|
Here's a random question about my TFSA (ROTH IRA for Americans). I have traditionally laddered 5 year GICs with each year's deposit. Right now interest rates are now below 2.5%. I'm thinking that I should probably now avoid GICs and use my standard investment account distribution (20% canada index, 20% US index, 20% international index, 40% bonds) and purchase funds instead. I'd be looking at an initial $2500 purchase with subsequent regular monthly $250 contributions. Have the markets ever suffered less than an average 2.5% return over five years? There are years with 30% gains and 30% drops but if I'm going to lock myself in for five years then I can't imagine the markets being crap for such a long term period. Especially with regular monthly contributions over that five year period. cowofwar fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Feb 13, 2013 |
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 00:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 05:34 |
|
|
cowofwar posted:Have the markets ever suffered less than an average 2.5% return over five years? Yes, certainly. For example, from http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/historical/djia1900.html  From this image we can see that the DJIA did not recover to the point of its peak in 1929, until the mid-1950s. A five-year period beginning from any time in 1928 or early 1929 would be a massive loss. We can also see several net-loss over 5 year periods between 1966 and 1984. You may also be interested in an inflation-adjusted graph, such as this one from http://observationsandnotes.blogspot.com/2011/03/stock-market-100-year-inflation-history.html:  Here we can see real returns, and that there are many lengthy periods throughout the last century with net-negative returns after inflation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 02:25
|
|
|
Harry posted:I believe you're thinking of a rollover from an IRA->Roth IRA. Then how do backdoor conversions work if there is a 5 year wait?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Yes, certainly. They need to include dividend re-investment to be really representative, and these don't, as far as I can tell. e: 
Unormal fucked around with this message at 03:25 on Feb 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 03:06
|
|
|
Pardot posted:Then how do backdoor conversions work if there is a 5 year wait? You do them and not withdraw the money.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 03:14
|
|
|
Harry posted:You do them and not withdraw the money. Ah of course, I hadn't followed the conversation from the start 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 09:45
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:45% international and emerging markets exposure? Bit high? I don't think this is true. North America makes up just barely 50% of world market cap -- and you certainly don't want most of your money in all Canada stocks for instance, if your livelihood is already dependent on the state of its economy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 12:38
|
|
|
FlashBangBob posted:So say December 2014 rolls around, I've put $10,500 in 2012 and 2013, and I have a $7000 home repair bill to pay. Can I withdraw the $7000 without penalty in 2014, even if I do not replenish the amount by the time 2014 taxes are due? You can withdraw initial contributions from a Roth at any time without a tax penalty, but it's generally a very bad idea to do so. Investment returns are always tied to risk. Always. There is no vehicle that will 1) be secure enough for your emergency money and 2) earn any sort of meaningful return. These two features are entirely mutually exclusive. Your emergency fund should always be somewhere that you can withdraw it without any sort of penalty - let's use your home repair example: What if the bill from the carpenter/plumber/whoever comes on a week where the market dips 10% because someone in Greece sees his shadow? That $7,000 repair just cost you $7,700 of your money, since you only got 90 cents on the dollar for your contributions. If your main concern is losing out on the ability to contribute $5,500 for this tax year, then by all means put that money in your Roth. However, make sure that your Roth is invested in a secure investment, such as a money market fund. Note that this will return next to no interest, and may even cost you a tiny amount (I'm not familiar with money market fund expense ratios), but at least then you will be able to make your Roth contribution for the year and have a stable account into which you can dip should the need arise. Your best bet is to just leave your $10k in a checking/savings account, and make your IRA contributions separate, unless you are deathly afraid of missing out in the current year IRA contribution limit. In that case, make sure the money is in a safe (i.e., low risk, low return) investment so you can get to it if you need to without being subject to the whims of the market.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
