Financial Advisor In Pennsylvania

He sits there and says he is for the free market economy while he works hard to undermine it?

Just like he said he would give Congress and the public the chance to check out bills, 2 weeks after passage he said so the public can look before he ever even signs it. Not true, absolutely the opposite he's done.

He pledged transparency, is he talking about why he gave billions of our money to Hamas? ACORN? The criminal Belgian Billionaire George Soros of the fringe web site moveon.org and the communist group Center for American progress, for off shore drilling when he won't allow us to do it?

He said he would cut taxes yet he's proposed measures that will increase taxes.

He told them in Pennsylvania that nothing he did would affect coal production and put them in a hurt, not true.

He said he would look forward and get away from the nasty rhetoric in Washington and be everyone's president without favoritism. Then he had Holder drop slam dunk charges with video evidence of voter intimidation by armed black panthers in front of a polling place yelling at and intimidating white people. He had Holder start another investigation of the CIA, which he said he would not do. He used ACORN and SEIU to intimidate AIG exec's who his own administration said were legally entitled to their bonuses, which is the primary method of payment. They went to their homes and scared the heck out of them until they gave up what they were legally entitled to. People who had nothing to do with the mortgage backed security mess, that fanny freddy run by democrats and the democrats who forced loans to high risk borrowers were responsible for anyway, and he said nothing about those, in fact was the biggest recipient of campaign cash from Fannie and Freddy, (run by democrats Gorelick and Reins, Reins being his primary financial adviser) the HIGHEST RECIPIENT OF CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THESE INSTITUTIONS WHO SCREWED US ALL, during his time in office.

I could sit and write a book on this crap right here.

When is enough, enough? Why doesn't Obama and his rouge associations in what is prima fascia crimes get investigated?
Link to a better source than NBC ABC CBS or CNN:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index? qid=20090914103049AAwAHIR

factcheck.org is dishonest partisan crap

Congresses own information sources appointed by democrats, the congressional research center. admit illegals would be covered by the health care bill, and the CBO insists that the costs of the bill are extremely higher than Obama Administration estimates ... no big shock there huh?

They undershoot everything to make it seem not so bad, but the truth hits and it hurts!

What snoobling said is accurate. Most of which anyone watching Obama talk, then knowing what his administration has done would know without having to look any further. Funny how the obvious is denied by his sycophants. Sure sign of a fascist group in play.

2009-09-14 10:30:49 by snoobling

Kingdom Financial Group Inc www.localedge.com Short Term Financial Goals, Budgeting,Financial Planning Firm, Faith Based, Insurance, Long Term ...

My 3 sisters and I have inherited 3 accounts from our mother who passed away last October. We are meeting with an Edward Jones advisor this week (this is my mother's advisor, so all the accounts with the exception of the 401K are with him) so I'd like to get some advice so I go into the meeting with a little bit of knowledge. The three accounts are a traditional IRA with around $30,000, a roth with $7500, and a 401K with about $35,000.

What are we going to do with all of this??? One sister needs money direly right now. I would not mind having a little bit to pay off an annoying credit card (less than $2000) and saving/investing the rest, and the other 2 sisters are in the same boat as me.

A little info that may be helpful: We are in Pennsylvania. My mother was 55 when she passed, and my sisters and I range in age from 26 to 35. Another question that was asked of us by a random financial guy my sister met was that we would need to know whether the accounts are qualified or unqualified. I have no idea what this means, or if the accounts are or aren't but I presume the guy we will meet with will know this, but if someone could clarify this, that would help. Another question I have, is since (I assume) we will have to pay income taxes on all but the Roth (?) is it correct that since my husband and I fall into the 30% federal bracket, and my sisters are more around 15% that I will end up paying 30% of my inheritance in taxes while they will only pay 15%? I'm fine paying higher taxes but it seems unfair when talking about an inheritance. Just curious.

Thanks for any info. This is all rocket science to me and we are really confused, want to make sure we do the right thing. My mom worked very hard for what she had.

Here is a link to a Charles Schwab publication that should walk you through the process of inheriting a Roth IRA and Traditional IRA:

http://www.schwab.com/cms/P-1625576.0/in herited_ira_guide.pdf?cmsid=P-1625576&am p;cv1

Since you and your sisters constitute multiple beneficiaries, the rules get a little too complicated for the space allowed on Yahoo Answers, but I feel confident this document will arm you with the information you need going into your meeting.

