The election is over, we see the contours of what lies ahead for the next four years.

Only now it's going to be done in a more organized and cost-efficient manner.



Brought to you by the same people who brought you this:



Roth IRA Conversion Calculator Assumptions




Conversion
Conversion is assumed to be made on December 31 of the conversion year.

All assets entered are assumed to be eligible for conversion.

Taxes due on the conversion are assumed to be paid from assets outside of the IRA. In addition, any early distribution penalties are assumed to be paid from outside assets.

If account owner is married and both spouses have assets eligible for conversion, the older spouse's assets are presumed to be converted first for illustration purposes, followed by the conversion of the younger spouse's assets.

In situations where spousal information is not entered, for purposes of estimating the federal income tax cost of conversion, it is assumed the account owner files his or her federal income tax return for the year of conversion as a single filer.

Estimated taxes on conversion projections taxed in 2011 are based on actual 2011 federal income tax rates and brackets. Estimated taxes on conversion projections taxed in 2012 are based on actual 2012 federal income tax rates and brackets. Estimated taxes on conversion projections taxed in 2013 are based on pre-EGTRRA tax rates and pre-EGTRRA tax brackets increased by actual cost-of-living adjustments for years 2002-2012, and increased by an assumed 3 percent cost-of-living adjustment for 2013.

State and local taxes that may apply to the conversion are not factored in the projection.

If a future conversion year is selected, the IRA assets available for possible conversion grow at the user-defined "Future Expected Annual Rate of Return" starting with the year after the current year.

The user has assets available outside his or her IRA sufficient to pay 100% of the estimated federal income tax due on the conversion

When nondeductible IRA basis is converted to a Roth IRA, tax is not paid on the portion of the conversion that represents the return of basis. For partial conversion projections, a pro rata portion of the IRA basis is deemed to be converted.

The projections assume conforming state law in regards to conversion eligibility. While most states have adopted conforming tax law regarding conversions, it is recommended that tax advice on applicable state law be sought prior to conversion.

For current year and future year conversions, the "Current Balance of all your IRAs" is assumed to be the projected value of the assets on December 31 of the current year after any required minimum distributions and/or discretionary withdrawals have been withdrawn. The conversion projections for that future year are based on the value of those assets on December 31 of the conversion year.

If SIMPLE IRA assets are included as retirement assets available for possible conversion, it is assumed that it has been at least two years since the account owner first participated in any SIMPLE IRA plan maintained by the individual's employer.



Tax Filing Status
If account owner is married and spousal information is entered, it is assumed that a joint federal tax return is filed.



Expected Monthly Withdrawals
"Expected Monthly Withdrawals" are presumed to be taken first from the holding account, then from the Traditional IRA (if IRA Owner is married, then oldest spouse first) and finally from the Roth IRA (if IRA Owner is married, then oldest spouse first).

"Expected Monthly Withdrawals" are not automatically increased for inflation.

If the primary IRA owner or the spouse (or both) will be age 59½ or younger in the year when they plan to start taking their monthly withdrawals, these withdrawals are potentially subject to a 10% IRS early distribution penalty.

The projections generated by this tool do not reflect this potential 10% early distribution penalty



Distributions
For projection purposes, all traditional IRA distributions (except for the return of basis) are taxed at the applicable "expected tax rate in retirement".

All projected Roth IRA distributions are assumed to be nontaxable.

Withdrawals from the Traditional IRA are "grossed up" to provide a net withdrawal (after taxes) equal to the requested monthly withdrawal amount.

Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs) from Traditional IRA assets for the account owner (and his/her spouse, if married) start in the year(s) the individual attains age 70½.

Projected RMDs from Traditional IRA assets are based on the Uniform Lifetime table according to the IRA owner's date of birth, unless the account owner is married and his/her spouse is more than 10 years younger than the account owner. In that case, projected RMDs are calculated using the couple's dates of birth and the Joint and Last Survivor table.

Projected distributions are only taken from Traditional IRA assets when necessary, either to satisfy federally required (RMD) requirements, or in the event that the available holding account assets are insufficient to meet the projected "Estimated Monthly Withdrawals" for a given year.

Projected RMDs that are not needed to meet the "Estimated Monthly Withdrawals" for a given year are placed in the holding account and grown at the user defined "Future Expected Annual Rate of Return."

Projected distributions are taken from the Roth IRA only in the event that the projected "Expected Monthly Withdrawals" for a given year cannot be satisfied.

"Expected Monthly Withdrawals" are assumed to be withdrawn annually on December 31. For example, if the user-defined monthly withdrawal amount is $2,000, a withdrawal of $24,000, plus any applicable taxes, is deemed to be made on December 31 of each year beginning with the year the user plans to start withdrawing money from his or her retirement account.