Unormal posted:They need to include dividend re-investment to be really representative, and these don't, as far as I can tell. You're right, but then this introduces additional complexity if we're considering non-tax-advantaged accounts (where you pay tax on dividends). And I think, eyeballing that chart, that there's still some 5-year periods you could pick out that were flat or slightly down. But it's an excellent point, so thanks for pointing it out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 01:08
|
|
|
This is the chart I find more interesting to look at. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/01/02/business/20110102-metrics-graphic.html Of course this assumes that you invested everything in one lump-sum at the beginning of the time-frame you look at.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 01:34
|
|
|
I have a brokerage and roth account with Charles Schwab. The company through which I setup the schwab stuff (Wealth Enhancement Group) charges 1% of the portfolio value annually to professionally manage these investments. They also give me advice on how to allocate my employer sponsored 401K for free. The company I work for has recently changed ownership. I now have to decide to leave my current 401K account with Merryl Lynch or roll it into the new provider Nationwide. I also have the option to create a new schwab account with the 1% fee to Wealth Enhancement. Correct me if I'm wrong but any internal management fees paid on funds I invest in are going to be the same no matter who I purchase them through be it Nationwide or Schwab. So it really boils down to this: Is the 1% Wealth Enhancement fee worth it for me. The Nationwide investment choices all list what's called a Net AMC/Asset fee which seems to average about .75% over all the investment choices. So taking this into account I'm really paying .25% more to have Wealth Enhancement manage these for me. Also with the schwab account I'll have access to any investment options, not just the 10-15 choices through Nationwide. In which case I'm leaning towards paying a little more to have it managed around the clock. My brokerage account did very well for the 2012 calendar year so I think I'm getting a pretty good value for that 1% fee. Am I missing anything obvious here?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 17:18
|
|
|
ManDingo posted:I have a brokerage and roth account with Charles Schwab. The company through which I setup the schwab stuff (Wealth Enhancement Group) charges 1% of the portfolio value annually to professionally manage these investments. They also give me advice on how to allocate my employer sponsored 401K for free. The company I work for has recently changed ownership. I now have to decide to leave my current 401K account with Merryl Lynch or roll it into the new provider Nationwide. I also have the option to create a new schwab account with the 1% fee to Wealth Enhancement. Correct me if I'm wrong but any internal management fees paid on funds I invest in are going to be the same no matter who I purchase them through be it Nationwide or Schwab. So it really boils down to this: Is the 1% Wealth Enhancement fee worth it for me. The Nationwide investment choices all list what's called a Net AMC/Asset fee which seems to average about .75% over all the investment choices. So taking this into account I'm really paying .25% more to have Wealth Enhancement manage these for me. Also with the schwab account I'll have access to any investment options, not just the 10-15 choices through Nationwide. In which case I'm leaning towards paying a little more to have it managed around the clock. My brokerage account did very well for the 2012 calendar year so I think I'm getting a pretty good value for that 1% fee. Am I missing anything obvious here? Keep in mind that while 1% may seem small, your portfolio is likely going to be getting gains of 7-8% per annum at best over your lifetime (yes, there will be very good years, like the last couple where you return 20%, but there will be plenty of poo poo negative years to balance those out - volatility!). That 7-8% is going to be further reduced by inflation, so figuring a modest 2-3% inflation, that means your real gains are probably going to be 4-5% per annum. Are you really getting enough value added out of their advice to justify reducing your annual gains by 20-25%? The fact is, EVERYONE who is invested in stocks and reasonably diversified has done very well in the last couple of years - the market has come roaring back since the crash, even if the rest of the economy still sucks. It sounds like these guys aren't even picking stocks for you, but are just looking at your age and selecting a mix of funds. That's something you can easily do yourself - hell, you can do pretty much the same thing they do with a selection of a single target retirement date fund. Anyhow, the upshot of all of this is that you shouldn't assume that the 1% management fee is worth it just because your portfolio did well for the last year or two - it's almost definitely not. NJ Deac fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Feb 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 18:07
