Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

For investors looking to reduce tax liability while keeping their portfolios optimized for growth, a tax-loss harvesting strategy can be a valuable tool. By strategically selling underperforming investments to offset capital gains, investors can minimize their tax burden and improve their after-tax returns.

Understanding how tax-loss harvesting works, when to apply it, and how it fits within a broader tax-efficient investing strategy can help investors make smarter decisions and maximize their wealth over time.

What Is Tax-Loss Harvesting?

Tax-loss harvesting is the process of selling investments that have lost value to offset capital gains taxes owed on profitable investments. Investors can use this strategy to lower their overall tax bill while reinvesting in similar assets to maintain their investment exposure.

Key Benefits:

• Offsets capital gains, reducing taxable income.
• Helps manage investment losses while staying in the market.
• Can be applied annually to optimize long-term tax efficiency.

Tax-loss harvesting is particularly useful for investors in taxable accounts, as retirement accounts like 401(k)s and IRAs already offer tax-deferred growth.

How Tax-Loss Harvesting Works

1. Identify Losing Investments: Review your portfolio for investments that have declined in value.
2. Sell Underperforming Assets: Sell investments at a loss to generate tax deductions.
3. Offset Gains: Use those losses to offset capital gains from other profitable investments.
4. Reinvest Strategically: Purchase similar investments to maintain portfolio diversification while avoiding the wash-sale rule (which prevents buying back the same or substantially identical security within 30 days).
5. Apply Excess Losses to Income: If losses exceed gains, up to $3,000 per year can be deducted from ordinary income, with additional losses carried forward to future tax years.

Strategies for Tax-Loss Harvesting

Sell Losing Investments, Reinvest in Similar Assets

• Selling an investment at a loss doesn’t mean sitting on the sidelines.
• Investors can buy similar assets that align with their portfolio strategy while staying within IRS rules.

Time Harvesting to Optimize Tax Benefits

• Year-end is a common time for tax-loss harvesting, but it can be applied throughout the year.
• Regular portfolio reviews help capture losses without waiting until December.

Use Harvested Losses Wisely

• Offset short-term capital gains first, as they are taxed at higher ordinary income rates.
• Apply excess losses to long-term gains or up to $3,000 of ordinary income.

Beware of the Wash-Sale Rule

• The IRS prohibits repurchasing the same (or substantially identical) investment within 30 days.
• To stay compliant, investors should choose alternative investments in the same sector or asset class.

How Tax-Loss Harvesting Fits Into a Tax-Efficient Investing Strategy

Tax-loss harvesting is one piece of a broader tax-efficient investment strategy designed to minimize taxes and maximize after-tax returns. Other strategies include:

• Holding investments long-term to take advantage of lower long-term capital gains tax rates.
• Placing tax-inefficient investments (such as bonds or actively managed funds) in tax-advantaged accounts.
• Using tax-efficient funds such as ETFs that generate fewer taxable events.

By incorporating tax-loss harvesting into a well-rounded investment plan, investors can build a portfolio that is both tax-efficient and growth-oriented.

Reduce Tax Liability with Tax-Loss Harvesting

A tax-loss harvesting strategy is a powerful tool for reducing tax liability and keeping more of your investment returns. By strategically selling underperforming assets and reinvesting wisely, investors can optimize their tax position while maintaining a strong portfolio.

At RIA Advisors, we specialize in tax-efficient investment strategies tailored to your financial goals. Contact us today to learn how tax-loss harvesting can enhance your portfolio’s performance while minimizing tax burdens.

FAQs

When should I use tax-loss harvesting?

Tax-loss harvesting is most effective when you have realized capital gains in a given year or want to reduce taxable income.

Can I use tax-loss harvesting in my 401(k) or IRA?

No, tax-loss harvesting applies only to taxable accounts. Retirement accounts already offer tax-deferred growth.

How much in losses can I deduct from my income?

Up to $3,000 per year can be deducted from ordinary income, with additional losses carried forward to future years.

What is the wash-sale rule, and how do I avoid it?

The wash-sale rule prevents repurchasing the same or a substantially identical investment within 30 days of selling it at a loss. Investors should reinvest in similar but not identical assets.

Does tax-loss harvesting impact my long-term investment strategy?

No, when done correctly, tax-loss harvesting allows investors to maintain their target asset allocation while reducing tax liability.

The post How to Use Tax-Loss Harvesting to Reduce Your Tax Liability appeared first on RIA.