RMDs from traditional IRA assets are assumed to be withdrawn on December 31 of the applicable distribution year.



Payout Period
The payout period begins with year of the user-defined age you plan to start withdrawing money from your retirement accounts and ends in the year when the primary owner or spouse (if married), whoever is older, turns age 95.



Holding Account
In the case of a partial conversion (10% to 90%), the difference between the tax on a 100% conversion and the tax on the partial conversion is placed in the holding account at the time of conversion. This amount grows at the user defined "Future Expected Annual Rate of Return."

In the case of no conversion, the amount of the tax on a 100% conversion is placed in the holding account. This amount grows at the user defined "Future Expected Annual Rate of Return."

In the case of a 100% conversion, nothing is placed in the holding account at the time of conversion.

Projected RMDs that are not needed to meet the "Estimated Monthly Withdrawals" for a given year are placed in the holding account and grown at the user defined "Future Expected Annual Rate of Return."

Annual growth of assets in the holding account is treated as earnings and is taxed, annually, at the user-defined "Expected Tax Rate in Retirement."



Future Expected Annual Rate of Return
The "Future Expected Annual Rate of Return" is the projected annual rate of return on investments held within the IRA owner's (and spouse's if applicable) Traditional and/or Roth IRA, as well as within the individual's (or couple's) holding account.



Expected Tax Rate in Retirement
The "Expected Tax Rate in Retirement" represents the user's estimate of the overall effective tax rate that will apply to taxable distributions from any Traditional IRA assets and interest rate growth on the holding account.



Hypothetical Balances
Balances for the "If you don't convert" scenario include traditional IRA balances plus holding account balances. Balances for the "If you convert" scenario include Roth IRA balances plus traditional IRA balances (if user selects to convert less than 100%) plus holding account balances.
 
I suspect she's quite okay, though, with others paying her kids' social security survivor benefits.

The ole "Do as I say, not as I do" rule applies....

just a little FYI......

Any benefits my children receive are being paid for by the large amount of taxes that had been paid by him while he was working.

...as a matter of fact...because of the age of my children.....others will benefit from my husband's paid taxes in the form of Social Security as he paid in much more than my children will receive because they age out.

......and I would be very careful to accuse me of anything having to do with my children......you do not have any knowledge about what you "think" about things in my life.:mad:
 
They will be "forced" to pay more and they will also be able to honestly take part in an insurance system that is headed toward reform and working better for others as well as for themselves.

In a world full of real tragedies...that's not really the thing I'd pick to be outraged about.

I don't think "not liking it" is really a good enough excuse to check out of the entire system and decide that it's always going to suck. Give it a chance to work first.

If the government is either in charge...or has a hand in it....it will not work! Never has...never will.

....and when they are "forced to pay more"...and can't....what then?
 
Do you really think he believes that?

The guy is clearly a lunatic who doesn't have the foggiest idea in hell how the real world works. The goddamn idiots sit in the fucking ivory towers and theorize about shit they don't understand.


The U.S. is about to undergo this madness in the form of a deluge of Environmental Protection Agency carbon dioxide regulations that will strangle the economy and kill jobs. Unless the Congress can eliminate them via legislation, it will constitute a form of national suicide.



 

The guy is clearly a lunatic who doesn't have the foggiest idea in hell how the real world works. The goddamn idiots sit in the fucking ivory towers and theorize about shit they don't understand.



I work in two hospitals.
 
If the government is either in charge...or has a hand in it....it will not work! Never has...never will.

....and when they are "forced to pay more"...and can't....what then?

What are the reasons for "can't"? Is it out of resentment that you can't buy that extra cup of coffee for a week? If it's because you can't work, then why, is it because of an overburden financially?

If you really, genuinely cannot generate enough income and are socially overburdened then...I'd suggest applying to the government programs that actually address such issues.

If it's because you can't have an extra cup of coffee that month, suck it up, cupcake.
 
New Flash: Obama stands up and takes a shit in front of the UN.

Merc: Let me tell you why this is awesome for our economy.

:rolleyes:
 
You believe that if an undocumented monther brings in her 8 year-old daughter to an emergency room in excruciating pain with vaginal and anal lacerations after a rape, that the girl should not be helped. And this is why you're an unethical person. You're focus on indivudualism has led you to be self-centered and detached.

Or are you going to change your position?

Still waiting on a response for this, July.
 
New Flash: Obama stands up and takes a shit in front of the UN.

Merc: Let me tell you why this is awesome for our economy.

:rolleyes:

Yes because clearly if I approve of Obama's health care policy it means I think he's Jesus. I think the ACA should have been single-payor and therefore I'm not terribly satisfied with it. Happy?
 
just a little FYI......

