I believe one can claim $300 on standard form. I"m probably wrong as I haven't done my Taxes in the last 7 or 8 years. I realize $300 isn't going to help much, but to some people every little bit saved is a plus.

Unfortunately, that "above the line" deduction was temporary, it was only allowed in 2020 and 2021. There is a movement to restore it and make it permanent.
https://tax.thomsonreuters.com/news/hundreds-of-nonprofits-push-for-passage-of-charitable-act/
Above the line deductions
Though your post did remind me of another way to make this work. People over 70½ (sic) can take qualified charitable deductions (QCD). Instead of taking distributions from a traditional IRA (and thus increasing income), those distributions can be sent directly to charities. This way your AGI isn't increased because of the distributions and the charities still get your contributions.

I believe one can claim $300 on standard form. I"m probably wrong as I haven't done my Taxes in the last 7 or 8 years. I realize $300 isn't going to help much, but to some people every little bit saved is a plus.

”U.S. stocks roared to another blockbuster showing in 2024. Few expect such a torrid advance in the year to come. The S&P 500 climbed 23%, notching 57 record closes as the economy remained healthy, inflation ticked lower and an Al-fueled rally in big tech stocks powered on. Even with a stumble in the last few trading days, the broad U.S. stock index wrapped up its best consecutive years since 1997 and 1998, according to Dow Jones Market Data, during the lead-up to the bursting of the dot-com bubble.
“The rally has created millionaires and turned professional investors increasingly bullish: In December, the Bank of America Global Fund Manager Survey found record enthusiasm for U.S. stocks, as measured by the net share of respondents favoring the group. The payoffs haven't been limited to the equity market: Gold had its best year since 2010, while bitcoin more than doubled, vaulting above $100,000 for the first time ….”
(Excerpted from today’s online Wall Street Journal 1/9/2025 / All I can say is Whoopie!)

I've gratuitously managed the ports of a lot of friends and relatives over the past ~40 years. I do it because they need the help and I can provide it. My goal is usually, depending on their age and my relationship to them, to educate them on the basics and someday have them feel confident enough to do it themselves.
But I don't do it for everyone who asks me for help. I am very selective in choosing whose port I'll manage. And I vary the scope of my work based on a bunch of factors too varied to detail here.
It definitely ain't all thankless and never have I gotten myself into an arrangement that came back to bite me. And regularly the friends and relatives throw things my way despite my insistence that they don't need to give me anything.
We've received some pretty incredible "Thank Yous'' that have taken us to places and events that we may have never been. And we've eaten a lot of great food at restaurants that we'd have never otherwise seen the insides of! And the home cooked meals are many times to die for!
The most financially rewarding situation (despite me not being in it for that) came after a very wealthy relative was told by a national tax service that she owed a combined ~$60K in FIT/SIT in a year she sold her home. Well, one relative smelled something amiss, and word quickly got out in the family that I should take a look at that before the relative signs the return and has it filed by the firm.
Yeah, huge error by the firm in their calculation of adjusted basis of the property. Relative actually only owed ~$5K, not ~$60K, in combined FIT/SIT. I worked with the national firm who admitted their mistake and they correctly filed the respective returns based on my corrections. The relative was beyond elated and thought (despite my urging to the contrary) that I should get a healthy chunk of the savings of would be taxes. I tried to stop her but could only contain her gratitude! (I was asked if I would be upset if she sent me a check for $X. I responded that I don't upset easily!)
Far beyond all that though has been the incredible boost this part of my relationships has added to our overall relationships. It works that way because I establish a framework that I will only work within and there are clearly expressed ground rules. At the first notion of problems, the portfolio mgmt part of our relationship is terminated. In all the years of doing this, that only happened once. It was no big deal and there were no ill effects to our overall relationship.
The other incredible by product of doing this is what I learn about risk, specific investments and varying investment strategies that I would have otherwise not likely learned had I not engaged in these activities. Over the years I found three funds that I might not have otherwise found via reviews of 401k and 403b options. I invested in all three and two of them have been cornerstone funds of ours for a long time now.
Yeah, I agree. Doing this ain't for everybody and many that do will suffer consequences that they could have avoided by just staying out of these relationships. But I'd caution taking advice from posters on internet forums who have never once engaged in this, or maybe had a bad experience, or heard about a cousin of a friend's uncle who did.

