Protecting savings from exceptional taxes
"What EU wanted to force Cyprus to do is to break the insurance contract the government has with the bank depositors. The parliament rightfully refused, and it didn't pass. In the EU, and Cyprus as part of it, all bank deposits are insured up to 100,000EUR by the government. This is similar to the US FDIC insurance. Thus, requiring the ""small"" (up to 100K) depositors to participate in the bank reorganization means that the government breaks its word to people, and effectively defaults. That is exactly what the Cyprus government wanted to avoid, the default, so I can't understand why the idea even came up. Depositors of more than 100k are not guaranteed against bank failures, and indeed - in Cyprus these depositors will get ""haircuts"". But before them, first come shareholders and bondholders who would be completely wiped out. Thus, first and foremost, those who failed (the bank owners) will be the first to pay the price. However, governments can default. This happened in many places, for example in Russia in the 90's, in Argentina in 2000's (and in fact numerous times during the last century), the US in the 1930's, and many other examples - you can see a list in Wikipedia. When government defaults on its debts, it will not pay some or all of them, and its currency may also be devaluated. For example, in Russia in 1998 the currency lost 70% of its value against the USD within months, and much of the cash at hands of the public became worthless overnight. In the US in 1933 the President issued an executive order forbidding private citizens keeping gold and silver bullions and coins, which resulted in dollar devaluation by about 30% and investors in precious metals losing large amounts of money. The executive order requiring surrender of the Treasury gold certificates is in fact the government's failure to pay on these obligations. While the US or Russia control their own currency, European countries don't and cannot devaluate the currency as they wish in order to ease their debts. Thus in Euro-zone the devaluation solutions taken by Russia and the US are not possible. Cyprus cannot devaluate its currency, and even if it could - its external debt would not likely to be denominated in it (actually, Russian debt isn't denominated in Rubles, that's why they forced restructuring of their own debt, but devaluating the currency helped raising the money from the citizens similarly to the US seizing the gold in 1930's). Thus, in case of Cyprus or other Euro-zone countries, direct taxes is the only way to raise money from the citizens. So if you're in a country that controls its own currency (such as the US, Russia, Argentina, etc) and especially if the debt is denominated in that currency (mainly the US) - you should be worried more of inflation than taxes. But if you're in the Euro-zone and your country is in troubles (which is almost any country in the zone) - you can expect taxes. How to avoid that? Deal with your elected officials and have them fix your economy, but know that you can't just ""erase"" the debt through inflation as the Americans can (and will), someone will have to pay." Don't worry. The Cyprus situation could only occur because those banks were paying interest rates well above EU market rates, and the government did not tax them at all. Even the one-time 6.75% tax discussed is comparable to e.g. Germany and the Netherlands, if you average over the last 5 years. The simple solution is to just spread your money over multiple banks, with assets at each bank staying below EUR 100.000. There are more than 100 banks large enough that they'll come under ECB supervision this year; you'd be able to squirrel away over 10 million there. (Each branch of the Dutch Rabobank is insured individually, so you could even save 14 million there alone, and they're collectively AAA-rated.) Additionally, those savings will then be backed by more than 10 governments, many of which are still AAA-rated.  Once you have to worry about those limits, you should really talk to an independent advisor. Investing in AAA government bonds is also pretty safe. The examples given by littleadv all involve known risky bonds. E.g. Argentina was on a credit watch, and paying 16% interest rates. Over the last few years I've read quite a bit about monetary history.   I've developed two very important rules from this study: If you follow these two rules you will be able to weather almost any governmental or banking crisis.
Look into the Coverdell Education Savings Account (ESA). This is like a Roth IRA for higher education expenses.   Withdrawals are tax free when used for qualified expenses. Contributions are capped at $2000/year per beneficiary (not per account) so it works well for young kids, and not so well for kids about to go to College. This program (like all tax law) are prone to changes due to action (or inaction) in the US Congress.  