Thanks!Pajamas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:10 pm Yes, no penalty if you are not covered for one or two months.
https://www.healthcare.gov/health-cover ... m-the-fee/
Search found 2839 matches
- Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:08 am
- Forum: Personal Finance (Not Investing)
- Topic: COBRA Experts Needed: Newborn Coverage
- Replies: 12
- Views: 2094
Re: COBRA Experts Needed: Newborn Coverage
- Tue Jun 12, 2018 8:48 pm
- Forum: Personal Finance (Not Investing)
- Topic: COBRA Experts Needed: Newborn Coverage
- Replies: 12
- Views: 2094
Re: COBRA Experts Needed: Newborn Coverage
Thanks BeneIRA! Good catch regarding the possibility of the deductible resetting. I’ll look into it to see what my plan says. Thanks also for clarifying the rules regarding social security numbers. What you should do if you are concerned with coverage at your new employer: Wait until five or so days before the end of the 60 day window, which would be printed on your COBRA Enrollment Notice. Enroll your newborn immediately after they are born, wait until day 90 (5 days before the end of the window to make the first payment) to decide if you want to pay the coverage for those three months. This makes sense to me! Thanks! Bonus question: Am I correct that I won’t owe any ACA penalty if everyone in my household has insurance for at least 11 mon...
- Tue Jun 12, 2018 2:43 pm
- Forum: Personal Finance (Not Investing)
- Topic: COBRA Experts Needed: Newborn Coverage
- Replies: 12
- Views: 2094
COBRA Experts Needed: Newborn Coverage
I will be leaving my current job at the end of the month. Health insurance at my new employer begins on the 31st day of employment. We’re expecting a baby in mid-July. Spouse and children are and will be covered under my health insurance policy. What I think I know: Coverage under COBRA can be elected within 60 days of separation, with the first premium payment due 45 days after separation. Coverage can be elected for spouse (who was covered under plan during employment) without electing coverage for employee or other beneficiaries (for example, other children). Newborns can obtain coverage under COBRA within 30 days of birth Now for my questions: Does the employee need to elect coverage for himself and/or all other beneficiaries for a newb...
- Fri Mar 23, 2018 2:44 pm
- Forum: Personal Investments
- Topic: Spousal Roth or Traditional IRA - 2017 & 2018
- Replies: 23
- Views: 2135
Re: Spousal Roth or Traditional IRA - 2017 & 2018
Thank you. You’re right, that in the 20-22% range, the consequences of making the “wrong” choice won’t be severe.
At this point, I’m inclined to contribute to Traditional for the portion of 2017’s income in the 30% bracket, then immediately convert that portion to Roth in the 22% bracket. Seeing that the responses in this thread came out almost exactly 50/50 in favor of Roth/Traditional, I think it’s safe to say there’s no clearly correct answer. I’ll save a nice dinner’s worth in taxes, while maintaining fewer accounts going forward.
Thanks again to everyone for your help.
At this point, I’m inclined to contribute to Traditional for the portion of 2017’s income in the 30% bracket, then immediately convert that portion to Roth in the 22% bracket. Seeing that the responses in this thread came out almost exactly 50/50 in favor of Roth/Traditional, I think it’s safe to say there’s no clearly correct answer. I’ll save a nice dinner’s worth in taxes, while maintaining fewer accounts going forward.
Thanks again to everyone for your help.
- Fri Mar 23, 2018 1:58 pm
- Forum: Personal Investments
- Topic: Spousal Roth or Traditional IRA - 2017 & 2018
- Replies: 23
- Views: 2135
Re: Spousal Roth or Traditional IRA - 2017 & 2018
Are the 2017 numbers correct? $54,500 is a lot of itemized deductions and personal exemptions. Plausible if you have a bunch of kids Bingo. Also bunched deductions in 2017 after the tax reform passed. The 2017 numbers were pulled from my draft 1040. It would take ~$1 million traditional balance to reach the 12% bracket based on 4%/yr withdrawal as the only income, and ~$2.5 million to reach the 22% bracket. See cells Calculations!T2:U29 (in particular, U16 and U17) in the linked spreadsheet. Other income sources will decrease those balances needed. What do you expect your traditional balance to be at retirement? I generally agree with your calculations. But I also am assuming that 85% of SS will be taxable, which would substantially lower ...
- Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:17 am
- Forum: Personal Investments
- Topic: Spousal Roth or Traditional IRA - 2017 & 2018
- Replies: 23
- Views: 2135
Re: Spousal Roth or Traditional IRA - 2017 & 2018
I suggest traditional deductible IRA contributions. Thanks. May I ask why? 1) Traditional contributions will ordinarily be better for most people, because of the of the effect of progressive nature of the tax code at the time of withdrawal. Please Google the TFB blog post "The Case Against Roth 401k". 2) Also your 2017 and 2018 marginal tax rates argue for traditional. Please see the wiki article "Traditional versus Roth". 3) My CPA/tax attorney generally advised -- take your tax break now, rather than later. I must add that I am not a tax expert, I don't even do my own tax returns. I remember reading TFB’s post years ago, and just re-read it. I agree with it to a point. For me, I’m pretty sure SS and RMDs from my Tradi...
- Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:28 am
- Forum: Personal Investments
- Topic: Spousal Roth or Traditional IRA - 2017 & 2018
- Replies: 23
- Views: 2135
Re: Spousal Roth or Traditional IRA - 2017 & 2018
If wife doesn't already have Traditional account, use Roth for 2017 and 2018. If she has an existing Traditional account, Traditional for 2017 and Roth for 2018. Spouse does not yet have Traditional. Is your rationale to just keep things simple? Yes. It's a bit of a coin flip on whether to go Roth IRA for years 2018+ in the 22% bracket, but I would lean that way for tax diversification. You're putting $23K+ into Traditional with your 401k and, with her IRA being a Roth, would then be putting $11K in Roth, which seems to me to be a good balance. So, unless you can make a solid case that you will definitely be in the 12% bracket in retirement, including SS taxation, I would go with Roth. Additionally, in the year you turn 50, you can start p...
- Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:01 am
- Forum: Personal Investments
- Topic: Spousal Roth or Traditional IRA - 2017 & 2018
- Replies: 23
- Views: 2135
Re: Spousal Roth or Traditional IRA - 2017 & 2018
Thanks. May I ask why?
- Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:00 am
- Forum: Personal Investments
- Topic: Spousal Roth or Traditional IRA - 2017 & 2018
- Replies: 23
- Views: 2135
Re: Spousal Roth or Traditional IRA - 2017 & 2018
Thanks. I’ve run some very rough numbers, and agree that our pretax accounts has a decent chance of matching or surpassing Roth. It figures to be close either way.coupleofcents wrote: ↑Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:04 am I would take do Roth for both 2017 and 2018. Given you are planning to work for 30 years and you max your 401k, you're pretax account will eventually catch up and surpass your Roth accounts. Roth will give you more flexibility for a traditional retirement age (no RMDs).
I think the flexibility argument can go both ways. If I do Traditional, I always have the option of converting to Roth. Once it’s in Roth, it’s stuck there. Of course, as you point out, ultimately having more in Roth creates more flexibility in the distribution side.
- Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:53 am
- Forum: Personal Investments
- Topic: Spousal Roth or Traditional IRA - 2017 & 2018
- Replies: 23
- Views: 2135
Re: Spousal Roth or Traditional IRA - 2017 & 2018
See wiki on traditional vs Roth if you haven't already. This is mainly tax arbitrage and depends on your predictions for your future tax situation. Personally I'd do traditional at the 30% marginal rate and probably Roth at 20/22%, but your situation may be different. (Roth at 20/22% could still be a loser if you retire early and have plenty of years for subsequent Roth conversions at lower rate.) Thanks. I’ve read the wiki on this point. The prevailing wisdom on the board had been to do traditional at 25% and Ross at 15%. Which doesn’t give a lot of guidance on what to do when one’s marginal tax bracket is 20%. Since my spouse does not have a traditional IRA yet, I am also considering doing traditional IRA for 2017 for the portion within ...
- Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:35 am
- Forum: Personal Investments
- Topic: Spousal Roth or Traditional IRA - 2017 & 2018
- Replies: 23
- Views: 2135
- Fri Mar 23, 2018 5:30 am
- Forum: Personal Investments
- Topic: Spousal Roth or Traditional IRA - 2017 & 2018
- Replies: 23
- Views: 2135
- Thu Mar 22, 2018 8:39 pm
- Forum: Personal Investments
- Topic: Spousal Roth or Traditional IRA - 2017 & 2018
- Replies: 23
- Views: 2135
Re: Spousal Roth or Traditional IRA - 2017 & 2018
Thanks, OleMiss
- Thu Mar 22, 2018 5:12 pm
- Forum: Personal Investments
- Topic: Spousal Roth or Traditional IRA - 2017 & 2018
- Replies: 23
- Views: 2135
Re: Spousal Roth or Traditional IRA - 2017 & 2018
Bump for the evening crowd
- Thu Mar 22, 2018 9:54 am
- Forum: Personal Investments
- Topic: Spousal Roth or Traditional IRA - 2017 & 2018
- Replies: 23
- Views: 2135
Spousal Roth or Traditional IRA - 2017 & 2018
Need to decide whether spouse’s IRA contributions for 2017 and 2018 should go to Roth or Traditional. Her contribution to Traditional IRA would be fully deductible. Numbers below are before any Traditional IRA contributions. I am ignoring state taxes because both Roth and Traditional IRAs are treated the same in my state (no deduction for contributing to either, no tax for withdrawal from either). Ages: Both under 40 Spouse is homemaker, I was not eligible for 401k in 2017, but am eligible in 2018 2017 AGI: $132,000 Taxable income: $77,500 Marginal tax bracket: 30% (25% + 5% partial loss of child tax credit; 20% marginal tax bracket at $75,900) Retirement contributions: $6750 HSA, $5500 Roth IRA for me, will add $5500 spousal IRA (Roth or T...
- Sun Mar 29, 2015 8:57 pm
- Forum: Personal Finance (Not Investing)
- Topic: Deleted
- Replies: 76
- Views: 10492
Re: I'm thinking about making very large 529 contributions A
boglewannabe, Be careful with grandparent 529s. You should only use them for the last year of each child's college education. See here: http://www.savingforcollege.com/grandparents/answer.php?grandparent_faq_id=10 Ok then, thanks - I read that and it looks like we should put 1 year estimated tuition for each child (total 160k) into grandparent 529's, to cover each last year in college. I wonder what happens to the 529 asset if a grandparent dies - any ideas? http://www.savingforcollege.com/grandparents/answer.php?grandparent_faq_id=9 I thought I read somewhere that if you fund more than 1 year's worth at a time, there can be funky gift/estate tax treatment if you die before the years catch up with your contributions, but I never paid atten...
- Sun Mar 29, 2015 8:33 pm
- Forum: Personal Finance (Not Investing)
- Topic: Deleted
- Replies: 76
- Views: 10492
Re: I'm thinking about making very large 529 contributions A
boglewannabe,
Be careful with grandparent 529s. You should only use them for the last year of each child's college education. See here: http://www.savingforcollege.com/grandpa ... _faq_id=10
Be careful with grandparent 529s. You should only use them for the last year of each child's college education. See here: http://www.savingforcollege.com/grandpa ... _faq_id=10
- Sat Mar 28, 2015 4:27 am
- Forum: Investing - Theory, News & General
- Topic: Vanguard FTSE All-World ex-US Small-Cap ETF
- Replies: 20
- Views: 5519
Re: Vanguard FTSE All-World ex-US Small-Cap ETF
jd88,
The most recent example is the Vanguard Global ex-US Real Estate Index Fund. It has total assets of $3.0 billion, with about $2.5 billion in the ETF share class. It added an Admiral Share class last February.
In comparison, Vanguard's All-World ex-US Small Cap Index Fund has total assets of about $2.7 billion, $2.2 billion of which are in the ETF share class. So maybe we're getting close, but there's really no way to know.
The most recent example is the Vanguard Global ex-US Real Estate Index Fund. It has total assets of $3.0 billion, with about $2.5 billion in the ETF share class. It added an Admiral Share class last February.
In comparison, Vanguard's All-World ex-US Small Cap Index Fund has total assets of about $2.7 billion, $2.2 billion of which are in the ETF share class. So maybe we're getting close, but there's really no way to know.
- Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:33 am
- Forum: Investing - Theory, News & General
- Topic: U.S. cash pouring into international
- Replies: 23
- Views: 3627
Re: U.S. cash pouring into international
Must be Vanguard's move from 30% to 40% international in its TargetRetirement and LifeStrategy funds.