|
|
|
ManDingo posted:My brokerage account did very well for the 2012 calendar year so I think I'm getting a pretty good value for that 1% fee. Am I missing anything obvious here? Is this just your long term investments? An apples to apples comparison is how your accounts would have done in a simple portfolio of three 0.20% ER funds at Vanguard. I doubt you know the answer, right? So you don't really know how well your account did last year in any useful sense. Even if they do well in a particular year, can they keep it up consistently? History suggests no. To me the 1% is way too expensive considering all the other options out there. The service would let you not worry about your investments at all, I guess, but you're already worrying about them anyway, so why pay it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 18:20
|
|
|
ManDingo posted:I have a brokerage and roth account with Charles Schwab. The company through which I setup the schwab stuff (Wealth Enhancement Group) charges 1% of the portfolio value annually to professionally manage these investments. They also give me advice on how to allocate my employer sponsored 401K for free. The company I work for has recently changed ownership. I now have to decide to leave my current 401K account with Merryl Lynch or roll it into the new provider Nationwide. I also have the option to create a new schwab account with the 1% fee to Wealth Enhancement. Correct me if I'm wrong but any internal management fees paid on funds I invest in are going to be the same no matter who I purchase them through be it Nationwide or Schwab. So it really boils down to this: Is the 1% Wealth Enhancement fee worth it for me. The Nationwide investment choices all list what's called a Net AMC/Asset fee which seems to average about .75% over all the investment choices. So taking this into account I'm really paying .25% more to have Wealth Enhancement manage these for me. Also with the schwab account I'll have access to any investment options, not just the 10-15 choices through Nationwide. In which case I'm leaning towards paying a little more to have it managed around the clock. My brokerage account did very well for the 2012 calendar year so I think I'm getting a pretty good value for that 1% fee. Am I missing anything obvious here? One detail you are missing is that the 1% fee is on top of the ER on the funds themselves. So you are not correct that you were only paying .25% more to have Wealth Enhancement manage them for you. So if the funds average 1% ER, you're actually paying 2% on your entire portfolio.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
Thanks for your responses...slap me silly posted:Is this just your long term investments? An apples to apples comparison is how your accounts would have done in a simple portfolio of three 0.20% ER funds at Vanguard. I doubt you know the answer, right? So you don't really know how well your account did last year in any useful sense. Even if they do well in a particular year, can they keep it up consistently? History suggests no. I originally started the brokerage account to invest an inheritance from about 3 years ago. It will ultimately be held until retirement unless something terrible happens. I'm not currently contributing any additional funds to the brokerage, only to the 401K and a Roth. I went through the Vanguard site and did some reading. Choosing the fund they would put me in for my age and 2 others (largely at random). Here is what I came up with. Schwab performance 2012 - 15.32% (after all fees have been paid) Vanguard performance of 3 low ER funds Target 2040 (VFORX) - 13.57% Emerging Markets (VEMAX) - 15.34% Dividend Appreciation Index (VDAIX) - 10.13% Average Vanguard Return - 13.01% So for this small portion of time having schwab with the 1% fee made sense. I get that this shouldn't be an indication of future performance. In a year where the market loses of course my losses will be magnified. 80k posted:One detail you are missing is that the 1% fee is on top of the ER on the funds themselves. So you are not correct that you were only paying .25% more to have Wealth Enhancement manage them for you. So if the funds average 1% ER, you're actually paying 2% on your entire portfolio. My assumption was that the ER fee would be the same no matter who I purchased the fund from. For example Nationwide offers T. Rowe Price Small Cap Value (PRSVX) which has an ER fee of .97% plus Nationwide's Net Asset Fee of .85%. Buying this fund from Schwab would still be .97% ER and my portfolio fee of 1% making a difference of only .15%? One other thing is the Schwab advisers will help me allocate my 401K not held by them for free on an annual basis (as long as I have the brokerage account). They also look at other aspects of your finances, mortgage, life insurance, emergency funds etc. I guess at this point I might be leaning toward rolling the 401K to a Vanguard account since the costs are so much lower and seeking the Schwab adviser's input on how to allocate the funds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
