great idea.

But it looks like the first PP is making her kids put the entire amount in the IRAs. (And Roth IRAs for kids, not regular IRAs?) Unless she's reimbursing her kids, they are coming out with nothing.

The kids never come out with nothing. Believe me.

+1 The kids benefit from the Roth IRAs in their names, not the parents!

Right, when they turn 59 1/2 years old they can withdraw it. That's 40+ years from now.

Or are you teaching your kids this lesson: get a job and your parents will pay you "fake" wages. Because if the kids aren't allowed to keep at least some of their own earnings, you know that mommy and daddy are compensating them in some other way. Indeed, the kids never come out with nothing, like PP says. So mommy and daddy buy them an iPad as a "reward" for working and saving for retirement.

Starting to save when you're young is key to retirement security. But how do you think clear-eyed kids are interpreting this little charade?

Their contributions can be withdrawn at any time without taxes or penalties. The earnings must stay in. Do your homework before you make ignorant statements.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're having our teens open Roth IRAs with the amount each made in their summer jobs.

I bet that'll make them want to get a summer job next year.

We're doing this with part of their earnings. It's a great idea.

But it looks like the first PP is making her kids put the entire amount in the IRAs. (And Roth IRAs for kids, not regular IRAs?) Unless she's reimbursing her kids, they are coming out with nothing.

The kids never come out with nothing. Believe me.

+1 The kids benefit from the Roth IRAs in their names, not the parents!

Right, when they turn 59 1/2 years old they can withdraw it. That's 40+ years from now.

Or are you teaching your kids this lesson: get a job and your parents will pay you "fake" wages. Because if the kids aren't allowed to keep at least some of their own earnings, you know that mommy and daddy are compensating them in some other way. Indeed, the kids never come out with nothing, like PP says. So mommy and daddy buy them an iPad as a "reward" for working and saving for retirement.

Starting to save when you're young is key to retirement security. But how do you think clear-eyed kids are interpreting this little charade?

All things considered, we're better off if teens are saving for retirement, don't you think?

Yes. But forcing them to save, and then paying them back with presents or whatever, doesn't seem to be sending that exact message, does it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're having our teens open Roth IRAs with the amount each made in their summer jobs.

I bet that'll make them want to get a summer job next year.

We're doing this with part of their earnings. It's a great idea.

But it looks like the first PP is making her kids put the entire amount in the IRAs. (And Roth IRAs for kids, not regular IRAs?) Unless she's reimbursing her kids, they are coming out with nothing.

The kids never come out with nothing. Believe me.

+1 The kids benefit from the Roth IRAs in their names, not the parents!

Right, when they turn 59 1/2 years old they can withdraw it. That's 40+ years from now.

Or are you teaching your kids this lesson: get a job and your parents will pay you "fake" wages. Because if the kids aren't allowed to keep at least some of their own earnings, you know that mommy and daddy are compensating them in some other way. Indeed, the kids never come out with nothing, like PP says. So mommy and daddy buy them an iPad as a "reward" for working and saving for retirement.

Starting to save when you're young is key to retirement security. But how do you think clear-eyed kids are interpreting this little charade?

All things considered, we're better off if teens are saving for retirement, don't you think?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're having our teens open Roth IRAs with the amount each made in their summer jobs.

I bet that'll make them want to get a summer job next year.

We're doing this with part of their earnings. It's a great idea.

But it looks like the first PP is making her kids put the entire amount in the IRAs. (And Roth IRAs for kids, not regular IRAs?) Unless she's reimbursing her kids, they are coming out with nothing.

The kids never come out with nothing. Believe me.

+1 The kids benefit from the Roth IRAs in their names, not the parents!

Right, when they turn 59 1/2 years old they can withdraw it. That's 40+ years from now.

Or are you teaching your kids this lesson: get a job and your parents will pay you "fake" wages. Because if the kids aren't allowed to keep at least some of their own earnings, you know that mommy and daddy are compensating them in some other way. Indeed, the kids never come out with nothing, like PP says. So mommy and daddy buy them an iPad as a "reward" for working and saving for retirement.

Starting to save when you're young is key to retirement security. But how do you think clear-eyed kids are interpreting this little charade?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're having our teens open Roth IRAs with the amount each made in their summer jobs.

I bet that'll make them want to get a summer job next year.

We're doing this with part of their earnings. It's a great idea.

But it looks like the first PP is making her kids put the entire amount in the IRAs. (And Roth IRAs for kids, not regular IRAs?) Unless she's reimbursing her kids, they are coming out with nothing.

The kids never come out with nothing. Believe me.

+1 The kids benefit from the Roth IRAs in their names, not the parents!

Anonymous wrote:I didn't see where OP spoke of a $350,000 tax bill. And she can't "acquit herself in a conversation about money"? 18:07 should stick with the tax facts (and eliminate the commentary) IMO. As for the tax facts, I agree.

from yesterday 9:35

Yes, converting and paying $350,000 tax in 2012 on the conversion.

I didn't see where OP spoke of a $350,000 tax bill. And she can't "acquit herself in a conversation about money"? 18:07 should stick with the tax facts (and eliminate the commentary) IMO. As for the tax facts, I agree.

I weighed in way back as a fellow 1%'r. To clarify, while I didn't find OP's lead Q problematic, when she told us of the $350k tax check she'd be writing..well, that was classless.

Further, no one would do a 1 million Roth conversion without multiple conversations with advisors. So my guess here is that it's DH's money and advisors, and the OP is along for the ride and doesn't know how to acquit herself in a conversation about money.

To other questions around this--
1. Yes, anyone can convert an IRA to a roth and pay taxes now. It's horrible tax policy but i don't make the rules.
2. the benefits of so doing likely accrue to the next generation (trust me on this)
3. yes there's an estate planning opportunity to push substantial monies down a generation which may expire by year end. if you have enough to care you have enough to call your atty.
4. the various suggestions to harvest cap gains now at 15% work best if it's a stock you've been wanting to sell anyway or if a concentrated position, otherwise you're letting the tax tail wag the dog, rarely a good practice.

I do hope we get a finance forum. I hope it's hospitable to those who have some money (ie: leaving the politics at the door.)

I'm a relatively poor person ($110k-ish/year), but I don't see what's wrong with this thread. It's kind of an interesting read, although I'll never be rich. I really can't see what's offensive or bothersome about it. How you all got the money in the first place might be another story though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My clients are taking advantage of remaining time before larger estate tax exemption is reduced.

What does this mean, besides maybe dying in 2012?

Maximizing gifting.