My parents have an advisor who is about to retire. he said he'll take care of them for as long as he's alive (my father is clergy and helped him through some losses) so thats nice but he's 5 years older than my parents!
I know what they are invested in and nothing is too out of bounds. I'd do it differently in all likelihood but nonetheless I don't want the hassle.
My dad wants me involved in all the meetings which is fine. I assume advisors roll their eyes at the idea of a novice stickign their nose in.
That said, I know one of the guys at his firm and he knows I know my stuff and has tried to get me to turn to a life of financial advice (blech) so its fine.
He asked me one day if I had any ideas I'd like to discuss. I was like I know you agreed to handle this for my parents and I appreciate that, but would it be better to move these 8 funds into a singular balanced fund that spits out a distribution that they can w/d or not w/d for their expenses? It seems like it woudl be easier for everyone involved. He's like thats a great idea but I'm not dead yet lets look at that later on.
I manage my fathers stock account (largely vtsax and john deere) that we use for charitable giving.

PRWCX is OPEN at TRP for new investors who invest at least X amount. Check TRP website for details.
Per M*, last year the fund performance was the lowest percentile in the last 10 years. There were noticeable net outflows in Dec 2024. 2021 also had meaningful year end distribution but no noticeable net outflows in December 2021. Last year, I reallocated about 20% out of my PRWCX (i.e., reduced, not rebalancing) - none in December though! The fund is big.

OK. Now I'm loaded for bear. BTW, this question was not for me. I'm making an executive decision to move a friend's money I babysit out of MAPOX. It's falling down on the job, the last few years. Simpler is better. After all of this back and forth, I'm inclined to go with BALFX--- if they wouldn't mind taking his money in a T-IRA.

Sold DODIX and invested in ICMUX with the funds. In October ‘24 I had thought DODIX would be an appropriate place to re-enter intermediate bonds in 2025. After the last few years in bond fund land, my patience is short (as will my bond fund duration).

Shorter for longer. :)
Me too.

Sold DODIX and invested in ICMUX with the funds. In October ‘24 I had thought DODIX would be an appropriate place to re-enter intermediate bonds in 2025. After the last few years in bond fund land, my patience is short (as will my bond fund duration).

But why go out at all?
Is it a bet on declining rates?
Rates could easily be higher within 2 years.

Over at Schwab their prime Treasury MMKT SUTTX is down to 4.24%, and the 2-yr Treasury that I bought about a week ago is 4.29. The trick is to balance immediate yield against longer-term stuff, while keeping enough in MMKT to cover any immediate cash need. At 85, I don't want to go out much more than a couple of years.

Seems to me to be two completely different skill sets-
• A): Insuring that numbers are being computed and accounted for properly, according to established accounting principles.
• B): Manipulating numbers in an attempt to increase their values and sums to the maximum extent possible, while also remaining reasonably consistent with safety.
And like most skill sets, there may be some degree of natural interest or aptitude involved, but education and training are the most important factors.

