Your Money: A year-end tax-planning checklist

posted in: Society | 0

Bruce Helmer and Peg Webb

For many investors, taxes represent their biggest investment expense, consuming upwards of a third of their earnings, depending on how the assets are held. Today’s article is focused on the things you can do between now and the end of the year to lessen the impact of taxes on your 2023 tax returns.

Lower your tax bill with tax-loss harvesting

Many investors take tax losses at the end of every year for a big tax benefit, also looking at it as a kind of consolation prize for making a bad investment pick. Tax-loss harvesting is a strategy that allows you to offset some of your realized capital gains with realized losses.

To know if tax-loss harvesting is viable for you, you need to know your tax rate. For the 2023 tax year, it is a top rate of 20% for long-term cap gains — depending on your income. The rate that applies to your income could be 0%, 15% or 20% (the IRS says most people pay no more than 15%). The ordinary income tax rate that applies to short-term gains and qualified taxable distributions maxes out at 37%, but, again, the range is income dependent, beginning at 10% and rising in increments to 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35% and 37%.

Some mutual funds have been throwing off sizable distributions in both short- and long-term gains; these need to be factored into your consideration of whether to use tax-loss harvesting. Keep in mind that capital losses may also be applied to current or future cap gains and income, which the Tax Code limits to $3,000 per year plus carryforwards. This means if you had significant investment losses in 2022 or previous years, you may have tax-loss carryforwards that can be applied to your 2023 tax bill.

As always, we recommend checking with your financial adviser or accountant to see if tax-loss harvesting is appropriate for your situation and tax bracket, for several reasons. For example, end-of-year rebalancing of your portfolio may be appropriate if market performance has put your target allocation out of whack. While selling a low-performing asset could help restore your desired allocation, you need to pay attention to cost basis. It generally doesn’t make sense to realize a tax loss if the sale doesn’t fit your portfolio or investment strategy or if you reasonably expect the investment to recover value in the next year or two. Plus, you need to consider the wash-sale rule that applies to the sale and repurchase of “substantially identical” assets for 30 days before and after the sale.

Tax-gain harvesting may help you avoid the related risk of higher capital gains tax rates by selling appreciated assets in lower-income years if you happen to be in a lower tax bracket. You’ll pay 0% in federal capital gains tax if you meet certain income thresholds ($89,250 if you’re married-filing-jointly or $44,759 if you’re a single filer). Tax-gain harvesting also can be useful for pass-through businesses with an expected operating loss in 2023 but that expect to be profitable in 2024.

Retirement planning is getting more complicated

Higher-than-normal inflation, rising interest rates and increased uncertainty about the direction of the economy are clouding the retirement landscape for many investors. We continue to counsel clients to use long-term inflation assumptions of 2% to 3%, especially when modeling your income needs over a retirement that could last two or three decades.

Rising interest rates are generally helpful for retirees on fixed incomes, but can be hazardous to stocks if rates pass certain thresholds. This is a good time to revisit your target asset allocation and make sure it still reflects your investment goals and risk tolerance.

And economic uncertainty can create “sequence of returns” risk if you are planning to retire in the near term. This occurs when you take out big withdrawals early in retirement when the market’s down. Remember, it’s generally better to minimize principal withdrawals during a market downturn early in retirement.

Against these unknowns, we urge investors to focus on what you can control if you are near or in retirement. That means maximizing contributions to tax-deferred accounts, making sure to take any required minimum distributions (RMDs) before Dec. 31, 2023, and considering a Roth IRA conversion, especially if you anticipate needing to minimize taxable income during your retirement years.

Review tax withholding in view of higher interest rates

Your interest income from savings accounts and other interest-bearing investments accounts may generate significantly higher Form 1099s this year. Don’t get caught off guard with an unexpectedly high tax bill. Increase your withholding amount if you anticipate that interest income could put you into a higher tax bracket. It could help you avoid getting stuck with a higher tax bill in April.

