Talk:Uniform Gifts to Minors Act

Poor quality
This is copied from Investopedia. It should be removed, or re-written.
 * More likely, Investopedia copied it from us. bd2412  T 15:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This is terribly written and very biased. I don't know anything about wikipedia, but this needs to be tagged/changed by someone who does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.210.219 (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC) This is a really, really badly written page. The first part is iffy, but the latter part sounds like an editorial. It's almost worth deleting.--91.45.49.58 (talk) 01:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have seen this article for the past several months and hated it for the reasons listed above. I always wanted to remove the offending material but for some reason until now I passed the opportunity. I removed the offending material and wikified the article in other articles. The article still needs a lot of work but at least now it's not like a tooth with a cavity. EECavazos (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 09:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Miscellaneous comments July 2020
1. I always wonder what a contributor is thinking when using the word "currently" in an encyclopedic article. Is the reader supposed to magically know the date the claim was made? How? Is the reader supposed to trust that the article - no matter how old or obscure - has had dedicated attention 24/7/365 so that any such claim is kept current? Seems more than a bit naive to me. Would someone who knows the current status change the claim: "The current rule is that ..." to "The rule as of [enter date here, say July 5th, 2020] is that..." Alternatively, the date could be the date of the last relevant Federal income tax change. (But it isn't clear to me if State language impacts this, and if so how.) I think it would be informative to mention how high the Estate/Trust (Federal) tax rate is, too. 2. The article mixes up US Federal tax effects with US State tax and legal effects. Better clarity is needed. Is it only US States? how about D.C., territories, protectorates, reservations, etc.? 3. Why aren't the "some states" made explicit? Why is it left so vague? Also, I find it hard to believe that every state that has enacted legislation has done it identically with identical effects (you'd think differences in case law and state constitutions might have some differing effects). 4. The article claims that "financial aid is typically reduced". Financial aid? Wow. If what is meant is "needs based" financial aid, then it should say so. There are 100's or 1000's of different kinds of financial aid!! Some are gifts, some are loans, and then there's the difference between what the two major "forms" (public vs private) to apply for 'financial aid' do. Is it true they both treat UTMA funds indentically? (or actually, the question is the determination of the effect of UGTA funds on financial need calculations. 5. Why is there ANY mention of previous Federal tax consequences?? It. Is. Irrelevant. (Isn't it?) Remove it. (Half of that paragraph should be removed.) I suggest removing:"Until 1986, a UGMA or UTMA account allowed the assets to be taxed at the minor's income tax bracket. Tax law changes in 1986, 2006, 2007 and 2017 known as the "kiddie tax" have substantially reduced the tax savings of UGMAs and UTMAs. Until 2018, for beneficiaries under 19 (under 24 if a student), the first $1,000 of unearned income was tax-free, the second $1,000 was taxed at the minor's rate (typically 15%), and the amount over $2,000 was taxed at the parent's rate." and replacing it with something like:"Federal tax law changes often change the tax on income of these custodial accounts. The 2018 law included a "kiddie tax" substantially increasing the taxes on many of them." 6. Finally, shouldn't alternatives be mentioned (as "see also"s) 529 Plans, IRAs (for minors with earned income), etc. etc.174.130.70.61 (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)