For The Archives -- Part 1 -- November 25, 2022

Recession, GDPNow, soft landing, and all that jazz? Link here.

Politics: one of the most under-reported stories coming out of the mid-terms --Los Angeles major. So far, not behingd a paywall.

A record number of Los Angeles voters cast ballots for mayor in this month’s election, the result of changes in the electoral calendar, the state’s easing of voter registration rules and the provocative contest between U.S. Rep. Karen Bass and businessman Rick Caruso, according to analysts and nearly complete returns from county officials. 

Bass took advantage of the new political landscape to drub her rival, notching a nearly 10-percentage-point margin. Nearly 928,000 Angelenos cast votes for mayor, surpassing the previous high of 856,000 in the transformative, racially polarizing race in 1969, when the white incumbent, Sam Yorty, defeated his Black challenger, Councilman Tom Bradley.
With L.A.'s population a full 1 million under the 3.8 million it is today — and the total of registered voters only half the 2.2 million of today — the 1969 race drew an astonishing 76% turnout; this year’s Bass-Caruso matchup will be about 45%, according to county election officials.

Bass made history last week when she became the first woman elected mayor in L.A.’s 241-year history. Her vote total of 508,860 as of this week is already the highest ever for the city’s top job, and is more than double the number Eric Garcetti received when he became mayor in 2013. 

Los Angeles historically held elections for elective office in odd-numbered years, but voter turnout had plummeted over the last four decades — typically falling well under 40%.

So to bolster the electorate and make it more representative of the population, voters in 2018 approved a charter amendment to shift elections to even-numbered years, aligning them with races for president, governor and other high-interest offices and ballot measures.

RMDs, inherited IRAs: for those who may have missed this. It was reported in October, 2022. This is still confusing (for some / many / all) but I think there's a wrinkle in this announcement I had not caught before.

Last week, the IRS announced that its soon-to-be final regulations on required minimum distributions will apply starting next year. The move essentially waives RMDs in 2021 and 2022 for inherited individual retirement accounts subject to the 2019 Secure Act’s 10-year rule. In a comment letter on the RMD proposal, ABA had urged the IRS to provide such transition relief to facilitate IRA administration and address customer uncertainty on whether to take RMDs before the final rule was released.

The announcement also confirmed that the final rule will require RMDs in years one through nine for inherited IRAs where the original owner had started taking distributions before death. Inherited IRAs where the original owner had not started taking distributions, on the other hand, need not take RMDs in years one through nine, but must still take complete distribution within 10 years.

Under the relief provided in the notice, inherited IRA owners are not required to take a distribution in years 2021 or 2022, even if the decedent had started taking distributions before death. In addition, the IRS will not assert the 50% tax penalty on accumulated distributions for 2021 and 2022 and will allow taxpayers to request a refund for any tax paid.