- Sun Mar 22, 2015 6:15 pm
- Forum: Investing - Theory, News & General
- Topic: Vanguard Ex-US Small Cap Value Petition
- Replies: 24
- Views: 5360
Re: Vanguard Ex-US Small Cap Value Petition
Given the relative lack of demand for VSS (<$3 billion, compared to >$15 billion for VBR), I wouldn't hold my breath.
- Sun Mar 22, 2015 1:47 pm
- Forum: Personal Finance (Not Investing)
- Topic: Refinance Now? PenFed ARM?
- Replies: 9
- Views: 1966
Re: Refinance Now? PenFed ARM?
PenFed's 5/5 ARM used to be a popular option in part because it charged no closing costs. That no longer appears to be the case, although the origination fee is still waived for that loan. To figure out if it's a good deal, you'll need to compare the interest you'll pay with your current loan over the next 5-7 years with the interest you'll pay under a new loan, plus any closing costs. You can use an amortization calculator like the one here: http://bretwhissel.net/amortization/amortize.html. For planning purposes, when considering an ARM, I would recommend you assume the highest possible adjusted rates for all periods beyond 60 months. Another option to consider is a home equity loan. These typically have no or very low closing costs (if y...
- Mon Mar 16, 2015 11:12 am
- Forum: Personal Investments
- Topic: Help: iShares lists different holdings for same ETF (AOR)
- Replies: 5
- Views: 1641
Re: Help: iShares lists different holdings for same ETF (AOR
I think you're right. But that's a pretty big jump in 2 weeks.
I don't see any announcement of a shift in policy for the fund. Will keep an eye on this fund for a while before jumping in to see how much it shifts around.
I don't see any announcement of a shift in policy for the fund. Will keep an eye on this fund for a while before jumping in to see how much it shifts around.
- Mon Mar 16, 2015 7:05 am
- Forum: Personal Investments
- Topic: Help: iShares lists different holdings for same ETF (AOR)
- Replies: 5
- Views: 1641
Help: iShares lists different holdings for same ETF (AOR)
I am considering moving all of my household's retirement investments to all-in-one funds (i.e., Target Retirement- or LifeStrategy-type funds). Everything is in tax sheltered accounts. My 401k only has high expense funds, but it has a free brokerage window at TDAmeritrade, which offers 100 commission-free ETFs. I presently use the brokerage window, and can verify that it has cost me nothing to buy and sell ETFs on the list, and there is no separate charge for maintaining the brokerage window. Among the commission-free ETFs available are 4 iShares Core Allocation Funds: AOA, AOK, AOM, and AOR. These appear to be similar to Vanguard's LifeStrategy funds, but in ETF form. I have found conflicting information on the web about what these funds c...
- Sat Feb 14, 2015 10:30 pm
- Forum: Personal Investments
- Topic: Just no petroleum or defense?
- Replies: 49
- Views: 5833
Re: Just no petroleum or defense?
I also don't generally believe socially responsible investing works in practice, although it is a nice idea in theory.
If you're committed to doing it, perhaps consider a separately managed account? I would imagine this would give you some measure of control to tailor your investments in a fashion to avoid whatever companies or industries you find undesirable. Not sure how the cost compares to SRI mutual funds.
If you're committed to doing it, perhaps consider a separately managed account? I would imagine this would give you some measure of control to tailor your investments in a fashion to avoid whatever companies or industries you find undesirable. Not sure how the cost compares to SRI mutual funds.
- Wed Jan 28, 2015 1:01 pm
- Forum: Personal Investments
- Topic: Roth vs. Traditional 401K - with a twist
- Replies: 18
- Views: 1926
Re: Roth vs. Traditional 401K - with a twist
Not universally true. Depends on your state.DSInvestor wrote:While your city/state tax brackets may not change, the contributions to Roth 401k are subject to those state/city taxes. If you contribute to Traditional 401k, those contributions would not be taxed by Fed, State or city. That's a substantial tax benefit that comes off the top of income stack.
- Wed Jan 28, 2015 12:43 pm
- Forum: Personal Investments
- Topic: Roth vs. Traditional 401K - with a twist
- Replies: 18
- Views: 1926
Re: Roth vs. Traditional 401K - with a twist
I thought TFB's take on Roth v. Traditional 401(k) was useful:
http://thefinancebuff.com/case-against-roth-401k.html
But see: http://thefinancebuff.com/roth-401k-for ... e-max.html
http://thefinancebuff.com/case-against-roth-401k.html
But see: http://thefinancebuff.com/roth-401k-for ... e-max.html
- Tue Jan 06, 2015 4:52 pm
- Forum: Investing - Theory, News & General
- Topic: Was it a mistake to move into PenFed 5-year CDs a year ago?