ManDingo posted:Thanks for your responses... I don't think you fully appreciate the impact that an extra percent in fees will have over the lifetime of your portfolio. Over 30 years, it will absolutely cripple your returns, because years like the last year are going to be relatively uncommon. Yeah, you beat the market by 1.7% in a historically good year, a total increase of 12.5% compared to the return of the Vanguard 2040 fund (which is primarily just a S&P index fund, as I recall). But what about years where the market returns 5% instead? Then you're giving away a full 20% of your return in order to get that 12.5% benefit. Not to mention the fact that, as you pointed out, in down years, you'll still have to pay that 1%, further eating away at your nest egg. No matter how smart you think your Schwab guy is, I can guarantee you that he's not smart enough to predict the market with any regularity - very few people are. He's likely just making fund allocations for you based on your age and risk tolerance, and you can accomplish the same thing after just reading a book or two. If you have $500k or more, Vanguard offers a similar service where they evaluate your financial situation and make suggestions for your fund allocations and such as part of their Voyager Select services, and they don't even charge you for it. If you don't have $500k in the account, then you're getting ripped off because there's no way that having access to a personal financial planner is worth it for an account of that size.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 22:26
|
|
|
NJ Deac posted:If you don't have $500k in the account, then you're getting ripped off because there's no way that having access to a personal financial planner is worth it for an account of that size. On the other hand, given that the fee is a % of his account balance, it may make more sense to have a financial planner for a period now rather than later in life as his account balance grows over time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 22:58
|
|
|
If you have 50000 with vanguard a financial plan costs 250. Do the math :-)
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 10:12
|
|
|
I think those are all valid points and I appreciate the input. I definitely need to do some reading before I jump into managing it all on my own. It looks like the OP and the vanguard site have a lot of good resources. I had a rough time during the crash (read chasing the market, not being diversified, letting money sit in a money market through the first 8 months of recovery) which is most of the reason I was OK with a hands off approach. There's also the tax issues associated with the brokerage account which adds a level of complexity. I will try to educate myself on investing strategies and use the Vanguard rollover as a stepping stone to hopefully manage my entire portfolio sometime in the future.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
Is it stupid to go with a Schwab Market track portfolio with a 0.65% expense ratio instead of picking the ETFs myself? http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/investing/accounts_products/investment/mutual_funds/mutual_fund_portfolio/market_track_portfolios The account is a Roth IRA I'm just starting and I want to be as hands off as possible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 17:12
|
|
|
willkill4food posted:Is it stupid to go with a Schwab Market track portfolio with a 0.65% expense ratio instead of picking the ETFs myself? Chances are that picking them yourself would have a higher expense ratio even still. Since you said it was an IRA and want to be hands off as much as possible, consider putting your money into a retirement fund from another broker that has a lower expense ratio. For example, Vanguard has a .18 expense ratio on its target funds, and if you do the allocation manually and have at least ~ 100k, you can easily buy into admiral shares of a similar allocation with a .08 expense ratio.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
ntan1 posted:Chances are that picking them yourself would have a higher expense ratio even still. Since you said it was an IRA and want to be hands off as much as possible, consider putting your money into a retirement fund from another broker that has a lower expense ratio. I think I will just do vanguard target retirement fund, can't really beat a .18% expense ratio.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 19:59
|
|
|
Are I-Series savings bonds a bad investment? Like if I dump $1000 into I-bonds now and let it sit for 20 years, I figure it's better than having it in a savings account at a crappy interest rate, plus I can always cash it in with minimal penalty (3 months interest I think) if I need the money.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Are I-Series savings bonds a bad investment? They are not bad. I mean, the fixed rate is 0% so they are not exactly good investments... But they beat the alternatives (savings account, TIPS, nominal treasuries) if your goal is to safely preserve purchasing power as best you can.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 19:14
