Why a “Stretch IRA” Simply Begs the Real Question (PART 2)

Why a “Stretch IRA” Simply Begs the Real Question (PART 2)

Let’s begin by stating the bottom-line issue when it comes to a “Stretch IRA”:  to ensure the transfer of all or at least the lion’s share of qualified plan money that you’ll leave to your beloved heirs. In fact that’s the only reason. While I haven’t met anyone yet who’s even remotely thrilled about the idea of their heirs having to share their inheritance with the IRS, a “Stretch IRA” – get this – will not solve that issue. Actually, given the real-life facts on the ground, “Stretch IRAs” don’t even begin to scratch the surface of the income-tax dilemma for two simple reasons:

Issue #1: Mission Control, We Have a Tax-Rate Problem

The plain and simple fact is that “tax rate” is completely irrelevant here, in the sense that whatever the tax rate happens to be is exactly what it will be. Just because someone uses the “Stretch” option doesn’t mean that they’ll end up with more money than the person who did not use that option. That’s simple, basic Income Tax 101. Again, ‘Stretch IRA’s” don’t have any special lower tax rates, period!

The only scenario under which I could see a benefit of some sort is in the highly unlikely situation of tax rates actually decreasing down the road – after the “Stretch” period begins. However, given where we are fiscally as a nation, it would be foolish, quite frankly, for anyone to think that income-tax rates are going to be trending downward.

All of which means the much more likely scenario is that tax rates will increase. If you’re honest, you know this is true, don’t you? If that were to happen, where does that leave “Stretch IRAs” as a solution? Think about it in the light of this little hint: we presently have a temporary extension of our historically low tax rates. What do you really suspect will happen next? You need to understand that all “Stretch IRAs” do is permit beneficiaries to withdraw small amounts – BUT they must pay income-tax at the “prevailing rate” at that time of each withdrawal. Are you beginning to see how stepping back from all the hype and actually breaking things down brings clarity?

Issue #2: Sorry, But the Choice Is NOT Yours.

This is extremely important to understand. The decision of whether to “Stretch” or not ultimately rests with your beneficiaries. Think about it – the owner must be deceased for the decision even to apply. Remember our example in Part 1 of this series? It was George Junior (not George Senior) who called that shot? Again, that’s another fact of life.

From what I’ve seen as a practicing financial professional, whenever beneficiaries are faced with the choice of how to withdraw their inherited IRA money, for some strange reason they always opt to take all of it out ASAP!! While there may be several reasons for this phenomenon, I’m quite sure it’s also because they realize at that point that a “Stretch IRA” is not really a solution. In fact, if you were George Junior from Part 1, would you have opted for the “Stretch IRA” (Option 3)?

This reminds me of a fascinating story my late grandfather told me when I was a young boy. You’ll love it! 

Due to extreme famine in their land, Ananse convinced Ted and Mike, who happened to be twin brothers, to go hunt for food with him. After all, they all needed to survive. They scouted the land for several hours, when Ted and Mike each found an orange. Ananse, on the other hand, came up with nothing – because all he did was take a nice long nap under the shade of a large oak tree the entire time. Mind you, Ted and Mike were unaware of Ananse’s napping.

Ananse woke and, finding that Ted and Mike had secured some food, suggested that the brothers give up one whole orange for him while they split the other in half between them; Ted would get half and Mike the other half. Of course, the brothers rejected that offer outright. But Ananse came up with a fresh suggestion that would allow each of the brothers to keep their respective oranges. However, since all of them had gone hunting together, Ananse told them it was fitting and proper for each brother to share with him by giving him half of their respective oranges. To that they complied. You see, the thing about Anase is that he always got what he wanted, one way or the other – and made his victims felt good about it until after the fact.

The moral of my story? “Stretch IRAs” beg the real question – they always have and always will. Here’s the thing: Did you know there are simple, straightforward changes you could make TODAY that wouldn’t cost you anything more than you’re already spending, irrespective of your age, health, or wealth and that can help ensure that your heirs will receive their inheritance completely income-tax free? Yes, there are!

_____________
Contact a financial professional at Laser Financial Group TODAY to schedule your no-strings, complimentary session to discuss which sort of plan will work best for YOUR needs. We're guessing it's NOT a ""Stretch IRA."  LaserFG.com or 301.949.4449.