- Replies: 61
- Views: 9923
Re: Was it a mistake to move into PenFed 5-year CDs a year a
Nope. I still have 4 and 6 years left to see if it was a mistake. I like my chances.
- Tue Dec 30, 2014 6:22 pm
- Forum: Investing - Theory, News & General
- Topic: Vanguard Expenses
- Replies: 29
- Views: 4527
Re: Vanguard Expenses
A few thoughts. 1. The expense ratio is not a wholly arbitrary number that a fund company decides to charge. It is a ratio derived by dividing certain expenses incurred over the course of a year by the net assets under management on a particular date. It is backward looking, and, to my knowledge, it is typically only calculated once (maybe twice?) per year. So, depending on which fund you are considering, it's entirely possible that the expense ratio *has* lowered, you just won't know until the new expense ratio is calculated. Vanguard historically posts changes in its expense ratios (which usually trend downward) on its website. 2. Do you know what expenses are calculated in the expense ratio? Do you know what expenses Vanguard incurs? Tak...
- Tue Dec 23, 2014 3:29 am
- Forum: Investing - Theory, News & General
- Topic: vanguard international bond fund
- Replies: 22
- Views: 6620
Re: vanguard international bond fund
I recently read a Vanguard article that basically said Yes international bonds have longer duration and lower yield but that doesn't mean they are a bad investment now and that duration isn't all its cracked up to be. Did any one read that article? any thoughts about it? I think this is the article: https://advisors.vanguard.com/VGApp/iip/site/advisor/researchcommentary/article/IWE_InvComGlobalBondDuration I don't presently hold international bonds, and this article doesn't do much to get me to change my mind. Yes, my main reasons for not holding international bonds is higher risk (reflected in higher duration and lower credit risk), paired with lower expected returns (reflected in lower yields). This article seems to suggest that these ba...
- Thu Nov 20, 2014 3:07 pm
- Forum: Personal Investments
- Topic: Rick Ferri 60/40 portfolio
- Replies: 19
- Views: 7450
Re: Rick Ferri 60/40 portfolio
My guess is that you read an older copy of his Asset Allocation book. Back then EAFE and were separate funds for instance. Now days, Vanguard and others have combined things to make things much simpler. So for instance, a nearly identical portfolio today on the equity side might simply be: 30% VTSAX (VTI) 18% VTIAX (VXUS) 6-8% REIT Index VGSLX (VNQ) You can certainly break things out if you want to tilt, but if your intention is not to tilt, it doesn't need to be so complicated. +1. But, in the interest of full disclosure, I really hate small portfolio slices. There's nothing inherently wrong with having 10 holdings; it's just more than I prefer. So if you want 10 moving pieces, it's great. If you are looking to cut it down a bit, below is...
- Wed Nov 12, 2014 2:59 pm
- Forum: Personal Investments
- Topic: 30% In International Stocks?
- Replies: 59
- Views: 11993
Re: 30% In International Stocks?
The median Boglehead that responds to these polls has right around 30% of equity (not portfolio) in international:
http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtop ... &p=1783030 (Aug 2013)
http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtop ... 0&t=103617 (Oct 2012)
http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtop ... =1&t=91132 (Feb 2012)
http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=70974 (Apr 2011)
I'm sure I've missed a few, but you get the idea.
http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtop ... &p=1783030 (Aug 2013)
http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtop ... 0&t=103617 (Oct 2012)
http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtop ... =1&t=91132 (Feb 2012)
http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=70974 (Apr 2011)
I'm sure I've missed a few, but you get the idea.
- Wed Oct 29, 2014 9:42 am
- Forum: Personal Consumer Issues
- Topic: Trade in a 2012 Cruze w/ 58k miles for an 05 Z71 Tahoe 182k
- Replies: 16
- Views: 1794
Re: Trade in a 2012 Cruze w/ 58k miles for an 05 Z71 Tahoe 1
I'm not much of a "car guy," but I can't imagine wanting to trade in a reliable but too-small car that's 2 years old with <60k miles for a 10-year old car with nearly 200k miles on it. How long do you expect the Tahoe to last? I would expect cars that age with that many miles are due for lots of maintenance, with a limited life expectancy.
