I wouldn't JUST put down carpet. There is some kind of moisture barrier that you can use --- it may be a special kind of plastic. I don't recall the details, but I'm sure if you researched it, you would find what is recommended.

You could have asked her if they have an 800 number instead.

But, you've heard of the "peace dividend" haven't you? :rofl:

Except that the firm states that they don't know where it came from, which, as far as I can see, directly implies that they can't possibly say what the basis is.

Interesting. I can’t comment on the girlfriend theory, though she’d have to be either dumb to risk a felony (if this wasn’t her stock) or scary smart to pull this off and leave no trace. For a second I wondered if someone discovered that you ought to have gotten more stock than you did as part of the divorce, but I can’t see your X not knowing about it. If you didn’t need the money, I’d be tempted to sell it as you saw fit and keep the cash in a CD for a few years more. Then, if still no one came after it, then I’d feel more confident about using the money.

Yes, that’s very weird. I’d be worried that it was a computer error. After all, if it was a real transfer, there simply has to be records of where it came from. But, a computer glitch might not show the source since it was an error. Is there any way you can get the firm handling the account to state in writing that it is yours free and clear? I’d hate to sell it, use the money, and then have them come after you later. I wonder what the statute of limitations on something like this is!?

Since it was anonymous, you can't. Also, you can't know the donor's stock basis either. It seems that, if you want to be ultra-safe, you could always use zero as the basis. If you don't mind saying, how did you get anonymous stock? Did the certificates just show by snail mail one day?

I'm not a tax expert, but it seems to me that if you are going to claim that the basis was whatever it was worth when the stock was received, you would also have had to claim that value as a gift on your taxes for that year. I don't see how you could have it both ways! However, I think a certain amount of gifts are tax-free, so if that applies, you may be OK. Definitely needs looking into!

Yes, you'll have to pay capital gains. Since it has been more than 1 year, it will be long-term capital gains. I don't recall off the top of my head what the rate is, but since it isn't 100%, you'll still have money in your pocket! ETA: long-term capital gain tax rate is 0% for the 10%–15% brackets; 15% for the 25%–35% brackets; and 20% for the 39.6% bracket (from Google). I'm not a tax account, but I believe this applies just to the capital gain itself. So, if the stock is worth $1,000, you should end up with a net of $800 even in the worse case scenario.

I'm not defending it per se, but it is just a form of entertainment. If we are going to complain about such salaries, then we should also find fault with the highest paid actors, rock stars, etc.

Yes... and I wonder what will happen to housing values when the baby boom dies off. It seems like the demand will dry up, due to demographics and the attitude expressed above.

Did you ever see the PBS series "Meeting of Minds"? In it, famous people from different times were seated together and asked to discuss a particular topic. You might be able to do something similar, and the kids would have to understand their character sufficiently to be able to represent the view that the person would have had. For more a game approach, you could do something along the lines of "To Tell the Truth".

Sorry if this is obvious, but did you check to see if there was a shut-off value to just that part of the house? It would be very rare, but it's possible. If you had one, then you could leave the main on and just shut off that section.

I've read that for the "rich" about 15 percent of their assets are inherited.

Do you cables that are compatible with plugging the monitor into a laptop, and do you have a laptop to test with? If the laptop can display to the monitor, you'll know that it isn't the monitor itself, but your desktop.

I agree with SKL about the extreme difficulty of finding non-controversial policies. The one that most (?) -- well, maybe most economists would get behind -- is free trade, e.g. NAFTA.

I'm somewhat surprised in this debate about talent versus practice, no one has mentioned Galdwell's "Outliers: The Story of Success": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_(book)

You think she might be treated poorly because she wasn't supposed to make it in? I would think that they wouldn't advertise the mistake either, so possibly very few people would really know. Plus, if she is well-qualified, she will prove herself, and remove any lingering doubts.

Please start looking for something else. THEN, you will find them! :laugh:

But, since they are kids, they are as important to them as his so-called adult issues are to him. What does his "adult" issues consist of? Is he going to die from cancer? Many adult issues are still somewhat relative and not the worst that can possibly happen.

I had a windshield crack solely due to the heater without any initial damage, so I think it could definitely get worse. As others said, even though I doubt it will break into a million pieces, I would still get it replaced ASAP.

I don't know too much about it except that the upper executives often need a rotation in finance to advance. I've never heard anything particularly negative about it. I always imagined that it was more attractive than, say, accounting. I can imagine, though, that this may be industry dependent. What sort of company is it?

Well, there could still be financial angle. Say, for example, she dropped collusion converge to save money, and she can't afford to get a replacement car. This would assume that money was very tight for her.

If the other car hit her, I would think that she wouldn't normally be judged at fault. And, in any case, it's not clear why they would delay payment. How about if she accidentally missed a payment and her insurance was suspended? Not sure if that would fit in with her character.

I'm not following this. If you put in a deduction that wasn't there before, I would expect your refund to rise. And if you remove a deduction, I'd expect your refund to fall. How is this weird?