With interest rates higher than they’ve been in decades, you need to be aware of which interest-bearing accounts are taxable and which are tax-exempt. Treasury bills and government money market funds, for example, are exempt from state taxes. But interest paid on bank savings accounts, prime money market accounts and certificates of deposit (CDs) are not. Asset location is almost always as important as asset allocation when it comes to tax planning.

Related Articles

Business |


Your Money: New generations redefine the meaning of work

Business |


Your Money: Squeezed in the ‘club sandwich’ generation?

The opinions voiced in this material are for general information only and are not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual.

Bruce Helmer and Peg Webb are financial advisers at Wealth Enhancement Group and co-hosts of “Your Money” on WCCO 830 AM on Sunday mornings. Email Bruce and Peg at yourmoney@wealthenhancement.com. Securities offered through LPL Financial, member FINRA/SIPC. Advisory services offered through Wealth Enhancement Advisory Services, LLC, a registered investment advisor. Wealth Enhancement Group and Wealth Enhancement Advisory Services are separate entities from LPL Financial.

 

UN sounds alarm on Darfur, warns world not to repeat history

posted in: Society | 0

Escalating bloodshed since the outbreak of civil war in Sudan could lead to another genocide, the United Nations warned after a sharp uptick of violence in Darfur.

The U.N. Refugee Agency said on Friday that it was “gravely concerned” following the mass killing of at least 800 people within 72 hours as part of the ethnic cleansing of minorities conducted by the Arab paramilitary Rapid Support Forces and its allies in the Ardamata refugee camp in West Darfur this week.

Reports from Ardamata detail how paramilitary forces armed with assault rifles went door to door shooting men and boys, leaving their corpses scattered on the street.

About 30,000 non-Arab Sudanese civilians — largely members of the Masalit tribe — had sought shelter in the camp since mid-April, when war broke out between Sudan’s two top generals, Sudanese military Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and RSF Gen. Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo.

The U.S. Embassy in Khartoum attributed the mass killing to the RSF, further expressing concern about the RSF’s “pattern of abuses in connection with their military offensives.”

“We are deeply disturbed by eyewitness reports of serious human rights abuses by the RSF and affiliated militias, including killings in Ardamata, West Darfur, ethnic targeting of the Masalit community leaders and members, and the arbitrary detention of civilians, including human rights defenders and activists,” the embassy’s official account posted to X, formerly known as Twitter, on Wednesday. “These horrifying actions once again highlight the RSF’s pattern of abuses in connection with their military offensives.”

U.N. High Commissioner Filippo Grandi on Friday compared the current violence to the U.S.-recognized genocide in Darfur, in which an estimated 300,000 people died between 2003 and 2005, warning that a “similar dynamic might be developing.”

“Twenty years ago, the world was shocked by the terrible atrocities and human rights violations in Darfur. We fear a similar dynamic might be developing. An immediate end to the fighting and unconditional respect for the civilian population by all parties are crucial to avoid another catastrophe,” said Grandi.

The U.N. Refugee Agency — also known as the UNHCR — had also admonished the world community earlier in the week, saying it was “scandalously silent, though violations of international humanitarian law persist with impunity,” and that it is “shameful that the atrocities committed 20 years ago in Darfur can be happening again today with such little attention.”

More than 4.8 million people have been displaced internally in Sudan and 1.2 million have fled to neighboring countries since April. According to the U.N. at least 8,000 people fled Sudan to Chad last week alone.

Why did Chicago White Sox decline Tim Anderson’s 2024 club option — and what’s next for the team at shortstop?

posted in: News | 0

Chicago White Sox general manager Chris Getz had to have a difficult conversation with shortstop Tim Anderson.

“What Tim Anderson meant for the organization, there is not enough time to go through the impact he’s made on the organization, the city, his teammates, the game,” Getz said during Tuesday’s MLB general managers meetings at a resort in Paradise Valley, Ariz.

“A guy that was drafted, went through the system and performed at the major-league level. So a decision like that needs to be as thorough as it possibly can. There was a lot of factors involved.”

The Sox declined the two-time All-Star’s $14 million club option for the 2024 season on Saturday. He receives a $1 million buyout.

Getz discussed the decision with reporters Tuesday.

