yes the california property assement increases were limited to 2% annually, however, the municipalities just layer on direct assessments, so the revolt was not a 100% success. considering Mell-Roos, which allows municipalities to pile infrastructure costs on developers, who intend in-turn to pass-through to homeowners, we are still getting reamed. and before someone says it: no, the costs to the homeowner would probably not have been the same if the developer had paid for the infrastructure and raised the home prices, because they would have been fighting for lower costs/less infrastructure if they were "paying" for it directly. nothing costs the same when someone else is perceived to be paying for it!
tax revolt
- Thread starter Gordon Gekko
- Start date
The California boating and waterways commission taxes boat owners to fund boating facilities like docks and launch ramps.A pork belly politician raided the fund to buy an obsolete aircraft carrier and turn it into a nautical museum.What a sweet deal for the navy selling the carrier back to the people who already paid for it.
first they take out like 18% to 23% of the money in the pool... so that $300 exacta on the $1 ticket actually paid closer to 400:1 odds! that is called the "takeout." then they round down when they pay you, so $20.19 becomes $20.10, which is delicately titled: "breakage"... then when you hit a ticket of greater than something like 300:1/over $600 (maybe not exact, but close), they have you sign the IRS form, right here before they pay you....
then, you get to walk out of there with your pockets bulging... of course, everyone with at least 1 eye saw you in the "special" line where you signed the IRS forms...
a few buddies and i get the same box near the finish line at Del Mar every summer... i know play only $1 pick 3's and trifectas... i play a fraction of what i used to... the only bet there that is gonna change my life is a pick-6 with a carryover, and i'm not good enuf to to hit it..
i do plan to attend the off-track for the breeder's cup!
then, you get to walk out of there with your pockets bulging... of course, everyone with at least 1 eye saw you in the "special" line where you signed the IRS forms...
a few buddies and i get the same box near the finish line at Del Mar every summer... i know play only $1 pick 3's and trifectas... i play a fraction of what i used to... the only bet there that is gonna change my life is a pick-6 with a carryover, and i'm not good enuf to to hit it..
i do plan to attend the off-track for the breeder's cup!
The ultimate tax cut is to stop working if you end up making too much money (for tax purposes) in a given year.
I wonder how many people are running their businesses on 'low speed,' enough to take care of themselves and their own, just to avoid the expenses of taxes and regulations?
I wonder how many people are running their businesses on 'low speed,' enough to take care of themselves and their own, just to avoid the expenses of taxes and regulations?
While I agree 100% (and more 
) with the Reduce Government thread, the fact is that we get the government we deserve. Here in Mecklenburg County (Charlotte, NC, USA) we just approved not one but three new spending initiatives. You really want to nudge the USA towards a slightly smaller government? Actually smaller, not just this growing slower thing? Vote Libertarian.
A Libertarian once explained to me why they have such a hard time getting approval from people. Everybody wants their little piece of freedom, but does not want to give any to anybody else. For example, the Libertarians go to an NRA rally, and say "Everybody should be allowed to own guns!" Everybody cheers, then they say "Everybody should be able to smoke what they want." The crowd boos. They go to NORMAL (the pot smokers, not sure what the TLA is) and those people cheer the smoke anything and boo the gun ownership.
Somebody once said that a democracy can only last until the people realize they can get together to rob smaller groups. That's part of the reason the USA was *supposed* to be constitutionally limited. But, those limits are pretty much out the window.
) with the Reduce Government thread, the fact is that we get the government we deserve. Here in Mecklenburg County (Charlotte, NC, USA) we just approved not one but three new spending initiatives. You really want to nudge the USA towards a slightly smaller government? Actually smaller, not just this growing slower thing? Vote Libertarian.A Libertarian once explained to me why they have such a hard time getting approval from people. Everybody wants their little piece of freedom, but does not want to give any to anybody else. For example, the Libertarians go to an NRA rally, and say "Everybody should be allowed to own guns!" Everybody cheers, then they say "Everybody should be able to smoke what they want." The crowd boos. They go to NORMAL (the pot smokers, not sure what the TLA is) and those people cheer the smoke anything and boo the gun ownership.
Somebody once said that a democracy can only last until the people realize they can get together to rob smaller groups. That's part of the reason the USA was *supposed* to be constitutionally limited. But, those limits are pretty much out the window.
I am not sure how many people know that they can do this, or have losses in their portfolios this year. So for the benefit of the people who don't know, and those who may have a few dollars in losses, and maybe a few gains to offset, I will post this idea.
