u/swampwiz

Or is this verboten in this subreddit?

Overcast the whole time. This feels like having a team in the finals and losing.

On to Tarifa 2027!

I am a whale investor in this stock (10%), and so it is very important that I cast my vote.

Far too many taxpayers just take poor IRS service and don't do anything about it. (Whatever is the term for a male Karens) like me has regularly bothered my Congressmen about this poor service (I have tried to call, but the system it is too busy). If enough of us do it, these Congressmen will register it as an issue. The Dems will notate it, and the Repubs will need to come out and defend the IRS's pathetic staffing policy.

(NOTE: I don't believe this qualifies as a "what's in the envelope" post, since I am asking how to use the online system to determine what is the envelope, and the envelope itself will not be opened for several months.)

The USPS is showing that I am about to receive a letter from the IRS (I will be away for several months, so I can't just wait a few days to receive it and open it up). I go online, but this new letter is not in the online system. I did mail an amended return for 2024 in late April 2026, with a refund check due, that I had not heard anything about; however, the letter does not look like refund check. (EDIT: It shows that that amended return has been received, but says nothing about it being processed, and the transcript doesn't show any change based on that amended return.)

And to make matters worse I file both as an Individual and as Trustee for a Trust; perhaps this letter is for the Trust, and I need to set up an online account to look at mail to there? That said, the letter is addressed to me as an Individual, and not the Trustee name.

Should I wait a few days for the letter to pop up online? It's been my experience that it is impossible to call the IRS and ask what the letter is about (I find IRS phone service to be abominable). I was thinking of just giving the IRS phone service one chance to tell me what this is about, and then file a complaint to my US Senator, as I always do when I encounter poor IRS service.

(NOTE: I tried to post this at r/sewing, but they are snooty about answering questions for the clothing ignorant, so I will try here.)

Years ago, I got some nice pants, sized for what I was back then - and there was a good inch (maybe more) of choth on each side of the seam on the back (i.e., the middle of the buttocks) . Of course now, I am wider, and those pants don't fit (i.e., I can't clip the sides together), and I am wondering how much bigger of a waist I can get out of it; if I can't get much, I'll just buy some new pants, LOL.

So the question is what is the minimum about of cloth than must remain when the seam is redone. I figure that it must be at least 1/4", but I have no idea as I am not a sewing person (I farm it out to alterations ladies).

This is for a new construction house. AIUI, the ideal location is to be at a certain location on the property (as per my neighbor), which will require me to cut down a path of trees to put in this line. With this path being cut, I would like to put in a driveway in the path (the path to the tank itself would probably be from elsewhere, but it is conceivable that this driveway could be used by the truck as well). The driveway would not go over the tank.

I guess the question is is it possible to have vehicles go on pavement over the line going to the tank, I have to think that this will not be a problem, even though it would be a problem if the vehicles go over the tank itself.

I have a big position in a publicly traded stock that will undergoing a merger with 2 other companies, with the merged company having the same name & ticker as one of these other companies (the other one of which is technically public, but has been no trading in it for a while). There have been a steady stream of filings with the SEC detailing what the merger is all about.

So I wonder how a brokerage would treat this. Does the SEC issue a ruling that the merger complies with 386(a), which thus gives the directive of treating this as a non-taxable stock swap? I don't want to pay income tax on this!

I've got better things to do than wait by the phone to get serviced.

I get the feeling that the folks that can't FIRE as well make comments here about folks who can do so. I wonder if this is something that losers do.

I suppose this is only for the early-retired or self-employed, and have the ability to adjust ACA income (i.e., MAGI) at will.

First, you project an income that is below 150% of poverty income (PI), and get a Silver plan - but at least 138% of PI, if in a Medicaid-expansion state, or 100% of PI if in a non-expansion state (oh, the irony that these states get a better deal!). The Silver plan will end up being a special CSM-enhanced plan that has an actuarial payout of 94% (i.e, the Silver-94% plan), rather than the 70% for the normal plan. You will also get an Advance Premium Tax Credit (APTC) that makes the cost of the 2nd Lowest Cost Silver Plan (2LCSP) be 3% of income.

Then, make sure your actual income is below 200% of poverty. This will keep the APTC reconciliation at tax time to the lowest tier (currently, only $395 for an Individual), so your net premium cost (presuming you get the 2LCSP) will be only 3% of poverty + $395, or about $875 (for an Individual). If you exceed this, the reconciliation gets much more painful.

Something else that needs to be considered is that you can only get the APTC at your projected income if the "data matching" shows your income as within a certain amount, the greater of $12K or 50% of data-matched income. For folks without a steady paycheck (or a steady pension/SS), the data-match will be the latest tax filing, which is for the tax year 2 years before the coverage year. If income for every year is shown as always being less than 200% of PI, then projecting an income of 138%, or even 100%, of PI will be within this guideline, and the system will award the APTC for that income, and using the Silver-94% plan.

However, if the projected income is out of this envelope, than there will be no APTC, and the Silver plan will be the Silver-70%. And if you don't have a steady income, you will not be able to prove a lower income, and you will be in a world of sheet; yes, you could reconcile to get an APTC refund (of course, you would actually need to have that lower income to get that refund), but you will not be able to undo having that 70% plan instead of the 94% plan.

This is the way the game is played: play well, and you win - play poorly, and you lose.

I'm thinking a car that has a big battery that could run HVAC all night, with lots of outlets, etc. Obviously, a long-enough station-wagon, SUV or van could fit a 6'8" bed, but there could be even better design to make it easy to set up a doable bed. There could be some short of curtain or other shading for all the windows, etc.

It seems that the market for this would be expanding; anyone concerned about always having to have enough for rent would always have the option to just sleep in the car.

This forking company seems to change the terms every 2 months. What's in the new terms?

I've always been baffled by this.

I have an earlier thread about how Fidelity just changed margin maintenance requirement terms at its whim, doing an "accelerated risk sale" on shares I did not want, and not even telling me that it was going to happen when I was discussing this with a rep over the phone.

But now, evidently Fidelity is going back on its word and not honoring the promised 5.25% margin rate that was the one of the 2 main reasons I did partial transfer in the first place.

Of course, when I called, it was after hours, but you can bet your sweet bippy that I'll lighting up the phones at 7:30 ET tomorrow.

What an awful, lying, cheating, conning business.

It seems like he is a local boy that has betrayed his state.

(There are a few threads that have discussed how the federal register states that only the income is needed, and doesn't necessarily need to be *earned* income, that is 80 * minimum-wage [yay, states with no minimum-wage law will be the easiest to qualify]).

Because of me getting involved with a lying, cheating brokerage, I have a big long-term capital-gain that eventually - if the current rules stand (which I don't think they won't in the era of Dem control of the House) - will mean that I won't be able to get the 94% Silver plan without a "review" (which basically means no APTC and only a 70% Silver plan available), so I will need to go back on Medicaid to hold everything together. I am lot more interested in this then I used to (and you can go back and look at my posts in this subreddit to see that I was already damned interested).

This 80 * minimum-wage law, if it is as it seems, should be an out for early-retirees such as myself.