“He’s my son’s favorite player as well so not only is TA disappointed in me but so is my son,” Getz said. “With the direction we’re going, and unfortunately a decision on a TA situation had to come when it did, pretty much immediately after the World Series.

“We have a lot of holes to fill on our club. We had 101 losses last year, so to have to fill so many holes in both near-term and long-term, felt like it was the best decision to decline that option.”

Anderson became one of the most recognizable players in baseball during his eight seasons with the Sox, winning a batting title in 2019 and hitting the dramatic walk-off, two-run home run at the Field of Dreams game against the New York Yankees in 2021.

He slashed .245/.286/.296 with 18 doubles, one home run, 25 RBIs and 13 stolen bases in 123 games during an injury-impacted 2023.

“We are open to bringing TA back, but he’s earned the right to see if there is a better opportunity for him,” Getz said. “We wish TA very well. We have great memories with him. I know he shares the same sentiment and I wish him luck and we’ll stay in touch.

“There is going to be a healing process that needs to take place just because his life changed fairly dramatically with this decision. But he’s part of the White Sox family. I want TA to go out there and do well. I really genuinely do. If that’s with someone else, I’ll be rooting for him. We’ll see where the offseason goes for him.”

Getz said shifting to second base — where Anderson moved during the World Baseball Classic and for two games with the Sox in 2023 — was not part of the conversation the two had.

“He has a self-evaluation and other organizations have their evaluations whether it becomes defense or offensive potential,” Getz said. “But we didn’t dive into where he is best fit defensively.

“He’s a very athletic player, he has the ability to play some shortstop. He could easily go over to second base and I believe he could play in the outfield, too. He’s versatile and he’s going to have options.”

The Sox already had a lot of work to do this offseason, including second base, right field, behind the plate and with their rotation and bullpen. They’ve added shortstop to that list.

“You have to find a way to allocate resources, and figure out the best way to do that,” Getz said. “We have a lot of pitching holes to fill and the middle infield to take care of.

“I really like to focus on our defense. That’s going to be a large focus of us this offseason. I want it to be an attractive place where pitchers want to pitch. We’ll set out to do that.”

Which direction the Sox go at shortstop becomes one of the top questions for the team this offseason. And the next steps for a shortstop in their system, 2021 first-round pick Colson Montgomery, remain to be seen.

Rated the organization’s top prospect by MLB.com, Montgomery entered Tuesday with a .244/.302/.423 slash line, three home runs and 20 RBIs in 19 games during the Arizona Fall League. He earned Fall Stars Game MVP honors Sunday in Mesa, Ariz. The 21-year-old played most of his games in 2023 at Double-A Birmingham.

“He’s been the talk of the Arizona Fall League,” Getz said. “Not just the White Sox talking, other organizations as well. That just speaks to his potential and how much he’s getting better and every time he goes out and plays, I don’t want to set limitations on a Colson Montgomery. He’s a guy that is very unique and has the ability to be a special player at the major-league level. He’s finishing strong in the fall league.

“We hope for a productive offseason out of him. He’s still growing into his body. But he’s played a pretty solid shortstop here in the fall league. He has some zone awareness, he has a hit tool, he has some power he’s tapping into so he has a chance to be a well-rounded player. I don’t want to have the expectation for Colson to think he’s going to be our Opening Day shortstop, but I also don’t want to cap anything for him either because it’s important for him to stay motivated and be ready to go in spring training, because who knows how 2024 unravels for him.”

()

Pamela Paul: It’s not kids with the cellphone problem. It’s parents

posted in: News | 0

The hardest rule I ever set for my kids was refusing them cellphones until high school.

I’d seen the research on the doleful effects of social media, screens and surveillance parenting on kids’ mental, physical and cognitive well-being. If it turns out that the data is wrong, I figured, they will have survived a mild deprivation in their relatively privileged lives and provided fodder for a future therapist’s couch.

“How did you manage?!” other parents asked, and I knew exactly what they meant. Much as parents don’t want to admit it, we need — or it feels like we need — our kids to have a phone.

They’ll be safer walking to school, we tell ourselves — fully aware that should they be hit by a car or snatched away, they won’t be texting Mom about the situation. Even in a school shooting, cellphones have as much potential for danger as they do for safety.

