HEY SteveR,

PLEASE NOTE HOW EASILY YOUR MESSAGE READS AFTER CONSTRUCTING IT USING PARAGRAPHS.

Apparently we're on to health coverage. I'm not sure how Texas did it when other states couldn't, but prior to the ACA, Texas had what was called the Texas Health Pool. It was established in the 90's by, believe it or not, a Republican legislature.
What it did was provide for access to health insurance (much better than the ACA) for those who could not qualify for private health care. It was paid for by premiums and by health care companies operating in Texas.

After my son aged out of our healthcare plan he was still going to school to become a radiology tech. As a heart patient he needed insurance and qualified instantly since he had an aortic valve replacement. The premiums were about $400/mo. since he was living at home. If he had been living in a dorm he could have qualified for a subsidy which would have cut the cost in half. However, we considered the outlay to be well worth the cost. The maximum out of pocket, too, was not as high as in current ACA plans. If he'd had to have surgery or some other catastrophic illness, $4800 is just a scratch in the bucket.

The problem with the current ACA is that for the monthly amount people are willing to pay they get terrible coverage. It would be better to pay for doctor visits and to have lower maximum out of pockets than to have high maximum out of pockets.

Sir, when you invest in mutual funds, the fund manager continuously buys and sells stocks within the fund. This typically generates income (or perhaps a loss), which is distributed to investors as either ordinary income or as capital gains. This is a realized gain, not a paper gain, is taxable, and is reported to the investor at year-end on Form 1099. You do not have to sell your investment in the mutual fund in order to realize this gain. So yes, you can "actually" make money (i.e. have a realized gain) by investing in mutual funds, even if you do not sell your investment. Thank you.

Of course, SIRE, you are correct; that is a given. However, the short term gain or loss usually doesn't dramatically affect the "small potatoes" investor like most of us.

So when an investor realizes short term capital gains on an annual basis, he/she and pays taxes accordingly.

So, shares increase within one year, one pays taxes on Short Term Capitol Gains. Otherwise it is Ordinary Gains.

The obverse is true for losses.

Most people, (not you of course) watch the value of a share of stock as an indicator of what they've gained or lost.

Of course, SIRE, you are correct; that is a given. However, the short term gain or loss usually doesn't dramatically affect the "small potatoes" investor like most of us.

So when an investor realizes short term capital gains on an annual basis, he/she and pays taxes accordingly.

So, shares increase within one year, one pays taxes on Short Term Capitol Gains. Otherwise it is Ordinary Gains.

The obverse is true for losses.

Most people, (not you of course) watch the value of a share of stock as an indicator of what they've gained or lost.

My plan is to never pay taxes on those gains. We inherited funds from both sides of our families and had to pay no taxes on them because they were under the amount necessary to pay inheritance taxes. So, we can draw on those funds without paying taxes. They are called "cost basis" funds and are tracked separately from capital gains. Should we exhaust those funds and get into funds which are actually "capital gains" then we would have to pay taxes on those withdrawals. As it is, the only taxes that we have to pay related to our portfolio is on dividends which are, indeed, capital gains, whether we take them or reinvest them. By never getting to the point where we withdraw funds that were capital gains we can pass our portfolio on to our children and they, too, can inherit without paying taxes on what they receive, including the capital gains.

(Please cut & paste the post where I appeared confused.)

I am (was) not confused, and I understand how the system works. I over-simplified things by considering only the value of the stock or fund price; I omitted the capital gains tax aspect. Be assured I do understand it.

Many (most) small investors use the price of the stock or fund as a rough indication of gain or loss.


And, your ally, Jesus, offered no explanation whatever. And, I hope he doesn't attempt to, 'cause I doubt he knows.

As for my criticism about your not using paragraphs, I stand by my suggestion: use 'em, for clarities sake.