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 : Income Taxes and Record Keeping ( tax ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Colin Cody who wrote (1950)	3/3/1999 3:56:00 AM
From: Nelson Chang	Respond to of 5810

An indicator that I follow has just reported a "crash signal." The website is wwfn.com It called the market crash of July 98, but it has also been wrong 60% of the time. It's something to keep in mind, in that a signal like this is only triggered when the market is significantly unhealthy. ...just wanted to let people know. :) And I'm only posting this on the 2 sites I follow on SI. Now back to taxes...

To: Colin Cody who wrote (1950)	3/9/1999 5:52:00 PM
From: Shawn Donahue	Respond to of 5810

Colin, I just read this week that 8 State Governors are warning Bill Clinton and the White House not to mess with the special CHOICE of being exempt from paying Social Security taxes that over 5 Million State workers (and growing) currently have.... We keep hearing that investing Social Security money in Stocks would be a big mistake...but where do you think the over 5 MILLION State Government workers who are exempt from having Social Security taxes deducted from their paycheck, and instead put 8% of their money in a Public Employees Retirement Account (PERA) matched with 8% from us generous taxpayers (who already pay these government workers entire salary) invest their money?! It goes into stocks, bonds, real estate etc.. and they average over 3 times the return of Social Security and the money is never borrowed and replaced with IOU's like Social Security is, with over $650 Billion IOU's left after Congress spends it each and every year!! I would like nothing better than to drop out myself and instead invest that ever higher amount of Social Security TAX in my self directed IRA...at least I would know what I have that will actually be there when I retire! The truth is that Social Security is not viewed by the Federal Government as a retirement fund or pension, but just another way to collect revenues for the Federal Government to spend...we should look at as just another way for them to collect more Federal Tax. period! If it was really a pension fund then who in their right mind would allow a company to spend it each and every year and leave IOU's in its place in allegedly good faith?! IT IS A TAX and Just like Federal Government workers were required to join in paying it a number of years ago...All STATE Government workers (not just new ones joining the ranks of the taxpayer supported) should be required to pay like the rest of us in the private sector or self employed! Maybe then...Seniors would get more than the anemic $12 a month raise that Social Security gave them last year :( But now it finally comes out that over 5 MILLION State Government workers (taxpayer supported) get away with not having to pay any SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES...this is wrong and amounts to special privilages for government workers...just think if these 5 Million slackers also contributed to the S.S. fund that the rest of us are REQUIRED to out of our hard earned paychecks...maybe it wouldn't keep going up every year in competition with the Federal TAX! Just look below at what some of the State Governors are saying in order to defend themselves not having to pay a Social Security TAX: US governors oppose Soc. Security for state workers WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Eight state governors warned the White House on Monday that they will ''strongly oppose and actively fight'' any move to mandate Social Security coverage for all new state and local government employees. In a two-page letter spearheaded by Ohio Republican Bob Taft, states said congressional legislation to bar future hirees from participating in state- sponsored public retirement plans would weaken responsible state programs and trigger only short-term gains for the flagging Social Security system. ''The bottom line is that these proposals would decrease benefits for public employees already in pension systems and force prospective ... workers into a much weaker system, with no guarantee that the problem will be fixed,'' governors said in their letter addressed to President Bill Clinton. Currently, roughly five million state and local public employees, or 30 percent, are covered by qualified state public pension plans rather than Social Security. ''This allows states and localities to design, administer and finance retirement plans that best meet the needs of their employees,'' a panel of the Government Finance Officers Association said in a recent policy statement. But Social Security reform bills introduced last year and reoffered in the 106th Congress would require all new state and local government hirees to be covered by the nation's retirement system. A recent government study concluded that such a move would increase the solvency of the ailing Social Security system by another two years. Clinton's fiscal 2000 budget proposal earlier this month is silent on the issue. But the administration has signaled in informal conversations that it would not fight provisions mandating Social Security coverage, a local govern- ment lobbyist told Reuters. ''What the governors want is an assurance that Clinton will stand up and say, 'No, I won't accept any package that has mandatory coverage of state and local employees,' '' said the lobbyist, who asked not to be identified. ''I don't think the White House will do that,'' he said. A White House spokesman said Clinton had no comment. Also please check out this thorough research article on exactly what old and young people can expect out of their contributions to Social Security and how over 5 Million government workers continue to not contribute a dime, but get their retirements paid by the rest of us in the private sector (non-taxpayer supported ;): jbs.org Shawn

To: Colin Cody who wrote (1950)	3/10/1999 2:30:00 AM
From: jtsaratoga	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5810

Dear Colin, I changed jobs last year. My 2nd employer withheld $1k more to my 401K than I told them to. Consequently, I contributed $11k to my 401K last year. My two W-2's reflect this over-contribution. My company backed out the $1k this year (1999) as excess deferral and indicated that it'll send me a 1099-R for this amount. Do I report for 1998 taxes with the over-contribution, thus lessening my gross income? If so, when I do my income taxes for 1999, do I need to amend my 1998 income tax to reflect this? Or do I have my company issue me an amended W-2 showing the refunded excess deferral? Is this possible even when the refund occurred in 1999? I am really confused. My company's HR is clueless as well. Thanks for your help, JT