Talk:Tax-efficient investing/Archive 1

Should this be part of tax and estate planning? --Shakespeare 12:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, not yet. I wouldn't be too quick to do a lot more consolidating until we have more content. I've been thinking of a Main Page subject called Tax. But I'm not too keen on a page with only two items on it. It introduces more vertical layers without achieving much.  So I'll wait until I see more tax discussion that might stand on its own as a separate subject.--yielder 13:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The Dividend Tax Credit
Cardhu, Why delete For this reason, such shares should normally be held in non-registered accounts.?--yielder 01:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * One answer may be that in the table under "tax efficient investing" at the bottom of this page there is an "OK" for holding Canadian shares in both registered and non-reg accounts. This could seem contradictory with the "such shares normally in non-reg accounts" comment at the top of the page. Perhaps if we said "preferably" rather than "normally" it would be less confusing. Perhaps also Shakes's table could be adjusted to nuance the OK's, in order to reflect the advantageous tax treatment of dividends in non-reg accounts. --Gus 06:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I put a reference in the Preferred Shares section to one of Hymas's papers that says they should not be held in registered accounts. I added that reference here, redid the table accordingly, and removed the 'clarification needed' surrounding the 'maybes'.--Shakespeare 22:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Much better. Thank you.--yielder 00:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

While the rules are totally different than the US, would it help to use a graphical guide? In Principles of Tax-Efficient Fund Placement, there is a big colored arrow showing tax efficiency from most to least. Is it possible to prioritize the registered and non-registered investments in a similar fashion? Also note the graphics used to provide step-by-step guidance. Taxes are confusing, even to experienced investors. Pictures help.

Principles of Tax-Efficient Fund Placement ranks #3 in popularity in the BH wiki (not including the main page). I suspect making Tax-efficient investing (currently ranked #6 after the main page) easy and "fun" to read would help more investors and draw traffic to finiki. --LadyGeek 20:29, 5 June 2012 (MDT)
 * I think some examples will help. I'll try to set some up; the decision tree also depends on whether you are accumulating or withdrawing.--Shakespeare 06:40, 6 June 2012 (MDT)
 * Added: I've put in a couple of examples. The graphics on Bogleheads would need some modification, although the general rule of placing highly-taxed entities in tax-free or tax-deferred accounts remains. However, our TFSA's (tax-free) are still fairly small ($20K per adult) and not yet of consequence in large portfolios. --Shakespeare 08:35, 6 June 2012 (MDT)

My thoughts are that the investments should be ranked without consideration to the size of an individual's portfolio. Explain why these investments are ranked as shown, then a few steps on how to achieve that ranking. Once the rationale and methodology of achieving this ranking is clearly explained, the investor can decide how to apply these concepts to their portfolio.

The table is good. Can it be prioritized - "most" to "least" efficient? This may be the difference between US and Cdn taxes. Various tax laws apply in the US, hence the PowerPoint arrow in the BH wiki. OTOH, maybe that doesn't work here and the table is sufficient. --LadyGeek 14:58, 6 June 2012 (MDT)

I added this sentence, which we need to bring out better:

"The general approach is that the registered accounts are filled first in reducing order of tax rate, with what's left going to the non-registered account."

Suggestions for emphasis? Quote box? Move up?--Shakespeare 15:01, 6 June 2012 (MDT)

Section headings
Should the 'Non-Registered Investments' and 'Registered Investments' section headers be 'Non-Registered accounts' and 'Registered accounts'. The account classification determines the tax treatment, not the investment.--Peculiar Investor 21:41, 16 November 2012 (MST)