Just a quick look for AWD/4WD cars on Autotrader shows plenty of other vehicles in that price range with fewer years and miles. If it were me, I'd keep looking.
Just a quick look for AWD/4WD cars on Autotrader shows plenty of other vehicles in that price range with fewer years and miles. If it were me, I'd keep looking.
- Tue Oct 21, 2014 2:39 pm
- Forum: Personal Finance (Not Investing)
- Topic: Employer Reimbursing Health Insurance Premiums - Taxable???
- Replies: 12
- Views: 1687
Re: Employer Reimbursing Health Insurance Premiums - Taxable
I have individual health insurance that is medically underwritten. It is considered a "grandfathered plan" under the ACA. My employer has been reimbursing me for the premiums of this plan. Historically, this was done pre-tax. The premium reimbursements were not disclosed on my w-2. My employer recently told me that effective 1/1/2014 (presumably under the ACA), its reimbursement of my individual health insurance premiums is considered taxable income. 1. Is my employer correct that its reimbursement of my health insurance premiums is now considered taxable income? 2. Does the fact that my health insurance plan is a "grandfathered plan" change the analysis? 3. If reimbursement of my health insurance premiums is now taxabl...
- Tue Oct 21, 2014 12:44 pm
- Forum: Personal Finance (Not Investing)
- Topic: Employer Reimbursing Health Insurance Premiums - Taxable???
- Replies: 12
- Views: 1687
Re: Employer Reimbursing Health Insurance Premiums - Taxable
Don't know. My company has more than 2 but fewer than 50 employees. I believe I'm the only one with this reimbursement arrangement, but I believe most employees are enrolled in the group plan.technovelist wrote:It seems that the rules don't apply to plans with fewer than two active employees:
" In accordance with Code § 9831(a)(2) and ERISA § 732(a), the market reforms do not apply to a group health plan that has fewer than two participants who are current employees on the first day of the plan year" (from http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-13-54.pdf).
So if you are the only employee of your company, is it okay for the company to reimburse health premiums as a pre-tax benefit?
- Tue Oct 21, 2014 12:42 pm
- Forum: Personal Finance (Not Investing)
- Topic: Employer Reimbursing Health Insurance Premiums - Taxable???
- Replies: 12
- Views: 1687
Re: Employer Reimbursing Health Insurance Premiums - Taxable
Thanks. No mention of grandfathered individual market plans, but perhaps that's intentional.pshonore wrote:More info if you're an active employee:
https://news.leavitt.com/health-care-re ... rohibited/
- Tue Oct 21, 2014 12:16 pm
- Forum: Personal Finance (Not Investing)
- Topic: Employer Reimbursing Health Insurance Premiums - Taxable???
- Replies: 12
- Views: 1687
Re: Employer Reimbursing Health Insurance Premiums - Taxable
From that same article: "IRS on its website said if an employer pays the cost of an accident or health insurance plan — outside payment from a retirement plan — for employees and their spouse and dependents, the payments are not wages and are not subject to Social Security; Medicare; or federal unemployment, or FUTA, taxes; or federal income tax withholding. Generally, this exclusion also applies to qualified long-term care insurance contracts." So it's only if the payment comes from a retirement plan that it is taxable. Is that your situation? I'm not a retiree, and the reimbursements are not being paid by a retirement plan. My employer offers group health insurance as a benefit to its employees. I believe that even under the AC...
- Tue Oct 21, 2014 10:58 am
- Forum: Personal Finance (Not Investing)
- Topic: Employer Reimbursing Health Insurance Premiums - Taxable???
- Replies: 12
- Views: 1687
Re: Employer Reimbursing Health Insurance Premiums - Taxable
Thanks for the response.Hayden wrote:When I looked into this as an employer, I came to the same conclusion, that it is taxable income.
Remember, this costs the employer more (as well as costing you more), so it is not something he wants any more than you do.
There may be workarounds (eg cafeteria plans), but that is beyond me.
Because my plan is medically underwritten (I'm young and healthy), my entire premium is actually cheaper than the portion of the group plan paid by my employer. So it has been a good deal for the employer and for me. It may still be a good deal, but, of course, I'll need to reevaluate in light of the new laws. Apparently, we should have reevaluated before 1/1/14, but not much I can do about that now.