|
|
|
They're considered the go to investment for extra money that you don't want to throw in the stock market. Note that you can't cash it before 1 year.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
I'm 25, just received my master's degree in Television Production and I'm currently working freelance as a video editor. As this is my first job since starting my degree, I haven't yet set up any kind of investing or retirement accounts. I have saved up enough money for a 3-6 month emergency fund, but I don't know what to do next. Basically, after I set up some form of retirement savings account I would like to begin doing some long term investing, but I want to maximize my money. For the foreseeable future, I assume I will be working freelance as a video editor for different companies. That could change, however, as I might be able to land a salaried position at an ad agency I interned at. What kind of accounts should I be setting up that would work best in this situation? I was reading that a SEP IRA would be good as a freelancer, but is that useful if I find long term employment? Can I have both a SEP IRA and a traditional IRA? Would it ever make sense to have both? Bondii fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Feb 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 21:49
|
|
|
This is mostly related to this thread, so I'll throw it in here. About two years ago I inherited a non-spousal Traditional IRA to that has about $25k now. I'm 23 years old. I'm totally content with just leaving the money there, and making whatever my required annual withdraws, but I'm wondering if that's the best plan of action for my money. I don't know very much about the different investing methods, and would prefer to be pretty hands-off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
80k posted:They are not bad. I mean, the fixed rate is 0% so they are not exactly good investments... But they beat the alternatives (savings account, TIPS, nominal treasuries) if your goal is to safely preserve purchasing power as best you can. Seems that the set interest rate is twice the rate of inflation. My question is how exactly is the new rate calculated when the bond rate changes 6 months after purchase? Assuming I purchased a 1.76 percent bond today and the rate of inflation rose from .88% to 1%. Thanks for clearing that up btw, I assumed 1.76% was the fixed rate not a composite rate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 17:50
|
|
|
My work 401k is through Schwab, the default fund offerings were lousy so I opted to have all the money go into PCRA account so I can make my own investment allocations from any Schwab fund, rather than the 15 or so default ones. I was planning to make a purchase of Vanguard funds every three months, to build up enough to meet the minimum purchase requirements. The problem is that it seems any Vanguard fund purchased through Schwab has a $50 fee for each transaction, which ends up being a huge percentage of the money I'm transferring in. I wanted to get the Vanguard Target 2050 fund, VFIFX, which is diversified and has a low expense ratio. This transfer fee kind of kills it though. What would be my best move now given that I have to stay with Schwab? Schwab a target retirement fund for 2050, SWNRX, but it's actively managed and has a 0.83% expense ratio. I suppose my other option is to manually get an allocation via three Schwab funds to cover domestic, international, and bonds, but then I have to manually rebalance it which I was trying to avoid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
ten_twentyfour posted:This is mostly related to this thread, so I'll throw it in here. Depends on when you expect to withdraw this money in the future.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 02:48
|
|
|
Binary posted:I was planning to make a purchase of Vanguard funds every three months, to build up enough to meet the minimum purchase requirements. The problem is that it seems any Vanguard fund purchased through Schwab has a $50 fee for each transaction, which ends up being a huge percentage of the money I'm transferring in. So why not do it once a year or even every two years, if that makes the fee more reasonable? In the meantime just use whichever Schwab fund is close to what you want. Or am I missing something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 05:04
|
|
|
I'd look around at more of their funds. I might be mixing them up with another company, but I thought they had funds that were comparable to Vanguard ER wise.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 05:05
|
|
|
slap me silly posted:So why not do it once a year or even every two years, if that makes the fee more reasonable? In the meantime just use whichever Schwab fund is close to what you want. Or am I missing something. I never thought of that. I guess the idea is that they sit at a higher ER for only a year, then get moved over. Even at a year though it works out to be 1.2% of the money going in, but it's safe after that. quote:I'd look around at more of their funds. I might be mixing them up with another company, but I thought they had funds that were comparable to Vanguard ER wise. They do, it's a small pool, but it does have funds for total domestic stock for 0.11% and internation for 0.22% or so. Bond funds seem to start at 0.4% to 0.5%.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 14:35