“Thou shalt not commit adultery” (Ex 20:14)…

Francis Congratulates King Charles and Queen Camilla on the Anniversary of Their Adulterous Union

Francis during a general audience on March 24, 2024 (image: Shutterstock/Fabrizio Maffei)

[UPDATE: Video of Charles and Camilla’s Visit added to post below]

Nine years ago, on Apr. 8, 2016, the Argentinian Modernist Jorge Bergoglio (aka ‘Pope’ Francis) issued the infernal apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, which gave the green light to those in the Vatican II Church who are in an adulterous second ‘marriage’ — the so-called ‘divorced-and-remarried’ — to receive Holy Communion without first repenting of their adultery.… READ MORE

Some Christian thinkers are seizing on the Trump administration’s efforts to force an end to the war in Ukraine as evidence of just war theory in action. For instance, noting that the just war tradition “requires us to determine just cause, but it also asks us to ponder the probability of success,” R. R. Reno in an essay in First Things applauds President Donald Trump because he has “determined that the Ukrainians cannot defeat Russia’s army” and “is pursuing the normal means by which inconclusive conflicts are resolved: negotiated compromise.” Similarly, at Providence, Tim Milosch argues that the administration’s “handling of the Ukraine war, despite the messy Oval Office moment (and it was only a moment), is more aligned with the finer points of just war theory and Christian realism than many are willing to consider.” (According to the author, we are two of those “many.”)     

These approaches to Russia’s genocidal war on Ukraine and applications of just war thinking seem to miss the mark—especially as we wrestle with trying to find the best pathway to a just and durable peace.

Milosch takes us to task for our pessimistic view of Trump, arguing—somewhat bizarrely—that Trump’s position is “more aligned” with just war thinking than we might concede. He attempts to use just war moral reasoning to buttress his position—a position that sidesteps the chief moral criteria of the just war tradition itself. At bottom, just war thinking has as its goal a justly ordered peace, not peace as soon as possible or peace at any price. By ignoring the fact that Trump has been clearly tilting toward Putin, and in wrongly asserting that we in the West have adopted a “moralizing posture” that is “ahistorical,” Milosch seems to ignore the truth of the present and the past.

In addition, his essay fails to deal with the issues at hand—whether this concerns Trump’s shamefully uneven approach to the two belligerents, his actual convictions, the absence of any awareness of the history of the conflict, or the absence of any examination of the present world disorder, which Trump in his short presidency has dramatically exacerbated. And what about the European fallout that followed Trump’s performance in recent weeks? “Just statecraft” cannot fail to confront these most basic challenges and impediments.

Milosch allows that the “justness of the Ukrainian cause is beyond dispute. Russia is clearly the aggressor, is clearly violating international law, and undoubtedly shoulders the blame.” It’s worth pointing out that Trump and some in his administration do not seem to share that commonsense view, which raises questions about whether Trump is the right person to “attempt to kick-start peace talks on Ukraine” (in the author’s words). The pressure to engage in “dialogue” and peace negotiations—as if a moral symmetry between Russia and Ukraine exists—is utterly flawed, as Vladimir Putin’s own public statements about Ukraine’s identity and future clearly demonstrate.

We do not argue against such talks in principle, or against a negotiated end to hostilities. Ukraine’s willingness to accept a ceasefire is an indication that Kiev wants peace. But the Ukrainians, who have suffered hell for over three years due to a terrorist regime, understandably want a just, enforceable, and durable peace. That’s why we argue against any so-called “peace” that makes demands of one side but not the other, that imposes upon and extracts from Ukraine but not from Russia, that leaves the victim defenseless and the aggressor emboldened, and that only delays the aggressor’s plans. Previous essays by us point back to Munich for that very reason.

And, respectfully, the “messy Oval Office moment” was not “only a moment.” Whether we start with the Trump administration’s words and deeds since January 20, 2025—or whether we begin the tally in 2019, when Trump demanded that Zelensky investigate Trump’s political opponents—Trump has consistently bullied Zelensky and shown a preference for Putin’s Russia over Zelensky’s Ukraine.  

Wise and just statesmanship would help steer this war to a cessation by providing the security guarantees that Ukraine needs, and by making clear to Russia that Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty will be defended. In his current approach, Trump is not playing the role of a wise statesman, nor is he being guided by just war thinking.

Second Thoughts

All of this leads us to second thoughts on the essay in First Things. Not unlike Milosch, Reno cites the just war tradition and, specifically, the condition of likelihood of success, to applaud the Trump gambit. 

As evidence, he states that it may be “gallant,” but it surely is not “Christian moral judgment,” that leads a nation to fight a losing battle—thus suggesting that Trump is helping extricate Ukraine from flawed moral judgment and this losing battle.