- Tue Oct 21, 2014 9:48 am
- Forum: Personal Finance (Not Investing)
- Topic: Employer Reimbursing Health Insurance Premiums - Taxable???
- Replies: 12
- Views: 1687
Employer Reimbursing Health Insurance Premiums - Taxable???
I have individual health insurance that is medically underwritten. It is considered a "grandfathered plan" under the ACA. My employer has been reimbursing me for the premiums of this plan. Historically, this was done pre-tax. The premium reimbursements were not disclosed on my w-2. My employer recently told me that effective 1/1/2014 (presumably under the ACA), its reimbursement of my individual health insurance premiums is considered taxable income. 1. Is my employer correct that its reimbursement of my health insurance premiums is now considered taxable income? 2. Does the fact that my health insurance plan is a "grandfathered plan" change the analysis? 3. If reimbursement of my health insurance premiums is now taxable...
- Mon Oct 20, 2014 6:13 am
- Forum: Personal Investments
- Topic: Dumb CD question
- Replies: 10
- Views: 1384
Re: Dumb CD question
That is interesting. Are you sure that CU allows early redemptions?Call_Me_Op wrote:Interestingly, my credit union offers a 5 year CD with no early withdrawal penalty.
- Mon Oct 20, 2014 6:11 am
- Forum: Personal Investments
- Topic: Dumb CD question
- Replies: 10
- Views: 1384
Re: Dumb CD question
If your holding period was 21 months, you'd come out ahead using the 21 month CD and not the 34 or 60 month. I use the spreadsheet at the bottom of this wiki page to run the math. http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Comparing_CDs
- Thu Oct 16, 2014 2:04 pm
- Forum: Personal Investments
- Topic: TBM too much treasury?
- Replies: 67
- Views: 9084
Re: TBM too much treasury?
Look past that single sentence in the Bogleheads philosophy. We have a bigger tent here than that. You can overweight asset classes (think the many threads on tilting and slice-and-dice) or shun them altogether (not just HY; a non-negligible portion don't even invest in international equities, and a majority don't invest at all in international bonds). It is not necessary to invest in a completely market-weighted portfolio (howeve defined) to be a Boglehead. Then that "single sentence in the Bogleheads philosophy" should be changed or deleted. Let's not simultaneously espouse and reject it. Upon rereading it, I don't see anything inconsistent with that sentence and avoiding HY. The sentence is clearly looking at major asset class...
- Thu Oct 16, 2014 1:47 pm
- Forum: Personal Investments
- Topic: TBM too much treasury?
- Replies: 67
- Views: 9084
Re: TBM too much treasury?
See my link upthread. Values may have changed a bit since then, but probably not dramatically.enc0re wrote:As a thought experiment, I am curious what a 'Total Capital Market' fund would look like. A fund that holds stocks (common and preferred; domestic and international) and bonds (government and corporate; safe and junk; domestic and international) in their proportion to total market capitalization.
For example, I have no idea how big the bond market is compared to the stock market; or how big a share junk bonds are compared to the 'safe' kind.
- Thu Oct 16, 2014 1:46 pm
- Forum: Personal Investments
- Topic: TBM too much treasury?
- Replies: 67
- Views: 9084
Re: TBM too much treasury?
Fair enough, you can exclude any sector of any market from your portfolio for any reason you wish. I could exclude railroad companies from my portfolio because I don't like trains, but my reason would not be based on Boglehead principles. The difference is I quoted language from the Boglehead Wiki that defines the Boglehead principle that is inconsistent with excluding certain portions of the whole bond market. Again, I am not arguing about my opinion, I am citing language from the Boglehead Wiki. You may have very good reasons for excluding certain portions of the whole bond market from your portfolio, but doing so is inconsistent with investing in such a way as to "approximate the whole bond market." So your portfolio looks exa...
- Thu Oct 16, 2014 1:08 pm
- Forum: Personal Investments
- Topic: TBM too much treasury?
- Replies: 67
- Views: 9084
Re: TBM too much treasury?
Thus, if the overall bond market allocates some value to high yield bonds, why are Bogleheads "trying to pick the specific securities or sectors of the market" by excluding the bond market allocation to high yield bonds? In addition to the reasons eloquently stated by ogd, I would also suggest because the high yield sector is too small to matter. Take a look at the pie chart posted by asset_chaos: http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=63306 High yield is roughly 5% of the domestic fixed income market. So if you allocate 40% of your portfolio to bonds, you'd invest a whopping 2% in high yield. An investor would need a portfolio of at least $150,000 just to meet Vanguard's fund minimum without putting the allocation out o...
