Charles Schwab suggestion to Bush

Discussion in 'Trading' started by optionsplayer, Oct 27, 2002.

  1. This forum is great for obtaining legitimate information. I was wondering if anyone out there has links or a reference to the latest developments on changing the maximum allowance allowed for capital loss/tax write offs. There has been much speculation in recent months that the current $3,000 ceiling would be raised. This issue came up awhile back at an economic summit that George Bush attended. Charles Schwab brought the issue up and said that it is only reasonable to do this.
  2. LOL

    i guess bush really f^cked us this time...
  3. This is the annual tax loss you can apply to any sort of income after taking a capital loss.

    Let's say you take a $60,000 capital loss on bad investments in 2002. Assuming, you have no past or future capital gains to offset this, you're only able to apply a $3,000 tax write off against your income for the next 20 years.

    This gets ridiculous if you have lets say a $3,000,000 capital loss one year. It's not like you'll live 1000 years to recieve the full write off.
  4. Which is exactly why they intend to leave things as is. How many elderly people will never fully deduct their investment losses from 2000-02?

  5. js1257


    I believe that this was brought up way before schwab happened to mention it again.Its more of a congress and senate thing that these will not happen. They think that the American people are an ATM. If they (congress and senate) would pass more business incentives, lower taxes some more and raise the ceiling on losses among over incentives it might kick start the economy. But with the democrats wanting to raise taxes again to throw the money away on uesless crap. Instead of complaining on this board why don't you spend some time writing your senator and congress person let them know that they need to help get this country rolling again and that their job is to the American people and not their reelections.
  6. Are you trying to say the elected representatives of the people do not read Elite Trader?

    I'll never believe that one for a second.
  7. the congress is rumbling about repealing the tax cut and giving checks to those that did not quailify for the $300 tax "rebate" checks. i guess it doesnt matter that they didnt pay any taxes? once again, absolute proof of the rich getting all the breaks. you pay $50,000 in taxes and get a $300 check and the guy that doesnt pay any taxes, and in fact might have gotten a "refund" via his original return, does not the extra $300 that they didnt pay in the first place. like he has una esposa, seis ninos and minimum wage job! que lastima! pinche gringos!

    and the estate taxes. what a shame for people with no estates, or estates that dont exceed the max. once again, the rich make out if they die in 2010(?)! that is the craziest law ever passed!

    if the democrats get control of congress the bush presidency is cooked... but, he's no better than the rest... we havent had a decent president since "ronnie baby." like him or hate him, at least he belived in something.

    so you pay taxes on everyting you make in the year, but can only offset $3,000 with losses... sounds about right for this screwed-up congress!

    as more and more people sneak into this country illiegally and gain the right to vote via their bambinos, more and more onerous tax legislation will be passed. you should have to own at least $50,000 in real property to earn the right to vote.

    i dont think the $3,000 limit will be increased!
  8. Trajan


    Some R's in the house tried to get it passed before the election but the D's in the Senate wouldn't have taken it up anyway. Bush didn't push for it. His economic team has done a piss poor job. Last I heard they might try and throw it in with next year's budget.
  9. True, there's no 3k loss limitation in MTM trader status, since it's not a capital loss but an ordinary income loss.
  10. as a further insult, I believe that the capital loss carryforward vanishes when the individual dies. a tax debt, on the other hand...
    #10     Oct 28, 2002