Why a “Stretch IRA” Simply Begs the Real Question (PART 1)

Why a “Stretch IRA” Simply Begs the Real Question (PART 1)

Let’s say – hypothetically speaking – that at the time of his death in 2010, George Senior owned a traditional IRA worth $200,000, and his 39-year-old son, George Junior, was the sole beneficiary.

 As is generally the situation with all pre-tax (or qualified) plans such as 401(k)s, 403(b)s, and the like, George Junior must pay income-tax on the entire $200,000. A very important caveat to note here is that I am limiting this discussion to income tax only. I am ignoring federal and state estate taxes, as well as inheritance taxes, because while those may or may not apply, Junior and everyone who inherits any qualified plan must at the very least pay income tax. There’s no way around that.

Generally speaking, all the income tax must be paid within five years of the account owner’s death. So pretty much, George Junior could withdraw the entire $200,000 in one year or spread it out any way he desires, as long as that happens by December 31^st of the fifth year – which would be 2015 in this scenario.

Now let’s keep things really simple by holding all other variables constant and assume a combined federal and state tax rate of 25 percent as we consider the various options available to George Junior.

Option 1: If George Junior decided to withdraw the entire $200,000 in 2011, he’d have to send the IRS an income tax check for $50,000 (25 percent of $200,000), giving him $150,000 to keep.

Option 2: On the other hand, let’s say Junior decided to spread the $200,000 out equally over the five-year legal timeline. Each year, he’d withdraw $40,000, then pay 25 percent tax ($10,000), therefore ending up with $30,000 a year. Doing the quick math, at the end of those five years he’d have paid a total of $50,000 ($10,000 a year for 5 years) in income tax, keeping a total of $150,000. Pretty interesting, wouldn’t you agree? But there is a third option available to Junior.

Option 3: The Pension Protection Act of 2006 allows George Junior to do what is known as a “Stretch IRA.” As the name implies, Junior could “stretch” the $200,000 over his entire life expectancy – as determined by Table 1 (Single Life Expectancy for Use by Beneficiaries) in Appendix C of IRS Publication 590. Here’s how that works:

In 2011, George Junior turns 40. According to Table 1, his life expectancy is 43.6 years. Since the value of his inherited IRA (or any other qualified plan, for that matter) at the end of 2010 (the year his father died) was $200,000, he’d divide that by 43.6 to arrive at $4,587. That is the minimum amount he must withdraw in 2011. And if George Junior withdrew this $4,587, he’d owe the IRS $1,147 (25 percent of $4,587) in income-tax, and would therefore end up with a net amount of $3,440. At the end of 2011, his inherited IRA would have a new balance of $195,413 ($200,000 less the $4,587 he withdrew).

Then, come 2012 the amount Junior must withdraw would be based on the ending 2011 balance of $195,413, divided by 42.6 (2011’s divisor of 43.6 reduced by 1 year because he’s now a year older, or 41). That math yields a result of $4,587. So George Junior must now withdraw $4,587, pay 25 percent income-tax (which is $1,147), and end up with $3,440. We are now at the end of 2012, at which point Junior’s inherited IRA is now worth $190,826 – the previous balance of $195,413 less the $4,587 he just withdrew. I recognize that things are really beginning to get interesting, but bear with me a little further and let’s go through the complete scenario – so that you can fully appreciate my viewpoint.

There’s a saying that three times is the charm, so let’s see what happens in 2013. We take the 2012 ending balance of $190,826 and divide by 41.6 (remember, we must reduce it by 1). That amount turns out to be $4,587. With a 25 percent tax ($1,147) George Junior will have a net amount of $3,440 to spend in 2013.

As simple as we have kept our assumptions, I believe you can follow the general direction of what is happening under all three options. The REAL question for debate, though, is whether “Stretch IRAs” provide a tax solution or benefit – because that’s the only reason anyone would pursue them.

In my next column, I’ll share my thoughts on that question, but for now, what do YOU think about the options? By the way, just in case you were wondering whether your age appears on Table 1, it covers every age from zero through 111 years.
________________
Schedule a complimentary session with a licensed professional at Laser Financial Group to discuss whether a stretch IRA may or may not be right for you. LaserFG.com or 301.949.4449.

Are Variable Investments Ever Safe?

Are Variable Investments Ever Safe?

The vast majority of conventional financial advisors seem to one way or the other suggest that variable investments could be safe – if you play your cards right, so to speak. They seem to suggest that pretty much all you need to do is ensure that you have the right asset allocation, or a well-diversified/balanced portfolio. And then be sure to keep rebalancing every so often.