As far as qualified and unqualified distributions go, I’m not an expert on Traditional IRAs, but it’s probably not much different from a Roth IRA, which I know inside and out.

Typically, with a Roth IRA, qualified distributions are withdrawals made by accountholders who reach age 59 ½ and meet the requirements of the 5 year rule. The 5 year rule basically states that the Roth IRA account has to opened and funded for at least 5 tax years.

For instance, let's say you open and fund a Roth IRA in 2004, so the clock starts ticking on 5 tax years… 2004… 2005… 2006… 2007… 2008… So by 2009, the account meets the 5 year rule because 5 tax years have passed.

In your case, as long as your mother opened the account prior to 2005, the distributions are qualified for the Roth IRA.

Why?

Because if the 5 year rule is met and the accountholder dies, it doesn't matter what age they are... the beneficiaries can withdraw all funds as qualified distributions or designate the Roth IRA account be transferred into separatel Roth IRAs held in the individual name of each beneficiary.

In your case, if you simply want to withdraw the funds from the Roth IRA, then as long as the account meets the 5 year rule, you shouldn’t owe a single penny in taxes or penalties.

My guess is that the Traditional IRA is not much different with the exception of income taxes. Even qualified distributions from a Traditional IRA trigger an income liability, since the original contributions were tax deductible. So you’ll probably owe income taxes. Your advisor will be able to tell you. My guess is that you will have to treat the distribution as normal income on your tax return which will probably make your income tax liability higher than that of your sisters who are in a lower bracket… Although, the addition of the inherited funds might push them into a higher bracket.

In the meantime, I’m not sure how the inheritance tax rules enter into this process, so check with a tax attorney.

Generally speaking 401k distributions are similar to Traditional IRA distributions, so you might have a similar income tax liability in regard to the 401k.

My advice?

Read the Charles Schwab information linked to above, and then listen to your Edward Jones advisor. Know enough to know what he/she is talking about so you’re not flying blind.

Next, don’t let the complicated financial jargon overwhelm you. Google “inherited ira” and “inherited 401k,” etc. and learn as much as you can on the Internet. It may seem like rocket science, but you can do it. I'm confident in you...!

Also, IRS publication 590, probably has some useful info as well:

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p590/ind ex.html

I’m sorry for your loss, and I hope this information helps you!

2009-09-01 07:48:43 by Ryan O

I just did some research to answer a Y/A! question and I found it to me interresting enough to merit it's own question. As a smoker, would you be willing to purchase a licence to smoke cigarettes? One of the links said that a government advisor proposed this in the UK. (My research pertains to the US)

Here's what my research revealed:

The FEDERAL cigarette tax will go up 62 cents to $1.01 April 1, 2009.
State taxes vary, of course. In Pennsylvania, the STATE tax will go up to $1.35 per pack ( ranking 21st among all states) on June 30, 2009. In additation are sales taxes (6% in PA) and some cities have additional sales tax (Allegheny and Philadelphia counties impose an additional 1% sales tax.)

$1.01 + 1.35 = $2.36 + 0.30 (6% on $5.00 pack) = $2.66 taxes per pack.

$2.66 per pack x 365 (pack-a-day habit) = $970.90 extra taxes paid every year to smoke.

If the government required smokers to buy a $1000 license each year to smoke, there probably would be a lot fewer smokers! Keep in mind, some states' cigarette taxes are even higher. (see links)

I'm not preaching from the pulpet; I, personally, am using this information to motivate myself to quit. What kind of fool am I for willingly giving the government more of my hard-earned money? And isn't that crazy when I look for every dollar I can find to lower the amount I owe to the IRS? Add to all the cigarette taxes the cost of the cigarettes themselves and it is simply ridiculous! (Not to mention how bad it is for my health). I just wish I didn't enjoy smoking as much as I do...... it would be so much easier. But now that I'm focusing on the TAX.....I think I have the motivation I need.

Wish me luck.
Source(s):
http://www.revenue.state.pa.us/revenue/c ...
http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/ ...
http://www.wkrg.com/financial/article/fe ...
http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforu ms/567-9344.aspx

Is there any point to implementing a law that is practically unenforceable?
As it is the courts are clogged up.

2009-03-19 14:49:24 by Yinzer from Sixburgh