Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : MDA - Market Direction Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (69586)	2/19/2001 4:57:10 PM
From: David E. Taylor	Respond to of 99985

Zeev: Exactly. I made minimum quarterly payments through 2000 to avoid the underpayment penalty. If I'd run out the year with 9/1/00 as the status quo, I would have owed a hefty amount come 4/15/01, because my cap gains (mostly short term) through 9/1/01 were about 4x 1999's. I had that "hefty amount" invested on behalf of the US Treasury, figuring that both I (near term) and they (by April 2002) would make out. Too bad the Treasury lost out just like I did, now they get zip from my "investment" of the taxes that would have been due. I wonder if I should send a note of apology along with my 1040 for "losing" their money through my poor investment decisions? David T.

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (69586)	2/19/2001 5:49:45 PM
From: bob	Respond to of 99985

<<(I think it is even just 90%)>> You are 100% correct. I never pay more than the 90% except for a few dollars just in case I've made a slight error. Why let the government have your money (interest free) when you can at least draw money market rates on it?

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (69586)	2/19/2001 7:33:08 PM
From: McNabb Brothers	Respond to of 99985

>Money, like a good wine, should be allowed to age as long as possible in your own caskets (g).< A very good and smart funeral director will take the cash money out of the casket and replace it with a personal check! >VBG< Hank

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (69586)	2/20/2001 12:05:13 AM
From: Berney	Respond to of 99985

Zeev, It's even worse than that. For folks with AGI above $150K, they had to pay in 106% of their 1999 tax liability in 2000 to avoid the estimated tax penalties. Our software mindlessly computes this amount, and we mindlessly accept it, as most of the clients do not like seeing this penalty on their tax return. Moreover, when we were preparing the returns last year we really had no way of "expecting" with any degree of certainty, based on the run-up through March, that the gains of 1999 would not be repeated in 2000. I would suggest (without proof) that these high-income folks own a large percentage of the equity. Even the more average folks are not seeing the impact from their tax inefficient mutual fund holdings. In any case, I just wanted folks to consider the implications. It may actually be positive for the Market as folks won't have to sell to pay their taxes this year. Nonetheless, I don't see any way to spin it as positive for the hopes of a surplus. Berney