Plain and simple, I’d say that line of thought is completely preposterous. Before I explain, let me point out that I don’t fault you – as an investor – if you subscribed to this theory up until today. The fact is that when almost everyone around you repeats the same refrains or behaviors for years (however ill-advised they might be) you’re more inclined to subscribe to them without even realizing it.

What Is a Variable Investment?

I define a variable investment as any investment that varies directly with the stock market. Sure, such an investment could shoot way up, within the twinkling of an eye – or at least, shall we say, that’s the hope. On the other hand, though, the opposite is also true, isn’t it? The same investment could take a nosedive, couldn’t it? 

Conventional theorists believe that if your portfolio is well-balanced or you mix your investments correctly, you won’t have to worry – which I must admit sounds pretty good, in theory. In reality, however, variable means variable, period! So putting a bunch of variable investments together, regardless of how well or how often you balance them, does not, has not, and will never eliminate the fact that they are variable, and that you could therefore lose everything (including the seed money you started with) at any time! Has such a thing happened in recent memory? I don’t believe I need to say any more on that, do I?

Absolutely No One Knows the Supposed Correct Allocation or Mix – NO ONE!

Unfortunately, many investors seem to miss this point. Then, whenever the stock market goes through a major downward spiral, the best explanation they usually receive from their traditional financial advisors is that they should have had the “correct asset allocation” or “proper diversification mix.” BUT, if  anyone – including all the experts, commentators, and gurus – knew or has ever had that silver bullet, why in the world would they wait only to reveal it after the fact – every time? Does that make any sense to you, whatsoever? In this country, we refer to such behavior as Monday-morning quarterbacking for a reason. Who can’t assess what went wrong in hindsight? Seriously?

So, What Must You Do?

It’s about time you stopped chasing baseless, porous theories that could potentially damage your financial assets at the time you need them most. I would encourage you as an investor to take a pause and really – I mean really – begin to focus on what will matter most above all else at the end of the day – reliable, consistent income for life. Wouldn’t you agree that you must use investments that make sense and have actually proven reliable, as opposed to leaving things to pure chance? 

Bear in mind that more likely than not, you may have to resort to alternatives that are deemed to be “unpopular,” but let’s face it: the popular thing seems to be that most retirees, after all those years of saving, planning, and “diversifying,” end up with nervousness and constant financial worry. Who wouldn’t if their life savings were variable? Irrespective of where you are in life, you can correct your undesirable investing woes with the right help, so go for it!

__________________
Contact a professional at Laser Financial group today to schedule your complimentary consultation. We'll help you explore proven, common-sense avenues for you to protect your retirement income, rather than trying to balance and rebalance it, leaving it at the whim of the stock market. 301.949.4449 or LaserFG.com.

Why It’s UNECESSARY for Retirees to Relocate Because of State Income Tax

Why It’s UNECESSARY for Retirees to Relocate Because of State Income Tax

Allow me to clarify: I’m not trying to suggest to retirees where they should retire. Rather, I’m doing the exact opposite – empowering them with the freedom to choose to retire wherever they’d like, instead of feeling they MUST relocate for the mere reason of avoiding outrageous state income taxes. 

In my humble opinion, traditional financial advice has been dead wrong for decades — and this very subject proves my point. People spend all their lives working, planning, and saving for retirement. And then, just when they should have the freedom to enjoy the fruits of their lives’ work, they are faced with deciding whether to move to a different state for the sole reason of avoiding income taxes so that they can have more spendable income. In fact, certain members of the financial press proudly direct “endangered” retirees toward tax-friendlier states (and away from the tax hawks) so that they can keep more of their money.

Here’s the shocking thing, though. It is completely unnecessary to move just so you can enjoy your retirement income tax free, both on the federal and state levels. Unbelievable, isn’t it?

It’s no secret that Title 26 — which is a fancy name for the U.S. Tax Code — allows every American taxpayer who so wishes to fund specific nonqualified vehicles. These funds can then be accessed later (in this case, for retirement) without creating what the IRS considers a “taxable event,” meaning every penny at the federal level will be income-tax free. What’s more, since funds accessed in that manner are not counted as “earned,” “passive,” or “portfolio” income under the 1986 Tax Reform Act, they are not factored into calculation of one’s “provisional income” — meaning, they will not affect taxation of social security checks in any manner. Pardon those technical terms, but the bottom line here is that by properly setting up and using the right funding vehicle, you could have completely income tax-free money under federal tax laws.