Currently, some of the benefits are set to sunset in 2010 though they are expected to be renewed in some form by Congress this year. If you have multiple accounts, you have to empty them all before you can deduct any losses. Your loss is not a capital loss, its a deduction. It is calculated based on the total amount you have withdrawn from all your Roth IRA's, minus the total basis. It will be subject to the 2% AGI treshhold (i.e.: if your AGI is > 100K, none of it is deductible, and you have to itemize to get it). Bottom line - think twice. Summarizing the discussion in comments: If you have a very low AGI, I would guess that your tax liability is pretty low as well. Even if you deduct the whole $2K, and all of it is above the other deductions you have (which in turn is above the standard deduction of almost $6K), you save say $300 if you're in 15% tax bracket. That's the most savings you have. However I'm assuming something here: I'm assuming that you're itemizing your deductions already and they're above the standard deduction. This is very unlikely, with such a low income. You don't have state taxes to deduct, you probably don't spend a lot to deduct sales taxes, and I would argue that with the low AGI you probably don't own property, and if you do - you don't have a mortgage with a significant interest on it. You can be in 15% bracket with AGI between (roughly) $8K and $35K, i.e.: you cannot deduct between $160 and $750 of the $2K, so it's already less than the maximum $300. If your AGI is $8K, the deduction doesn't matter, EIC might cover all of your taxes anyway. If your AGI is $30K, you can deduct only $1400, so if you're in the 15% bracket - you saved $210. That, again, assuming it's above your other deductions, which in turn are already above the standard deduction. Highly unlikely. As I said in the comments - I do not think you can realistically save on taxes because of this loss in such a manner. You can't max out your retirement savings. There are vehicles that aren't tax-advantaged that you can fund after you've exhausted the tax-advantaged ones.  Consider how much you want to put into these vehicles.  There are disadvantages as well as advantages.  The rules on these can change at any time and can make it harder for you to get your money out. How's your liquid (cash) emergency fund?  It sounds like you're in a position to amass a good one.  Don't miss this opportunity. Save like crazy while you can.  Kids make this harder. Paying down your mortgage will save you interest, of course, but make sure you're not cash-poor as a result.  If something happens to your income(s), the bank will still foreclose on you even if you only owe $15,000.  A cash cushion buys you time. You should definitely favor holding bonds in tax-advantaged accounts, because bonds are not tax-efficient. The reason is that more of their value comes in the form of regular, periodic distributions, rather than an increase in value as is the case with stocks or stock funds. With stocks, you can choose to realize all that appreciation when it is most advantageous for you from a tax perspective. Additionally, stock dividends often receive lower tax rates. For much more detail, see Tax-efficient fund placement. If your regular withholding is not enough to cover your tax due, then you can withhold extra  taxes to avoid owing anything the following April 15.  Alternatively, you may make estimated tax payments to avoid owing anything the following year.  Some taxpayers will be required to make estimated payments, typically when the tax due will be sufficiently larger than the amount of withholding. If your husband says that you owed $5,000 in April, then he wants you both to withhold $2,500 for the entire year.  If all your income is shared, then that makes sense.  But if your income is not entirely shared and your personal luxury expenses come from your income, then this sounds a little unfair (you are paying some of the tax on his income).  If you don't share 100% of your income, then he should withhold more extra than you do (something more like $2,700 for him and $2,300 for you, depending on the details).  If you share everything, then all the income and all the taxes are shared so the individual accounting matters little. Yes, if you overpay taxes, you may get a refund.  Do not do this, that's just an interest-free loan to the government.  Instead, put the extra money into a savings account of your choice and withdraw it whenever you want. Keep in mind that chasing after tax savings tends to not be a good way of saving money.  What is a good strategy? Making sure that you take all the deductions you are entitled to. What is a bad strategy: You asked for a book recommendation. The problem is that I don't know of any books that cover all these topics. Also keep in mind that all books, blogs, articles, and yes answers to questions have a bias. Sometimes the bias can be ignored, other times it can't. Just keep looking for information on this site, and ask good specific questions about these topics. Ditto @MichaelBorgwardt Just to get concrete: I just checked one bank in India and they say they are paying 4% on savings accounts. I don't know what you're getting or if 4% is typical in India, but it's at least an example. So if the bank pays interest based on average daily balance, and you left the money in the bank for a week, you'd get 4%/52 = .077%. So on Rs 95,000 that would be Rs 73. I live in the US where typical interest on a savings account today is about 1%. So an equivalent amount of money -- I think that would be about $1,500 -- would get 1/52 of 1%, or 29 cents.  