But who defines a losing battle or “lost cause”? Were the American colonies embroiled in a losing battle as they fought what was then the most powerful of world empires? Was Britain fighting a losing battle as it faced Hitler’s Germany alone in 1940? Was President Truman as he defiantly sustained—and refused to abandon—West Berlin? Were the South Koreans and Americans when they were cornered on the Pusan Perimeter? And, in the end, what costs are morally justified? The answer defies any sort of calculus, for it depends on the nature of the evil needing to be countered or deterred. Quite simply, there exist human goods of such great value that high costs must be paid in order to defend them.

“A wise leader,” Reno instructs us, “does not embark on unrealistic enterprises, especially when lives are at stake.” Further, and to the supposed credit of the new U.S. administration, we read that Trump “has determined that the Ukrainians cannot defeat Russia’s army”; therefore, Trump is pursuing “the normal means by which inconclusive conflicts are resolved: negotiated compromise.” Strangely, and much like the Providence essay, this piece adduces the “just war” tradition but seems oblivious to the tradition’s bottom line of a just peace. 

Coming to the Peace Table

On social media, Trump posted recently: “To Russia and Ukraine, get to the table right now, before it is too late.” This demand accords with the president’s denial of Ukraine’s innocence and his unwillingness to acknowledge the truth of Putin’s outrageous actions over the last decade and a half and the injustice of the formal conflict beginning in February 2022. “The fighting has to stop,” Trump declared. “Both sides need to get to the table.” Again, note the moral equivalence, not moral reality.

Reno concludes with what he argues to be “the moral principles of just war,” and specifically, according to this understanding, the “likelihood of success” factor in calculating whether war is prudent or not. Trump, according to such thinking, “is acknowledging reality and taking steps necessary to put an end to a war that cannot be won.” But a nagging question remains—one that neither Reno nor Milosch seems to address: Is this a war that, on Ukraine’s part, is wholly just and therefore needs to be fought? It is difficult for the reader, at this point, not to reflect on the lead-up to World War II.     

In sum, there is precious little in these discussions that mirrors just war moral reasoning. Absent is any examination of just cause, legitimate authority, right intention, discrimination, or proportionality, much less of their application to Russia’s unjust invasion of an independent and sovereign nation. Neither do we find any acknowledgment of an enduring atrocity that has been ongoing for three years, nor any discussion of what will happen around the globe if Putin is rewarded for his actions.

Let us apply this line of reasoning to Nazi Germany in 1938 and 1939. Perhaps, according to such thinking, “the moral principles of just war” should have prevented a “world war.” Perhaps, as with Austria, then Czechoslovakia, then Poland, and then the Low Countries, the Allies should have acknowledged that defying Hitler was a losing, fruitless battle. 

Why do Ukrainians themselves not want a “peace at any price”? The answer is not difficult to understand. They know, as the Czechs sensed in 1938, that it will not be a justly ordered peace; it will be illicit and deceitful, as time will tragically demonstrate.

What will Trump’s “just war” defenders write after Putin’s next war? Make no mistake: if Putin is rewarded for his aggression against Ukraine, there will be a next war. He and his regime covet the Baltics, declare that eastern Poland was a gift from Stalin that should be taken back, and envision a remade Russian Empire. 

Peace: Not at Any Price

What the just war tradition requires is not a mere “likelihood of success” condition. Rather, it demands a justly ordered peace. Were the secondary element of “likelihood of success” in fact primary, then Churchill, acting as a lone voice in the wilderness, would have been a fool. Perhaps we should not have gone against all odds in fighting the Nazi imperial vision for Europe. Perhaps we should not oppose a wholly unjust invasion of a sovereign, independent nation like Ukraine. Perhaps might really does—and should—make right. Perhaps the U.S. should not be called upon to be a force for good in the world. And perhaps the Good Samaritan should never intervene when and where gross injustice is encountered.

Policy, as John Courtney Murray reminded us three generations ago, is the meeting place of the world of power and the world of morality. And indeed, this is what just war moral reasoning—properly understood—requires. At its heart, just war thinking aims to furnish a justly ordered peace—not a peace at any price, not a mere cessation of conflict that refuses to address the root cause of that unjust conflict, and not a mere absence of conflict.

George Weigel has stated it well: “As a tradition of statecraft, the just war tradition recognizes that there are circumstances in which the first and most urgent obligation in the face of evil is to stop it.” Such are the circumstances of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Which is why murderous tyrants like Vladimir Putin must be stopped, resisted, or at least not abetted in their aims, far less be permitted to establish “ceasefire” conditions in a wholly unjust war they have started.