Yeah, you seem to have missed my point. And other posters routinely missing my points is the primary reason why I don't post a lot. That said...
I said earlier "Conversely, the women, many highly educated and certified in high level finance positions, were largely uninterested, uneducated and inexperienced in wealth mgmt."
I cited their FEAR as the primary reason for this.
Having education and work experience in accounting, finance and bizness administration IMO should increase the likelihood that a person understands investing more than the next person, and is less FEARful in investing. (Duh, we not only read financial statements, we create them, audit them and issue findings and recommendations related to them!)
My family was blue collar. Nobody in my family ever owned a stock or bond until I did. We were collectively FEARful of markets, primarily due to inexperience and lack of financial intelligence.
I did not start investing until I got my degree. I would have remained terrified of financial markets had I not had my base level, formal education in accounting, then LT employment in accounting. So, I overcame my FEAR of markets largely due to formal, financial education and work experience.
Over the course of my 35+ years in the financial work force, and a similar amount of time assisting friends and relatives with their investments, I saw the exact same effect on other men. I did not see the same effect on women.
BUT, when the women I knew who did overcome their FEAR, they generally went on to be highly successful investors. And as some studies show, women tend to be better investors as men. The biggest problem appears to be overcoming their FEAR about it all. (The study I linked notes "stress." Stress is the condition. FEAR is the resulting emotion that is expressed.)
YMMV.

Re: 03 Jan, '25:
Expecting elevated volatility, uncertainty. The 2-10 year spread is at highest in over 2 years. Due to fiscal concerns. Davis (BMO) likes relatively attractive current yields on both Treasuries AND corporates. He's adding duration.
Ed Al-Hussainy (Columbia Threadneedle) is concerned about policy uncertainty, most. Political and fiscal policy. "Underneath," there is also the Fed's interest rate adjustment stance.
Leslie Falconio (UBS Global Wealth Management) sees the monetary side has been totally recalibrated. Her firm expects only two interest rate cuts in '25. (June and Sept.)
Al-Hussainy: watch to see what happens with tariffs.
Falconio: Fed will most likely wind-down QT in 1st or 2nd Q.
Duration, Leslie? Yes, more duration now, but only out to the belly, around 5 years. When UST reach 4.75 at 10-years, they'll add further out the curve.
Al-Hussainy: duration is becoming a good hedge vs. risk assets, yes. Long end, out to the end of the year, is still quite "scary."
***********
DELUGE of I.G. bond issuance expected.
Already, $15B of issuance from Credit Agricole, GM and Ford.
-A poll shows $200B of junk issuance in '25 is expected. (Expected to exceed last year's record.)
JoAnne Bianco (Bondbloxx:) Still see opportunity in credit, especially junk.
Akila Grewal (Apollo Global) Private Credit will benefit in the impending higher-for-longer rate environment.
Sinjin Bowron (Beach Point Capital) Currently deploying money across the quality spectrum--- including "distressed opportunities." Distressed HY in '24 was a big driver of returns. But FR outperformed fixed income. Going forward, more bets into FR makes a lotta sense.
(Akila: ugh! Her manner of delivery is off-putting. Sounds just rushed and canned.)
Anyhow: Apollo is still focused on higher quality, First Lien stuff.
Bowron: Coming into '25 there are both solid credit fundamentals and very tight valuations. And wider spreads should not come as a surprise, simply given political uncertainty into '25. Nevertheless, credit quality remains robust.

Sold a little VOO, added to ICMUX and also purchased a new 5 year Goldman Sachs 5.375% bond, matures 01/22/2030, callable 1/2027 so at least I'll get 2 years of 5.375%.

Its a bit ridiculous. I was conversing with a few friends who are advisors and they were talking about how they are spending a lot of time helping their clients try and even begin to understand these products. and not because they want them to buy them but their clients are inquiring.
IMO turn about is fair play. The industry has spent years purposely complicating their clients portfolios to keep the customer in the dark.
but its crazy, these are technically niche products that 30% of all new etfs are them in 2024 is nuts. although it begs the question of how many new etfs are actually being created. 30% of 500 is less than 20% of 1000.

This depends on your specific 401(k) plan.
As YBB mentioned, some plans allow in-service withdrawals while others do not.
You may want to check the 401(k) Summary Plan Description or contact your HR department.
My 401(k) Summary Plan Description states:
If you are age 59½ or older and still actively employed by company or a related company,
you can take a withdrawal from your pre-tax accounts once a year.
There are no early withdrawal penalties for this type of distribution.
You may roll over a pre-tax distribution to another eligible retirement plan or traditional or Roth IRA.
If you are age 59½ or older and still actively employed by company or a related company,
you can also take a withdrawal from your Roth after-tax account once a year.
There are no early withdrawal penalties for this type of distribution.
You will also not be taxed on distributions of your Roth after-tax contributions,
and the earnings on those contributions will not be taxed if the distribution is taken
after you have had a Roth after-tax account in the Plan for at least five years.