Don't leave the lights turned on while you do the calculations -- you'll spend more on the electricity than you make on the interest. :-) ** Addendum ** This suddenly reminds me ... I read a news story a few years ago about a man who was expecting a tax refund check from the IRS of a few hundred dollars, and when the check arrived it was for several million. Well obviously it was a mistake. But he came up with the clever idea: Deposit the check in an interest-bearing account. Promptly contact the IRS, inform them of the mistake, and ask how and where to go about returning the money. Hope that it takes at least a few days for them to figure everything out. Then keep the interest accumulated on the several-million dollars for the time that he had the money. And as he contacted them immediately about the error, they can't say he was trying to hide anything. It was a nice try, but it didn't work. They demanded he send them the interest as well as the principle. You might want to bring this fancy new IRS rule to your employer's attention.  If your employer sets it up, an After-Tax 401(k) Plan allows employees to contribute after-tax money above the $18k/year limit into a special 401(k) that allows deferral of tax on all earnings until withdrawal in retirement. Now, if you think about it, that's not all that special on its own.  Since you've already paid tax on the contribution, you could imitate the above plan all by yourself by simply investing in things that generate no income until the day you sell them and then just waiting to sell them until retirement.  So basically you're locking up money until retirement and getting zero benefit. But here's the cool part:  the new IRS rule says you can roll over these contributions into a Roth 401(k) or Roth IRA with no extra taxes or penalties!  And a Roth plan is much better, because you don't have to pay tax ever on the earnings.  So you can contribute to this After-Tax plan and then immediately roll over into a Roth plan and start earning tax-free forever. Now, the article I linked above gets some important things slightly wrong.  It seems to suggest that your company is not allowed to create a brand new 401(k) bucket for these special After-Tax contributions.  And that means that you would have to mingle pre-tax and post-tax dollars in your existing Traditional 401(k), which would just completely destroy the usefulness of the rollover to Roth.  That would make this whole thing worthless. However, I know from personal experience that this is not true.  Your company can most definitely set up a separate After-Tax plan to receive all of these new contributions.  Then there's no mingling of pre-tax and post-tax dollars, and you can do the rollover to Roth with the click of a button, no taxes or penalties owed. Now, this new plan still sits under the overall umbrella of your company's total retirement plan offerings.  So the total amount of money that you can put into a Traditional 401(k), a Roth 401(k), and this new After-Tax 401(k) -- both your personal contributions and your company's match (if any) -- is still limited to $53k per year and still must satisfy all the non-discrimination rules for HCEs, etc. So it's not trivial to set up, and your company will almost certainly not be able to go all the way to $53k, but they could get a lot closer than they currently do. "Your #1 problem is the Government both in it's form as a taxation outfit and as a 'law and order' outfit.  You'd be very surprised at how fast a bank seizes your bank account in response to a court order.  Purchase 100 Mexican 50 Peso Gold (1.2 oz/ea).  These coins are cheap (lowest cost to get into) and will not be reportable on sale to taxing authorities.  That money is out of the banking system and legal system(s).  Do not store them in a bank! You need to find a tax strategist, probably a former IRS agent / CPA type. With the rest remaining money...  There's an old saying, Don't fight the Fed.  As well as ""The trend is your friend"".  So, the Fed wants all savers fully invested right now (near 0 interest rates). When investing, I find that if you do exactly opposite what you think is the smart thing, that's the best thing.  Therefore, it follows: 1) Don't fight the Fed 2) Do opposite of smart 3) Do: Fight the Fed (and stay 100% out of the market and in cash) We're looking like Japan so could remain deflationary for decades to come.  Cash is king..." "Offset against taxable gains means that the amount - $25 million in this case - can be used to reduce another sum that the company would otherwise have to pay tax on. Suppose the company had made a profit of $100 million on some other investments. At some point, they are likely to have to pay corporation tax on that amount before being able to distribute it as a cash dividend to shareholders. However if they can offset the $25 million, then they will only have to pay tax on $75 million. This is quite normal as you usually only pay tax on the aggregate of your gains and losses. If corporation tax is about 32% that would explain the claimed saving of approximately $8 million. It sounds like the Plaintiffs want the stock to be sold on the market to get that tax saving. Presumably they believe that distributing it directly would not have the same effect because of the way the tax rules work. I don't know if the Plaintiffs are right or not, but if they are the difference would probably come about due to the stock being treated as a ""realized loss"" in the case where they sell it but not in the case where they distribute it. It's also possible - though this is all very speculative - that if the loss isn't realised when they distribute it directly, then the ""cost basis"" of the shareholders would be the price the company originally paid for the stock, rather than the value at the time they receive it. That in turn could mean a tax advantage for the shareholders." Asset protection is broad subject. In your examples it is certainly possible to have accounts that exist undisclosed from a spouse and legally inaccessible by said spouse. In the US, balances in 401k retirement accounts are exempt from forfeitures in bankruptcy. The only trick to secret stashes is that it involves you having any wealth in the first place, that you don't need to access. It is more worth it, for most people, to use all of their access to wealth to get out of debt, earn claims to property, and save for retirement. This takes up all of their earnings, making hidden wealth of any significant portion to be an impractical pipe dream. But with trust laws, corporate laws, and marriage property laws being different in practically every jurisdiction, there is plenty of flexibility to construct the form of your secret wealth.  