Image by Александр Микрюков and licensed via Adobe Stock.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Altha Adu reported for The Guardian on April 8, 2025 that:

The bill, which has undergone a significant number of changes since the initial vote in November, will now return to the Commons on 16 May, instead of 25 April, for its report stage and votes if time allows.

In a letter to parliamentary colleagues, the day before Easter recess begins, Kim Leadbeater said she was “absolutely confident” that postponing the vote would not delay the bill’s passage towards royal assent.

Labour MPs opposed to the legislation had raised concerns with the timing of the vote, fearing their colleagues would not have enough time to consider the bill’s changes during their final week of local election campaigning.

The delay is significant since, if passed in the Commons, the bill will still need to be debated and passed in the House of Lords. 

There were significant changes to the assisted suicide bill, in committee, including the removal of the judicial approval for a death being replaced with a panel of experts (death panel) and the delay in implementation of the bill until January 2029.

There have been many complaints concerning amendments to the bill that would have prevented assisted suicide for vulnerable groups, including people with disabilities, people with mental illness and people with Anorexia, being rejected.

The delay also provides more time to defeat the bill.

The 2024 Netherlands euthanasia data, that was recently released, proving that once euthanasia and/or assisted suicide are legalized that the number and types of approvals for death will continually increase.

According to United Nations bodies and international pro-abortion organisations, the objective of Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) is to provide children and young people with legalised access to contraception and abortion, without their parents’ knowledge or consent. In 2023, the British government imposed this objective on Northern Ireland by force of law, and it is […]

The post Northern Irish bishops abandon ship: parents must resist appeared first on Voice of the Family.

“And a very great multitude spread their garments in the way, and others cut down boughs from the trees and strewed them in the way; and the multitude that went before and that followed, cried, saying: Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.” Palm Sunday […]

The post A foretaste of victory: sermon on Palm Sunday appeared first on Voice of the Family.

The true identity of Bitcoin founder Satoshi Nakamoto has been one of the cryptocurrency world’s enduring mysteries

A Canadian software designer has denied that he’s the creator of Bitcoin following the release of a documentary claiming to have solved the mystery surrounding the world’s most popular cryptocurrency.

‘Money Electric: The Bitcoin Mystery’, released on Tuesday on US television network HBO, claims that Peter Todd, a Toronto-based contributor to the digital currency’s core programming, is in fact Satoshi Nakamato, the person who founded Bitcoin in 2009. Satoshi stopped posting online and largely disappeared from public life in 2011.

The 39-year-old Canadian, who was involved in developing Bitcoin during its early years, has since denied the claim.

“I’m not Satoshi,” Todd wrote in an email to Time magazine. “I discovered Bitcoin first from reading the white paper, as I’ve said publicly many times,” he added.

The 100-minute documentary presents largely circumstantial evidence, including the use of British-Canadian English in forum posts by Satoshi.

Filmmaker Cullen Hoback has said he’s “very, very confident” that Todd is Satoshi, Time reported. “When I put together a list of why and why not it might be him, the ‘might not be him’ list was very short,” he said.

The publication also quoted four other early ‘Bitcoiners’ as having expressed skepticism about whether Todd actually had the coding ability needed to create the world’s most prominent cryptocurrency token.

The identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, a pseudonym for the author of a white paper titled ‘Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System’ in 2008, remains a mystery. Various theories have emerged but to date nobody knows who Nakamoto is.

In 2021, Tesla CEO Elon Musk claimed that hyper-secretive cryptocurrency expert Nick Szabo might be the creator of the world’s most popular cryptocurrency.

One of the most celebrated candidates was a 75-year-old Japanese-American computer engineer named Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto. In 2014, he became the subject of an extensive Newsweek magazine report, which claimed to identify Bitcoin’s inventor. The man, however, has denied any involvement in cryptocurrency.

The mystery surrounding the identity of Bitcoin’s creator has been described as a contributing factor to the token’s popularity. According to Austin Campbell, professor at Columbia Business School, “The fact that Bitcoin was kind of put out there and then Satoshi vanished is integral to its success.”

If Satoshi were identified, he could risk being arrested for tax evasion, violation of financial and other regulations, given the prosecution of high-profile crypto figures such as Changpeng Zhao. The founder of the world’s leading cryptocurrency exchange Binance was sentenced to four months in prison in April after pleading guilty to violating money-laundering laws.

READ MORE: Russia legalizes cryptocurrency mining

Analysts have warned that if Satoshi’s identity were revealed, he could sell his holdings of over a million Bitcoin and drive the price of the token to the floor from its current level of $57,766.