But this whole discussion is really about state income taxes. That’s even simpler and more amazing. You see, 35 out of the 41 states that levy income taxes use your Federal Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) from line 37 on Form 1040,  line 21 on Form 1040A, or line 4 if you use Form 1040EZ, as the starting point for determining your state tax. I know you are smart, so can already see that since those funds assessed from the nonqualified options described above are not included in your federal AGI, neither will they be included in your state numbers. Therefore, by simply following and exercising your legal duty under our tax laws, you can avoid federal and state income taxes. Boy, oh boy, aren’t simplicity and common sense just elegant?

I’m pretty certain that you have some sort of savings program set aside for your golden years. But have you discussed — in detail — exactly how those funds might be taxed or otherwise affected later on? Of course, we can never predict the future with 100 percent accuracy, but wouldn’t you agree that anything short of a detailed simulation would be irresponsible and potentially catastrophic? It’s time to start discussing it so that you know exactly where you’re headed!

Of course, it’s your decision and your decision alone as to where you ultimately live in your retirement. But wouldn’t you agree with me that that sort of decision shouldn’t be driven by income tax considerations? Especially after a lifetime of hard work? In my opinion, enjoying a comfortable retirement must include absolute control over wherever YOU decide to live. 
_________________
Contact a professional at Laser Financial Group today to set your risk-free, complimentary appointment to discuss ways to preserve your retirement income so that you can live comfortably wherever YOU want to, when the time comes. 301.949.4449 or LaserFG.com.

Dear So-Called Experts, It’s Time to Quit Being Ridiculous

Dear So-Called Experts, It’s Time to Quit Being Ridiculous


On his February 5th radio show, financial expert and guru, Ric Edelman, responded to a query from a man named Robert who called the show to confirm the validity of a claim by Vanguard (which happens to be a direct competitor of Mr. Edelman) that one of their mutual funds has a total annual expense of 0.06 percent. Mr. Edelman’s response was that the claim by Vanguard was “a little disingenuous.”

Mr. Edelman then went on to explain to the listening public that all mutual funds have other hidden costs, averaging about 1.4 percent annually. The guru added, in conclusion, “So in addition to the 0.06 percent, add another 1.4.” Essentially, Mr. Edelman accused Vanguard of lying – after all, who else is more qualified to do so than the star of a radio show called The Truth about Money?

Critical Take-Aways

Of course fees matter – a lot – as I recently indicated. In fact, Ric Edelman brings up an important point regarding the hidden costs associated with most (I didn’t say all) mutual funds.

Now, having said that, Ric Edelman’s characterization was completely bogus, ridiculous, and misleading! Why would I say such a thing? Because the specific mutual fund which he basically discredited does indeed have a total annual expense of 0.06 percent – with no other hidden fees. Mr. Edelman completely dropped the ball (as do several other so-called industry experts) by playing, quite frankly, the irresponsible-generalization game.

As I noted couple Mondays ago, one area where this generalization nonsense must be avoided at all costs is in the arena of personal finance/investing. Shouldn’t financial professionals of any caliber know that two mutual funds, or insurance policies, or annuity contracts, or mortgages, or any other financial products for that matter, are NOT the same – even if they are in the same category or sold by the very same provider – unless they have specific data to back up such a claim?

One can only wonder if Mr. Edelman’s response to Robert’s question has something more sinister to do with the fact that the mutual funds he actively markets to his clients charge much higher fees than the one he discredited without any basis whatsoever? The answer: of course it does.

Personally, I wonder why the first thing on Mr. Edelman’s website (in the largest font size) are the words: The Nation’s #1 Independent Financial Advisor, while the equally critical piece of information about the criterion for that status is – in my opinion – hidden in the footnote section (in the smallest font size)? Is it because that #1 status is based on factors like “contribution to the firm’s profitability,” and “the volume of assets overseen by the advisors and their teams” without any mention of actually having customers who are successfully achieving their financial goals? You’d think it would be all about the client, wouldn’t you? The site also references the radio show on which this incident occurred: “…answers your questions, giving you comprehensive, educational advice that is both entertaining and useful…” You are smart, so you make that call.

The Bottom Line

Whichever financial product(s) you decide to own is/are guaranteed always to come in three forms: terrible, so-so, and great.

