[bluefoxicy]

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p560/ch04.html

This is what I needed to know.

The licensed tax adviser I called actually said he didn't know.

The tax code is 75,000 pages long.  I should have told him it was in chapter 4 of publication 560.


Trying to get my money out of my 401(k) and into a Traditional (pre-tax) IRA.  No such luck.

[ccarlson]

I'm still trying to figure  out your mileage totals.

[bluefoxicy]

I'm still trying to figure  out your mileage totals.

1064 miles this year (since march), 81 this month, 10 this week (since Sunday).

[MDixon]

If you are separated from your employer you can move the money. If you are still employed, gotta stick with them until you are no longer employed by them.

It's actually termed a Rollover IRA and be sure the money never, ever comes into your hands. It should go straight from your ex-employer's 401K directly to the Rollover IRA at the new institution.

[ccarlson]

You're better to do a transfer, because it doesn't need to be reported to the IRS. A rollover has many rules such as the 60 day rule and I think you can only do a rollover once per year. Transfers can be done as often as needed.

[punatic]

Judging by current events, all of this will be irrelevant very soon.

Duck & Cover!

I'm still pedaling my 12.6 mile track, everday...  Plus others - 3640 miles so far this year or so the GPS says.

[bluefoxicy]

Judging by current events, all of this will be irrelavent very soon.

You mean like how the Republicans don't want to raise taxes, and the Democrats don't want to cut anything, and we've all decided it's politically acceptable to cut deductions so we're not "raising taxes" but we're still making you pay more taxes?

Disastrous outcomes will come from this.  Deductions and credits are serious economics.  You thought raising or lowering taxes was a big economic factor?  If I give you $500/year to bike to work 2 days a week (104 days total)--with amortization (say 1/13 for every 8 days)--you're damn well going to bike to work 2 days a week if you're within reach.  This will encourage people to move closer to work, to drive less, and thus to save on maintenance, save on gas, possibly save on insurance, and extend the life of their car (since it's not being driven as much, so incurs less wear and tear).  These are all major economic factors, bigger than $500, and much bigger than the damage done by the tax to pay those $500.

That's what cutting deductions impacts.  Maybe we'll say ... you only get to deduct $5k/year off 401(k) instead of $15.5k, and maybe $1000 or nothing for IRA.  Do you think anyone's going to save more than $6000/year for retirement if you cut the deductions down from $20.5k to $6k?  How about deducting your mortgage interest off?  (Buying a house is such a bad deal this is probably worth cutting, just to encourage people to rent)  Student loan interest?

My major political position is influencing economics through propaganda and careful tax credits and deductions.  That's what I want to do:  get into office, figure out what's good for you, and lay bait to get people to do it.  If they find the idea entirely abhorrent, the tax impact would be null; if people take advantage of the tax incentives, then the tax burden in general is shared amongst the population.  If you want to use the stick instead of the carrot, either A) popularize whatever you're crediting (others who don't participate get taxed more heavily as the payout rate becomes higher); or B) just levy a tax on the undesirable behavior (like cigarettes, but you see how that works out).

Sadly, everyone on this planet has failed basic economic theory.

[punatic]

Mutually Assured (economic) Destruction