If you've been selling everything at every vest event, then wash sale rules don't apply - essentially the IRS doesn't want you to claim a loss when you haven't effectively closed a position, and if you don't hold any shares, then you have closed the position. Your other two points - states don't do income tax calculations based on the grant, but only what vested while you lived/worked in the state in the respective year of the vesting. Basically you don't owe Michigan income tax for a given tax year if you didn't live or work in Michigan during that tax year.
I think it'd be good to visit with a CPA to cover some of these topics. I'm not saying definitely hire one but I think you may have misunderstandings of the tax codes.
>if you don't hold any shares, then you have closed the position.
Even if I acquire new shares < 30 days later?
My employer (Google) had a CPA give a recorded presentation about how to file RSU taxes. In it he said that the vests can was your sales, and this is especially prevalent if you have monthly vesting. This was a CPA who specializes in helping Google employees file taxes.
> Your other two points - states don't do income tax calculations based on the grant, but only what vested while you lived/worked in the state in the respective year of the vesting.
Also, that same CPA gave a different recorded presentation specifically about state-to-state RSU taxes, and he said that if you work from another state, you need to track the number of days between grant and vest that you work from that other state in order to properly attribute the earnings to non-resident states.
If they're vesting every month, there's a reasonable question of if the newly vested shares are replacement shares for the shares sold.
The IRS defines a wash sale with
> A wash sale occurs when you sell or trade stock or securities at a loss and within 30 days before or after the sale you:
> Buy substantially identical stock or securities,
> Acquire substantially identical stock or securities in a fully taxable trade,
> Acquire a contract or option to buy substantially identical stock or securities, or
> Acquire substantially identical stock for your individual retirement arrangement (IRA) or Roth IRA.
Is vesting RSUs acquiring shares in a fully taxable trade or buying stock? I don't know and never considered it, but the statute of limitations has run on my RSU days. I also didn't have monthly vests.
> Your other two points - states don't do income tax calculations based on the grant, but only what vested while you lived/worked in the state in the respective year of the vesting. Basically you don't owe Michigan income tax for a given tax year if you didn't live or work in Michigan during that tax year.
I don't know about Michigan, but California's Franchise Tax Board asserts that it is owed tax in tax years where RSUs vest if you lived or worked in California during the vesting period; even if you don't live or work in California during that particular tax year. After I moved to WA, I continued to pay CA income tax, as I had partially vested RSUs. I've heard some companies will cancel and reissue RSUs when you move states, but this wasn't offered for me. FTB is kind enough to say you can use any reasonable method to allocate RSUs and they never asked me to show my work, so I must have done fine?
About 160 million people either actively voted for this or couldn't be bothered to vote so ostensibly think this is ok. This is what the vast majority wants.
The article mentions mutual interest could be a subtype of fun, but they wanted to make a distinction between when getting together is the goal and when there's another objective beyond that.
For example with drinking, they seem to think there's enough of a difference between the friends that get together to have a few drinks and the friends that get together to do a wine tasting focused on a region of France.
They probably won't share how they did it, but there's been a lot of research over the past 6 months showing how you don't have to retrain the entire model to add in new sources. I know nothing about this stuff, but my limited understanding from blog posts is it's easier than anyone had thought to add in new data to a pre-existing model.
Do you by any chance have any of these blog posts available for my own reference? If not you maybe someone else does, I don't recall seeing it but it sounds interesting.
I think there was a paper from Google showing that if you included 5% of your original dataset together with the new data during the finetuning then catastrophical forgetting didn't occur. Perhaps it's that simple.
It's more the bigger investments that drive a lot of the economy that are the concern - think real estate and stocks. Why buy a $1 million home today if you'll be able to buy it from $980k next year, and maybe $965k the year after that? More importantly, why continue paying the mortgage on your million dollar home when it's likely never to be worth a million again? Why buy 10,000 shares of a company now, when in a few years you could buy 10,500 shares for the same price?
That's fair - but that is assuming indefinite long-term deflation. What about intermittent modest deflation as a tool to bring prices down? It seems that just the idea of deflation is immediately rejected in any conversation about monetary policy.
Also, I think in the real world today, a home would still sell in a deflationary environment, given serious supply shortages. Especially for those buyers which are looking for a home and not an investment (investors would lose long term in a deflationary environment, as you say). Couldn't temporary, modest deflation actually open the housing market up for those "real" buyers primarily looking for a place to live?
The fear with trying for temporary deflation is it will become an out of control feedback loop, because there aren't as many "reasonable" monetary tools to combat it as there are with inflation.
I think the issue in the US today is that increasing density within cities has become so absurdly difficult that we are making the "one-size-fits-all solution" be suburban sprawl.
My understanding of the comment is the way the parents would get the money is to liquidate something which would incur taxes, which will be a lot in taxes on $200k even with long term capital gains treatment.
There may be loopholes and financial engineering that can be done, but its generally not available to the average joe.
I looked into this as a possibility not too long ago, and the professionals we spoke with basically said you'd either need them to take care of the taxes or be co-signer.
Co-signer rights effectively negate the point of getting 'your' house, and can lead to a lot of drama.
Usually if you somehow end up in this kind of sales funnel, you get offered a ridiculously cheap first year subscription. Say $20 for first year, but then it's $12 a month after that. You call to cancel, and they'll keep dropping the price until it's back to that $2 or $3 a month.
You're right — they also have low-price options at the beginning. I just tried loading an article and, what do you know, I was "selected" to be able to subscribe for just 99¢!
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wall-street-says-yahoos-worth-l...