Stay as far away as you possibly can from anyone who makes unintelligent statements such as: “Mutual funds are bad/good,” or “So-and-so product is terrible/awesome.” Savvy investors (and true professionals) know that until you have a specific case in front of you, with a side-by-side comparison, you are simply blowing smoke. A truly serious professional would take your specific scenario, analyze it, give you specific, factual, and realistic evidence, supporting or otherwise, about a specific product – not a class of products. Once they do so, you as the investor can make your own decision. You see, the reason some investors are as confused as heck is because of these baseless, emotionally charged, and quite often, untrue and self-serving opinions.

Don’t fall for the hype. Empty barrels usually make the most noise. And the most vocal people are not necessarily right, are they? I must point out, though, that after taking some pounding, Mr. Edelman’s show has since removed his statement that Vanguard was basically lying from its podcast of the show. Looking back at the radio show’s description which I referenced earlier, it doesn’t claim to be unbiased or objective. So maybe we shouldn’t assume that it is.
_________
Contact us today for a complimentary, unbiased information session about your personal investments and retirement plan. Laser Financial Group or 301.949.4449.

More IRA, Less Tax – Act Now (If You Desire to Be Potentially Clobbered in the Future)

More IRA, Less Tax – Act Now (If You Desire to Be Potentially Clobbered in the Future)


With Tax Day quickly approaching, it’s not out of the ordinary to hear all sorts of “expert” advice on how taxpayers can outsmart the IRS. A great number of tax preparers, CPAs, and other advisors are busy convincing retirement investors that it’s a savvy move to contribute to an IRA, because by so doing they’ll “save” on taxes. In fact, today’s column is motivated by an ongoing major advertising campaign by a national financial institution/bank. Their tag line states: “More IRA, Less Tax, Act Now...”

That might sound pretty catchy, and we know it is an emotional hot button. Or is it, really? As someone who works with real-life retirement investors, half-baked theories like this turn my stomach because all they do is create ticking tax time bombs for unsuspecting investors. Yes, it’s true that by funding an IRA you’ll pay less tax today. But is that the end of the story? Of course, not! It’s just the beginning of potential tax nightmares later on.

You see, these IRAs simply defer (or postpone or delay) the due date for those taxes until you begin withdrawing the funds for your retirement, either out of your own accord or by IRS mandate, once you reach age 70½ . At that point, you must pay taxes on every single dollar you pull out of that IRA. Here’s the kicker, though: At what tax rate? The simple answer: Whatever tax rate is in effect at the time those funds come out.

Proponents of this short-sighted IRA theory might argue that since you’ll be retired – with no mortgage to pay and no children to support – you’ll need only a little income (i.e., very little income) compared to what you need today. It’s therefore only logical that your tax rate also will be much less, thereby beating the IRS at its own game. This is seriously their claim! I think it’s ridiculous, at best – and I really don’t want to digress. But on the issue of “How much retirement income will I need?” let me say this (again, from real-life experience): That line of thinking might hold true, but only for folks who intend to retire with front-row seats to their TV sets. If you intend to have any kind of life, “very little income” just isn’t going to cut it.

Have you ever wondered why the vast majority of retirees who own these IRAs keep complaining, year after year, about being butchered by the IRS? With no mortgage interest deductions (because it’s paid off), no dependent exemptions (because the kids are now responsible adults claiming their own exemptions), and no more IRA contributions (because harvest time has arrived), your three major income-reducing items completely evaporate overnight. As a result, even with a much lower total income, these retirees’ taxable incomes skyrocket. And the really bad news here (or great news, if you’re Uncle Sam) is that taxes are based on taxable income. Pretty interesting how things work, isn’t it?

And, oh, did I mention that every dollar that comes out of these IRAs (whether voluntarily or mandated by IRS rules), directly impacts how much your Social Security checks will be taxed also? Talk about a double whammy!

I know, you thought you were doing the right thing with your IRA, and I don’t blame you, given the advice you likely received – but here’s one more very important variable to consider before jumping on the IRA bandwagon. Remember that the actual amount of tax you end up paying is a function of your taxable income AND your tax rate. It’s no secret that today’s tax rates are a “temporary extension” of “historically low” rates. So, where do you believe rates are headed after the “temporary” period ends (in the face of our humongous national debt, not to mention the astronomical issues facing Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security)? One way, of course: UP! Is it really a great idea to delay paying taxes today on your seed money, only to pay them in the future on your entire harvest? Think about that!

What's the Alternative?