The DOJ is considering enforcing “structural remedies” against the tech giant’s monopoly

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced that it may recommend dismantling Google's de facto monopoly by separating its search business from its Android operating system, Chrome web browser, and Google Play app store.

According to a court filing on Tuesday, Google may face both “behavioral and structural remedies” to prevent the company from abusing its ecosystem for unfair competitive advantage. The DOJ argues that the tech giant’s behavior has already caused “interlocking and pernicious harms” to users and that restoring competition in the search engine market is essential.

”Google’s unlawful behavior has enabled it to accumulate and use data at the expense of rivals,” the DOJ stated. “As a result, plaintiffs are considering remedies that would prohibit Google from using or retaining data that cannot be effectively shared with others due to privacy concerns,” it added, arguing that “genuine privacy concerns” must be distinguished from “pretextual arguments” meant to sustain its dominant position.

This move follows a federal judge's ruling in August that Google had violated US antitrust laws.

“Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” Judge Amit Mehta said, noting that the company paid billions of dollars to device manufacturers to secure its position as the default search engine on smartphones and browsers.

The DOJ contends that because Google has been found in violation of antitrust regulations, remedies for those offenses should “unfetter markets from Google’s exclusionary conduct, remove barriers to competition, deny Google the fruits of its statutory violations, and prevent Google from monopolizing these markets and related markets in the future.”

Google has responded by labeling the government's plan “radical,” arguing in a blog post on Wednesday that it would worsen customer experience and significantly impact “American competitiveness.”

“Splitting off Chrome or Android would break them,” Google stated. “Billions of people get online thanks to Chrome and Android existing as free products. Few companies would have the ability or incentive to keep them open source or to invest in them at the same level we do.”

The case will continue to unfold over the coming months, with the DOJ expected to submit more detailed proposals by November 20 and Google scheduled to respond by December 20.

It remains unclear what consequences Google and its parent company, Alphabet, will face. In the 1990s, the US government attempted to break up Microsoft over its dominance of the nascent software market, but the company appealed the ruling, and the DOJ eventually dropped the case.

Google is also facing a separate antitrust case brought by DOJ attorneys and 17 states, alleging that its advertising business is anticompetitive. Additionally, the company has been fined billions of euros in monopoly cases in the EU. Other tech giants, including Facebook owner Meta Platforms, Amazon, and Apple, have also been sued by federal antitrust regulators for allegedly operating unlawful monopolies.

The US sought a pact with Russia and China that would later be expanded, the former president has said

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has said Washington almost reached an agreement on nuclear weapons with Russia and China during his time in the White House.

The former president made the claim during a two-hour interview with comedian Andrew Schulz, posted on X (formerly Twitter) on Wednesday.

“We were close to a deal for getting rid of nuclear weapons. It would be so good,” Trump said. “I’m talking about Russia, ourselves, and China. We would then bring everyone else into it.”

Nuclear weapons are “the biggest threat we have in the world today,” Trump argued. “It’s not global warming, where the oceans are rising 1/8 of an inch in the next 500 years.”

Neither Russia nor China have yet commented on Trump’s claim about a denuclearization treaty being in the works during his administration.

Trump’s remarks came during a discussion of Iran’s alleged nuclear program, in which he criticized US President Joe Biden for being reluctant to confront Tehran. Biden has publicly urged Israel to refrain from striking Iranian nuclear and oil facilities.

The five nuclear-armed members of the UN Security Council struck a deal with Tehran in 2015, under which Iran would not enrich uranium beyond a certain level, and therefore be unable to build atomic weapons. Trump unilaterally withdrew the US from the arrangement in 2018. Though Biden promised to reinstate the deal, his diplomats have failed to get any traction on the issue over the past four years.

In 2019, Trump also pulled out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) Treaty, accusing Russia of being in breach of it. That left the New START as the last remaining arms control deal between Russia and the US. Trump initially sought to get China to join the treaty, but Beijing declined, and it appeared as if New START might expire at the start of Trump’s second term.

The Biden White House extended the treaty in February 2021, but it now seems likely to expire in 2026. Russia suspended its participation in New START in February 2023, citing the illegal and illegitimate US sanctions preventing its reciprocal enforcement, as well as US support for Ukrainian attacks on Russian strategic airbases.

Trump officially lost the 2020 election to Biden but has questioned the vote’s legitimacy ever since. He won the 2024 Republican nomination and will face current Vice-President Kamala Harris – nominated by the Democrats after Biden withdrew from the race in July – in the November 5 election.