|
|
|
Well, well. USAA is now offering the single-fund portfolio, e.g. USCRX for 60/40 stock/bond. Expense ratio is pretty high, though, 1.3%. Maybe that will come down over time, but part of the reason I switched my IRA to Vanguard was that USAA was too expensive, so.. However a nice thing about USAA is the $1000 minimum to open, or $500 + $50/mo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 02:53
|
|
|
Got a couple of Roth IRA questions I'm having trouble finding the answers to. Woulda thought the Motley Fool article linked in the OP would have said, but I'm not seeing it... Can money I directly contribute to them be withdrawn again tax/penalty-free without having to wait five years and having a qualifying reason (disabled, first home, etc)? Or does that rule apply to all funds, and not just earnings/conversion dollars? I can't imagine money I've already been taxed on and deposited would be taxed a second time, but I'm not sure. Basically the housing thread talked me out of buying a house right now with my meagre funds, and I need to decide what to do with the money I've saved so far. Would like not to completely lose access to it  Do conversions from traditional IRAs count towards the ($5500?) tax year limit? Would I have to pay tax on the conversion immediately, or would it come out of what I convert, or would it be applied to my 2013 taxes? Finally, I don't know how the tax year and the calendar year relate--if I were to do the conversion this minute, would I need to redo/amend my 2012 taxes?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 04:08
|
|
|
Ciaphas posted:Can money I directly contribute to them be withdrawn again tax/penalty-free without having to wait five years and having a qualifying reason (disabled, first home, etc)? Yes. Contributions can be withdrawn at any time without penalty. Earnings on those contributions are subject to restrictions. quote:Do conversions from traditional IRAs count towards the ($5500?) tax year limit? No. quote:Would I have to pay tax on the conversion immediately, or would it come out of what I convert, or would it be applied to my 2013 taxes? Taxes will be withheld from the amount converted. quote:Finally, I don't know how the tax year and the calendar year relate--if I were to do the conversion this minute, would I need to redo/amend my 2012 taxes? Between January 1 and April 15, you have the option of declaring it on either tax year, so it's up to you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 05:36
|
|
|
Thanks a lot, you've been a huge help! One more question I hope you all don't mind. My current thinking right now is I take the full amount of my IRA (about $7000), convert as much as possible into a Roth, then contribute $2500 of the $7500 in my savings account for tax year 2012 (keeping $5000 in savings as an  fund). Does this seem a sound starting plan? Since the $2500 from savings has already been taxed via payroll, and whatever I get out of my IRA will have its taxes paid from it as you say, I imagine my taxes owed from/to the government for 2012 (or 2013 for that matter) won't change, but do I have to redo the 1040/etc forms anyway? (I only owed $9 this year  )(edit) Actually regarding the savings accounts, are withdrawals from Roth contributions processed fast enough for the Roth to be useful as an fund instead of my savings account, or do they take forever and a half?
Ciaphas fucked around with this message at 06:19 on Feb 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 06:12
|
|
|
Why convert? That's not a huge amount in the long term, I wouldn't bother. You can't predict your future tax situation well enough to justify the trouble. Also you'll have just as much in the Roth after a few years if you just make new contributions to the Roth. Don't use your Roth as your ohshit fund though, stick with the $5000 cash in savings. A Roth IRA contribution withdrawal might only take a couple of days depending on the details, but you'd be conflating the very-short-term with the very-long-term and I personally think it's a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 06:34
|
|
|
I contributed $5,000 to my Roth in 2012 but due to big deductions it turns out that I didn't have any taxable income in 2012. Can I move the 2012 contributions to 2013 with no penalty? Or do I have to essentially sell the $5,000, realize the gains, then recontribute only $5,500 to 2013?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 06:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 05:34 |
|
|
You have to have >$5000 AGI, not >$5000 taxable income. Make sure you've got that right first. Uh, or it's based on AGI. Right? Argh
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 07:00
|
|