Cryptocurrency makes it much easier, at the expense of net asset value volatility. @BlackJack does a good answer of addressing the gains and when you are taxed on them and at what kind of rate. Money held in a brokerage account will usually be in a money-market fund, so you would own taxes on the interest it earned.   There is one important consideration that must be understood for capitol Losses.  This is called the Wash Sale Rule.  This rule comes into affect if you sell a stock at a LOSS, and buy shares of the same stock within 30 days (before or after) the sale.  A common tactic used to minimize taxes paid is to 'capture losses' when they occur, since these can be used to offset gains and lower your taxes.  This is normally done by selling a stock in which you have a LOSS, and then either buying another similar stock, or waiting and buying back the stock you sold.   However, if you are intending to buy back the same stock, you must not 'trigger' the Wash Sale Rule or you are forbidden to take the loss. Examples.  Lets presume you own 1000 shares of a stock and it's trading 25% below where you bought it, and you want to capture the loss to use on your taxes. This can be a very important consideration if trading index ETF's  if you have a loss in something like a S&P500 ETF, you would likely incur a wash sale if you sold it and bought a different S&P500 ETF from another company since they are effectively the same thing.  OTOH, if you sold an S&P500 ETF and bought something like a 'viper''total stock market' ETF it should be different enough to not trigger the wash sale rule.  If you are trying to minimize the taxes you pay on stocks, there are basically two rules to follow.  1) When a gain is involved, hold things at least a year before selling, if at all possible.  2) Capture losses when they occur and use to offset gains, but be sure not to trigger the wash sale rule when doing so. In a comment on this answer you asked  It's not clear to me why the ability to defer the gains would matter (since you never materially benefit until you actually sell) but the estate step up in basis is a great point! Could you describe a hypothetical exploitive scenario (utilizing a wash sale) in a little more detail?  This sounds like you still have the same question as originally, so I'll take a stab at answering with an example.   I sell some security for a $10,000 profit.  I then sell another security at a $10,000 loss and immediately rebuy.  So pay no taxes (without the rule).  Assuming a 15% rate, that's $1500 in savings which I realize immediately.  Next year, I sell that same security for a $20,000 profit over the $10,000 loss basis (so a $10,000 profit over my original purchase).  I sell and buy another security to pay no taxes.  In fact, I pay no taxes like this for fifty years as I live off my investments (and a pension or social security that uses up my tax deductions).  Then I die.  All my securities step up in basis to their current market value.  So I completely evade taxes on $500,000 in profits.  That's $75,000 in tax savings to make my heirs richer.  And they're already getting at least $500,000 worth of securities.   Especially consider the case where I sell a privately held security to a private buyer who then sells me back the same shares at the same price.   Don't think that $10,000 is enough?  Remember that you also get the original value.  But this also scales.  It could be $100,000 in gains as well, for $750,000 in tax savings over the fifty years.  That's at least $5 million of securities.   The effective result of this would be to make a 0% tax on capital gains for many rich people.   Worse, a poorer person can't do the same thing.  You need to have many investments to take advantage of this.  If a relatively poor person with two $500 investments tried this, that person would lose all the benefit in trading fees.  And of course such a person would run out of investments quickly.   Really poor people have $0 in investments, so this is totally impractical. You have two different operations going on: They each have of a set of rules regarding amounts, timelines, taxes, and penalties. The excess money can't be recharacterized except during a specific window of time.  I would see a tax professional to work through all the details. There is the underpayment penalty, and of course the general risk of any balloon-style loan. While you think that you have enough self-discipline, you never know what may happen that may prevent you from having enough cash at hands to pay the accumulated tax at the end of the year. If you try to do more risky investments (trying to maximize the opportunity) you may lose some of the money, or have some other kind of emergency that may preempt the tax payment.