Are there AA-AAA rated companies that would do seller financed purchases, with or without life estate (i.e., lease back)? If not, I would think there is a lucrative market for this product.
I'm having trouble making sense of some of this.
"Do seller financed purchases". What does "do" mean? Are you thinking of brokering (arranging) purchases? That is, finding an interested buyer and/or handling the paperwork? For those types of services I don't see what difference a company's credit rating would make.
Or does "do" mean taking the buyer side in the transactions? There, the credit rating of the company (as borrower) would matter. But what's the business model? Would the company build up an inventory of homes that it is buying "on time" and resell them to other buyers?
"lucrative market"
Would the profit come from paying well under market value, as "we buy homes for cash NOW" companies do? But then the seller wouldn't have any motivation to provide financing.
Or would such a company pay a better price for the seller financed homes? It might hope to make a profit from the use of the cash (full price) it receives from the sale of inventory homes.
It would pay the original seller one rate of interest (the seller financing rate) and earn another rate of interest on the proceeds from reselling the home. But where's the spread? The company would be borrowing long term from the original seller. Or would you expect seller-financed sales to be relatively short term (say, five years) with a correspondingly lower rate of interest?
Can you offer an example of a transaction "done" by such a company? I don't get what you have in mind.
"life estate (i.e., lease back)"
These are two different things. A life estate is actual ownership of property. A lease back is a rental where someone else owns the property. If you want more clarification, look up the difference between freehold estate (ownership) and leasehold estate (rental). See, e.g. here (it's not letter perfect, but gets across the general idea).
As far as Selleck is concerned, it's not a bad ad.

Unfortunately, his message to “explore the potential” has been confused as a recommendation older homeowners should get one. This may not always be the case.
Obviously, the time restrictions of TV commercials limit content. To his credit, though, he created national awareness of a less-known and frequently misunderstood resource that has the potential to increase and extend financial security – a hugely common fear among aging Americans.

https://southshoresenior.com/2024/05/what-tom-selleck-did-not-say-about-reverse-mortgages/

These commercials do a good job of introducing the reverse mortgage product. However, the decision to secure the loan can be complicated and confusing.

https://www.boldin.com/retirement/tom-selleck-reverse-mortgages-telling-truth/

When you take out a reverse mortgage, the lender deducts an upfront fee. It also charges interest over the life of your loan. Reverse mortgage interest rates are usually higher than conventional mortgage interest rates, but similar to rates on home equity loans.

Kiplinger, 10 Things You Should Know About Reverse Mortgages

"I suppose that'll work unless and until he tries to remain in office beyond his 4 years."
No, he won't try that... the family presidential dynasty will be passed on to Trump Jr.

"Industry might have to drill a few test wells in the National Parks and Wildlife Refuges just to keep him happy."
I strongly suspect that groups opposed to such a proposition will keep that tied up in lawsuits & the courts until long after his coming term is up. I suppose that'll work unless and until he tries to remain in office beyond his 4 years.

No confusion. My assumption was before I read the thread, and was acknowledging you guys educating me. The only time I had previously heard about reverse mortgages was from the Tom SelecK Ads.
In any case,
Are there AA-AAA rated companies that would do seller financed purchases, with or without life estate (i.e., lease back)? If not, I would think there is a lucrative market for this product.
I would like to defer gain and reduce cap gain tax but have to balance the risks of being a creditor for 10 years or more. The 5% (20 to 15%) lower cap gain tax + 3.8% extra tax on NII + state tax income tax on higher brackets + extra Medicare premiums can all add up.
Let us see if the goodies Trump will dole out to unfreeze the residential RE market include targeted tax brakes.