- Thu Oct 16, 2014 12:55 pm
- Forum: Personal Investments
- Topic: TBM too much treasury?
- Replies: 67
- Views: 9084
Re: TBM too much treasury?
Thus, if the overall bond market allocates some value to high yield bonds, why are Bogleheads "trying to pick the specific securities or sectors of the market" by excluding the bond market allocation to high yield bonds? In addition to the reasons eloquently stated by ogd, I would also suggest because the high yield sector is too small to matter. Take a look at the pie chart posted by asset_chaos: http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=63306 High yield is less than 5% of the domestic fixed income market. So if you allocate 40% of your portfolio to bonds, you'd invest a whopping 1.93% in high yield. An investor would need a portfolio of more than $150,000 just to meet Vanguard's fund minimum without putting the allocation...
- Tue Oct 14, 2014 9:36 am
- Forum: Personal Investments
- Topic: Any reason not to buy the International Bond Index Fund?
- Replies: 15
- Views: 4836
Re: Any reason not to buy the International Bond Index Fund?
On the other hand, I don't think an allocation to VTABX will result in any great harm, either.
- Tue Oct 14, 2014 9:35 am
- Forum: Personal Investments
- Topic: Any reason not to buy the International Bond Index Fund?
- Replies: 15
- Views: 4836
Re: Any reason not to buy the International Bond Index Fund?
Higher fees, higher risk, questionable benefit. That's my reasoning, too. VTABX (Total International Bond Admiral) has a higher ER, lower credit quality, and longer average duration than VBTLX (Total Bond Admiral). But there yield is nearly 100 bp lower than VBTLX. So VTABX offers more risk than VBTLX, but lower expected return. In the interests of intellectual honesty, I should note that since VTABX's inception, it has always had more default risk, more maturity risk, a higher ER, and a lower yield than VBTLX. But, since VTABX's inception, it has nevertheless outperformed VBTLX. Of course, IMO, that sheds no light on how either fund will perform in the future. My understanding is the current yield of a bond fund represents the best estima...
- Mon Aug 25, 2014 5:39 pm
- Forum: Investing - Theory, News & General
- Topic: Vanguard sued for [failing to charge market rates to and then paying taxes on services to its mutual funds]
- Replies: 806
- Views: 173155
Re: Vanguard sued for charging too little
I don't have an opinion. Not a corporate/tax attorney, so really have no idea what the issues are and whether there's any merit to the claim.Silence Dogood wrote:G-Money, what is your opinion on this lawsuit?
Do you think the client-ownership structure is at risk?
Not following the case with great interest; just happened to click on a thread where nisiprius was the most recent poster.
- Mon Aug 25, 2014 4:51 pm
- Forum: Investing - Theory, News & General
- Topic: Vanguard sued for [failing to charge market rates to and then paying taxes on services to its mutual funds]
- Replies: 806
- Views: 173155
Re: Vanguard sued for charging too little
Yes, it is. Particularly for associates in the really big firms.Silence Dogood wrote:I wonder if "firm-hopping" is actually that common. Three firms in six years?"Danon left Sullivan & Cromwell after four years, then worked at three other Wall Street firms over the next six years. Such firm-hopping at big law shops, Colon says, is common"
- Mon Aug 25, 2014 4:44 pm
- Forum: Investing - Theory, News & General
- Topic: Vanguard sued for [failing to charge market rates to and then paying taxes on services to its mutual funds]
- Replies: 806
- Views: 173155
Re: Vanguard sued for charging too little
Danon has let his bar association memberships lapse... Whoa. Why did he do that? My guess is the rest of the sentence answers the question: . . . and he said he didn't expect to work as a corporate tax lawyer again. Was he expecting the bar association to begin disciplinary action against him, and does he escape that by not renewing his membership? No escape. Danon is on "administrative suspension," which could be from his failure to pay the annual fee. http://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/look-up/pa-attorney-info.php?id=304861&pdcount=0. The PA disciplinary jurisdiction extends to attorneys on administrative suspension: Rule 201. Jurisdiction. (a) The exclusive disciplinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the Board under...