Any benefits my children receive are being paid for by the large amount of taxes that had been paid by him while he was working.

...as a matter of fact...because of the age of my children.....others will benefit from my husband's paid taxes in the form of Social Security as he paid in much more than my children will receive because they age out.

Well, if they're "aging out" then you have no reason to carry them on your health insurance any longer, right? Win-win, here!

And if what your saying is true (always debatable) and your late baby daddy paid so much into social security, I am surprised he didn't think enough of his family to purchase life insurance. Probably had "different priorities". But hey, I'll bet you had some kickass beach vacations back in the day!!

j......and I would be very careful to accuse me of anything having to do with my children......you do not have any knowledge about what you "think" about things in my life.:mad:

Very true. As you routinely profane God's Word by bearing false witness, I suspect none of us will truly have any real knowledge about your family and circumstances, owing largely to your inability to tell the truth.
 
What are the reasons for "can't"? Is it out of resentment that you can't buy that extra cup of coffee for a week? If it's because you can't work, then why, is it because of an overburden financially?

If you really, genuinely cannot generate enough income and are socially overburdened then...I'd suggest applying to the government programs that actually address such issues.

If it's because you can't have an extra cup of coffee that month, suck it up, cupcake.

Perhaps it is because some have a idea that to take care of themselves is better than asking the government (or forcing others) to.

Just because one is in financial distress does not mean it is time to run to that big daddy government with the hand held out to make life more "fair".

As far as the cup of coffee......if someone chooses to use their very last dime on a cup of coffee...who the heck are you do decide that they can not. Last time I looked, this was a free nation (granted, that half majority is trying very hard to change that).

Perhaps, it is those asking for others to pay that need to "suck it up" as you put it. If people want to help, they will....it is called compassion. Being forced to is called resentment.

I know there is need out there. Helping those around our communities out of love and compassion is looked down on now, for some reason. I prefer helping out of that love.....not force.
 
Perhaps, it is those asking for others to pay that need to "suck it up" as you put it. If people want to help, they will....it is called compassion. Being forced to is called resentment.

Your premium costs $50 per month more due to providers charging more to cover loses on uninsured patients. You're already being forced to pay more, you just choose to ignore facts.
 
Well, if they're "aging out" then you have no reason to carry them on your health insurance any longer, right? Win-win, here!

And if what your saying is true (always debatable) and your late baby daddy paid so much into social security, I am surprised he didn't think enough of his family to purchase life insurance. Probably had "different priorities". But hey, I'll bet you had some kickass beach vacations back in the day!!



Very true. As you routinely profane God's Word by bearing false witness, I suspect none of us will truly have any real knowledge about your family and circumstances, owing largely to your inability to tell the truth.


Aging out in SS is at 18. I can keep them on my insurance through college.:rolleyes:

You know very little about my life as it is none of your business!

.....and to be so incredibly unkind to speak of someone who has died in such an ugly way..........

I would prefer you not speak to any of my posts on here any longer.
 
Perhaps it is because some have a idea that to take care of themselves is better than asking the government (or forcing others) to.

Just because one is in financial distress does not mean it is time to run to that big daddy government with the hand held out to make life more "fair".

As far as the cup of coffee......if someone chooses to use their very last dime on a cup of coffee...who the heck are you do decide that they can not. Last time I looked, this was a free nation (granted, that half majority is trying very hard to change that).

Perhaps, it is those asking for others to pay that need to "suck it up" as you put it. If people want to help, they will....it is called compassion. Being forced to is called resentment.

I know there is need out there. Helping those around our communities out of love and compassion is looked down on now, for some reason. I prefer helping out of that love.....not force.

What is the government's job if not to care for its citizens?

I can decide that someone's being a stubborn, selfish person if they waste money on silly things and undervalue the things that have meaning in life. When it's politically motivated then I'll tack on stubborn, selfish destructive jackass.

I don't look down on compassion. I just don't value specific compassion over generic institutional compassion. You can just as easily choose to pay your taxes with love for the country and its citizens, flawed and all. You can make that choice just as easily, while also cashing in on the benefits of infrastructure, roads, post office, standing army, etc.

Nobody is forced to remain in the United States. It is a choice. Along with that choice comes the reality that you live in a democracy and you support the will of "the people" and not just your own will.

When people I am politically opposed to are in office, I give them credit where credit is due and I oppose what I feel has real destructive outcomes through evidence.

The new system hasn't even been implemented yet and hasn't gotten an opportunity to prove itself. I would just advise giving it a chance to work and sparing the useless bitching. Take how much money you make an hour and then decide if being upset all year about the amount of money you pay in taxes and otherwise is worth that time out of your life.

Get on with living life well and realize that money is really not part of your identity.
 