The vast number of Exchange Traded Funds allow investors/traders to Swap one item for another, take a loss and avoid the wash sale rule.
For Instance, if you are holding IWM (Russell 2000 Index ETF) with a loss in your portfolio. Let's say the loss is $3000.
You could sell the IWM, and immediately purchase IWO (Russell 2000 Growth) and IWN (Russell 2000 Value). This will allow you to take the loss, up to 3K against ordinary income, and to fully offset any capital gains you have. It will also keep you in the market for the coming bull market. What year it's coming I'm not sure.
Scenario 2 is you own CSCO, MSFT, INTC, and QCOM, and have decided the tech boom is over, but want to maintain some exposure. These could be sold and exchanged for QQQ at the same time, allowing you to take a loss and maintain market exposure.
As always consult your tax professional, not some dirty loser hiding behind a computer screen, but if this has helped just one person, I will enjoy my late afternoon nap all the more.
The vast number of Exchange Traded Funds allow investors/traders to Swap one item for another, take a loss and avoid the wash sale rule.
For Instance, if you are holding IWM (Russell 2000 Index ETF) with a loss in your portfolio. Let's say the loss is $3000.
You could sell the IWM, and immediately purchase IWO (Russell 2000 Growth) and IWN (Russell 2000 Value). This will allow you to take the loss, up to 3K against ordinary income, and to fully offset any capital gains you have. It will also keep you in the market for the coming bull market. What year it's coming I'm not sure.
Scenario 2 is you own CSCO, MSFT, INTC, and QCOM, and have decided the tech boom is over, but want to maintain some exposure. These could be sold and exchanged for QQQ at the same time, allowing you to take a loss and maintain market exposure.
As always consult your tax professional, not some dirty loser hiding behind a computer screen, but if this has helped just one person, I will enjoy my late afternoon nap all the more.
trdrmac - I'm not a tax professional or challenging your idea, but note this part of the wash sale rule - I don't know how the IRS has construed the definition of "substantially identical":
IRC sec. 1091
(a) Disallowance of loss deduction
In the case of any loss claimed to have been sustained from any sale or other disposition of shares of stock or securities where it appears that, within a period beginning 30 days before the date of such sale or disposition and ending 30 days after such date, the taxpayer has acquired (by purchase or by an exchange on which the entire amount of gain or loss was recognized by law), or has entered into a contract or option so to acquire, substantially identical stock or securities, then no deduction shall be allowed under section 165 unless the taxpayer is a dealer in stock or securities and the loss is sustained in a transaction made in the ordinary course of such business. For purposes of this section, the term ''stock or securities'' shall, except as provided in regulations, include contracts or options to acquire or sell stock or securities.
(d) Unadjusted basis in case of wash sale of stock
If the property consists of stock or securities the acquisition of which (or the contract or option to acquire which) resulted in the nondeductibility (under this section or corresponding provisions of prior internal revenue laws) of the loss from the sale or other disposition of substantially identical stock or securities, then the basis shall be the basis of the stock or securities so sold or disposed of, increased or decreased, as the case may be, by the difference, if any, between the price at which the property was acquired and the price at which such substantially identical stock or securities were sold or otherwise disposed of.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/ustax/www/t26-A-1-O-VII-1091.html
Madison, that is correct, but the interpretation of Substantially Identical is usually held to be a little different than swapping a stock for a fund. Or swapping growth for value.
For instance, using Ford as an example.
If I sell Ford Stock (F) at a loss and buy Ford Call options, or Sell Ford Put options. Or if I buy Ford convertible stock, my investment interest in Ford is substantially Identical. In other words, I basically have the same thing. If I sell Ford and buy GM, let's say because GM still pays a dividend, these are not substantially identical.
Same thing would hold true for funds as long as the holdings are not identical. You can reference holdings at www.ishares.com and find something creative im sure. Like lower expense ratios or the power of indexing, to help support your case.
Most if not all tax guides, JK Lasser, E&Y, should provide a concise example that you can use to support this position.
For instance, using Ford as an example.
If I sell Ford Stock (F) at a loss and buy Ford Call options, or Sell Ford Put options. Or if I buy Ford convertible stock, my investment interest in Ford is substantially Identical. In other words, I basically have the same thing. If I sell Ford and buy GM, let's say because GM still pays a dividend, these are not substantially identical.
Same thing would hold true for funds as long as the holdings are not identical. You can reference holdings at www.ishares.com and find something creative im sure. Like lower expense ratios or the power of indexing, to help support your case.
Most if not all tax guides, JK Lasser, E&Y, should provide a concise example that you can use to support this position.