We tell ourselves the phone will give our kids a sense of independence, even though phone trackers let us know exactly where they are. It will teach our kids to be responsible, even though we pay the bill.

We may genuinely believe these little lies; we may just love the convenience. Phones let kids check the forecast themselves rather than yell for a weather report while getting dressed. Phones let kids distract themselves rather than distract us when we’re on our phones.

As much as we lament the besotted, agonized, needy relationship our kids have with their phones, that same phone lets parents off the hook. If we screw something up, we can always text: Remember your grandfather’s birthday! Don’t forget violin. So sorry, I can’t pick you up this afternoon. You forgot your Chromebook!

The news that some districts are cracking down on cellphones is thus a bewildering case of competing interests among kids, administrators, teachers, parents and other parents. It overturns many pro-tech school policies embraced before COVID and resorted to during lockdown. It’s also the smartest thing schools can do, and it’s about time it got done.

Years ago, schools largely rolled over on tech in the name of inculcating “21st-century skills.” Schools boasted Chromebooks for every child, wired education, all kinds of apps. According to the Department of Education, as of 2020, about 77% of schools prohibited nonacademic cellphone use. Note the caveat “nonacademic”; many schools had simply integrated phones into their curriculum.

When my kids were in middle school, for example, teachers repeatedly told kids to take photos of assignments; in science, recording images on cellphones was part of the lesson. In The Atlantic, Mark Oppenheimer described one school that “made no pretense of trying to control phone usage, and absurdly tried to make a virtue of being aggressively tech-forward by requiring phones for trivial tasks: At the beginning of the term, you had to scan a QR code to add or drop a course.”

Little surprise, then, that a new study by Common Sense Media found that 97% of teen and preteen respondents said they use their phones during the school day, for a median of 43 minutes, primarily for social media, gaming and YouTube. According to the authors, students reported that policies about phone use in schools vary — sometimes from classroom to classroom — and aren’t always enforced.

Now the enforcers are coming in. As Natasha Singer reported recently in The New York Times, Florida has issued a statewide prohibition against student cellphone use in the classroom, and school districts elsewhere — including those in South Portland, Maine, and Charlottesville, Virginia — have made similar moves. One district in Florida, Orange County, went so far as to ban phones during the school day entirely. The not-shocking result: less bullying, increased student engagement, even actual eye contact among students and teachers in the hallway.

We should know this by now. In 2018, a secondary school in Ireland decided to ban cellphones altogether. The result: a significant increase in student face-to-face social interactions. “It’s hard to measure, but we find the place has a happier atmosphere for everyone,” one administrator told The Irish Times.

It’s not the school’s job to police kids’ phone habits, something parents are acutely aware isn’t easy. And that gets to the thorny crux of the issue: Parents are often the problem. When one group of parents in my district confronted the administration about its lax policy toward cellphones, the principal said whenever he raised the issue, parents were the ones who complained. How would they reach their children?!

But if we expect our kids to comply with no-phones policies, we’ve got to get over the deprivation. Our own parents would just call the front office — in an emergency. Not because they wanted to make sure we remembered to walk the dog.

And really, if we’re trying to teach kids to be safe, responsible and independent, shouldn’t we give them the leeway to do so? Phones don’t teach kids these values; parents do.

For schools to enact what research overwhelmingly shows benefits students, we parents have to back them up. When parents say our kids are the ones with the cellphone problem, we’re just kidding ourselves.

Pamela Paul writes a column for the New York Times.

Related Articles

Opinion |


F.D. Flam: Useless decongestants are just the tip of the iceberg

Opinion |


Thomas Friedman: I have never been to this Israel before

Opinion |


Rehman, Ruby: American Muslims and Jews must stand together amid tragedies in Middle East

Opinion |


Colin P. Clarke: How jihadist groups are using the Israel-Hamas war to inspire and recruit lone wolf extremists

Opinion |


Leonard Greene: MLK rightly said Israel has a right to exist, but it’s not anti-Semitic to seek peace in Gaza