Your premium costs $50 per month more due to providers charging more to cover loses on uninsured patients. You're already being forced to pay more, you just choose to ignore facts.

There is no breakdown on my premiums....so I honestly have no idea what goes where. I know this is what I pay.

But, to know that I will have to pay more and why .....that is information I do have.

I can't do anything about my premiums I have...nor the fact that I will be forced to pay more...if that comes about.

It matters not if I like it or not. It only matters that I will have factor that into my budget, when I did not have to before (if it comes to pass).

If it is a non-important issue to you as you say it will zero out, then why do you care that it does bother me. What difference could it possibly make to anyone if I will begin budgeting the best I can to make sure the money is there in 2014?
 
What is the government's job if not to care for its citizens?

I can decide that someone's being a stubborn, selfish person if they waste money on silly things and undervalue the things that have meaning in life. When it's politically motivated then I'll tack on stubborn, selfish destructive jackass.

I don't look down on compassion. I just don't value specific compassion over generic institutional compassion. You can just as easily choose to pay your taxes with love for the country and its citizens, flawed and all. You can make that choice just as easily, while also cashing in on the benefits of infrastructure, roads, post office, standing army, etc.

Nobody is forced to remain in the United States. It is a choice. Along with that choice comes the reality that you live in a democracy and you support the will of "the people" and not just your own will.

When people I am politically opposed to are in office, I give them credit where credit is due and I oppose what I feel has real destructive outcomes through evidence.

The new system hasn't even been implemented yet and hasn't gotten an opportunity to prove itself. I would just advise giving it a chance to work and sparing the useless bitching. Take how much money you make an hour and then decide if being upset all year about the amount of money you pay in taxes and otherwise is worth that time out of your life.

Get on with living life well and realize that money is really not part of your identity.


Oh but it is.....must have money to fund all the things everyone wants for free. That makes it always on the mind.

It is those who work and pay for the things for others that make this country they way it is and gives the power to the majority who vote for that type of system.
 
There is no breakdown on my premiums....so I honestly have no idea what goes where. I know this is what I pay.

But, to know that I will have to pay more and why .....that is information I do have.

I can't do anything about my premiums I have...nor the fact that I will be forced to pay more...if that comes about.

It matters not if I like it or not. It only matters that I will have factor that into my budget, when I did not have to before (if it comes to pass).

If it is a non-important issue to you as you say it will zero out, then why do you care that it does bother me. What difference could it possibly make to anyone if I will begin budgeting the best I can to make sure the money is there in 2014?

I'm saying part of it will zero out. When people start getting care when they weren't getting it before then spending (and services) will increase. But if America was handling her shit right all along her citizens wouldn't have barriers to getting care in the first place.
 
I'm saying part of it will zero out. When people start getting care when they weren't getting it before then spending (and services) will increase. But if America was handling her shit right all along her citizens wouldn't have barriers to getting care in the first place.

I think there is always room for improvement.

I do agree that her citizens would be in as much of a mess if things were handled correctly (and I hope you can see that the illegals using the ER as a primary has also had a major impact on the healthcare....not just her citizens)
 
I think there is always room for improvement.

I do agree that her citizens would be in as much of a mess if things were handled correctly (and I hope you can see that the illegals using the ER as a primary has also had a major impact on the healthcare....not just her citizens)

There's always room for improvement.

Illegals using the health care system is a regional issue though. In the scope of national healthcare spending it's a drop in the bucket, but in El Paso it might be a significant problem. We can't deal with it effectively though health policy though, that's much more of an immigration issue.
 
I think there is always room for improvement.

I do agree that her citizens would be in as much of a mess if things were handled correctly (and I hope you can see that the illegals using the ER as a primary has also had a major impact on the healthcare....not just her citizens)

I would like to be a great nation. If we had succeeded enough to make people want to come here and being treated like a second-class citizen is better than their prospects in their country as a first class citizen, that's a problem of catastrophic success.

It's not a terribly bad problem to have, I just think that a great nation would treat people as people, regardless of nationality, and not turn away someone because of their paperwork.

The reality is that we could trim the defense budget and cover the medical issues, school reform and infrastructure without making that much of a dent.
 
I would like to be a great nation. If we had succeeded enough to make people want to come here and being treated like a second-class citizen is better than their prospects in their country as a first class citizen, that's a problem of catastrophic success.

It's not a terribly bad problem to have, I just think that a great nation would treat people as people, regardless of nationality, and not turn away someone because of their paperwork.

The reality is that we could trim the defense budget and cover the medical issues, school reform and infrastructure without making that much of a dent.


We give Taliban prisoners medical care... But we shouldn't care for a Mexican in California picking lettuce to feed his family? :confused:
 
Back
Top