Wouldn’t it make more sense to go ahead and pay the tax on your seed money at today’s historically low rates? Then tuck it away in accounts that, going forward, you’ll never, ever have to worry about paying any income taxes on again (including all your gains)? And you’ll be in absolute control (without the IRS telling you when you may or may not touch those funds)? And regardless of how much you withdraw, it will not impact taxation of your Social Security checks in any manner? And when, at death, you pass the remainder on to your beneficiaries, they will receive the inheritance completely income-tax free, also? Wouldn’t most Americans consider that a smarter, better approach?

At this point, you may be starting to understand why I said this IRA theory makes my stomach turn. If you don’t quite get it yet, that’s okay – but please print and keep a copy of this column somewhere, because sooner or later, you’ll understand. The thing is, the alternatives I just generally described are available in the exact same tax code that others have read, only to come up with the not-so-smart idea of IRAs.
_____________
Please contact a representative at Laser Financial Group today to schedule your complimentary consultation about how to realistically preserve the most funds for your retirement, without having to pay a higher tax rate “later on.” 310.949.4449 or LaserFG.com.

Why G.E. Made Billions, Yet Paid NOTHING to the IRS (and How You Can, Too)

Why G.E. Made Billions, Yet Paid NOTHING to the IRS (and How You Can, Too)


One of the huge stories of late has to do with the fact that General Electric (G.E.), America’s largest corporation, paid nothing – as in zip, nada, nil – in taxes to the IRS, in spite of raking in $14.2 billion (with a “B”) in profits last year. What’s more, according to The New York Times, G.E. claimed $3.2 billion (again with a “B”) in tax benefits. 

Bet you’re wondering, “What in the world is going on here?” This news story sounds great as a sound bite because of the emotional twists associated with it.

First and foremost G.E.’s CEO, Jeffrey R. Immelt, is the Chairman of President Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competiveness. And as if that were not enough, from the look of things, they seem to be very close buddies.

Secondly, companies and individuals who made much, much, much less money last year mailed tax checks up the wazoo to the IRS.

Inasmuch as this may seem unfair (or whatever other adjective you choose to apply), the reality is that, as far as we know, G.E. hasn’t done anything illegal! The completely-legal-nothing-wrong situation here is that G.E.’s profits/income/revenue are NOT taxable under American tax laws. I think this statement by John Krenicki, one of G.E.’s Vice Presidents, sums it up pretty well: “We pay what we owe.” The thing is, they owe nothing by law, and I’m not aware of anyone or any corporation who’d pay taxes they didn’t have to.

All that aside, what everyone needs to fully understand – and I mean fully – is that when it comes to taxes in America, “total income” (or the amount of money one makes), is irrelevant, so to speak. Instead, the magic number is “taxable income” (or the portion of that total income that is considered taxable). If you haven’t already done so, you’ve got to read Mistake #1 in my book, 5 Mistakes Your Financial Advisor Is Making – which, by the way, is available to you as a free resource. 

I’ve said this several times in the past, but it’s worth noting again: just because someone makes more money than you do doesn’t imply that they’ll pay more taxes than you. Over the years, I’ve witnessed so many folks – including some so-called financial experts – make the rather sad and completely avoidable mistake of thinking that paying taxes is and/or has to be logical. News flash: it’s not! And GET THIS, once and for all: tax obligation depends on which portion of one’s income is considered taxable (or non-taxable) under IRS rules, period!

Here’s a Suggestion for YOU!

Why don’t you structure your affairs so that your retirement income is deemed non-taxable by the IRS to the largest extent possible, instead of simply employing the traditional 401(k)s, 403(b)s, and IRAs which just defer/delay/postpone your taxes? That way, regardless of how large or small your income may be, your tax bill would legally be zero – just like G.E., in this instance.

Then, you can decide to donate whatever YOU wish to the IRS – they’ll never turn that down, I guarantee it! Or you might decide not to do that, and there will be nothing illegal, unethical, or even unpatriotic about it. That’s what we help our clients achieve (minus the donation part). We let them decide that on their own.

A Judge named Learned Hand (1872-1961) served more than 50 years on the federal bench, many of those years as the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. He wrote something I would like you to consider very carefully:

“There are two systems of taxation in our country: one for the informed and one for the uninformed.”

Are you informed – or dealing with financial professionals who are informed? If not, isn’t it time you start?
____________________
For your complimentary session to explore your options regarding a tax-free life and/or retirement income, please contact Laser Financial Group today at 301.949.4449 or visit us on the Web at laserfg.com.