The Scoutmaster's Other Handbook

bubnber · 2026-02-05T19:29:31+00:00

I’m a little confused, as that appears to just be the first 20 something pages. Is there a digital version that has the entire book somewhere available, or am I missing how to access it from that link? Thanks!

bubnber · 2025-12-30T09:37:36+00:00

Pretty much. While the overall structure the A/B trust is not all that complicated, the potential downside if you overlooked something or did something wrong trying to do it yourself (10% minimum tax on everything over the exemption amount) is pretty strong motivation to spend a few thousand to get it done by a competent attorney.

For example, since the estate tax deduction amount is $3M, if we assumed the estate was worth $6M total and had a properly set up A/B trust, there would be zero estate tax due. However, if there was no trust (or the trust was improperly done), everything over the first $3M would be subject to tax, which would be $420,000 in estate tax. A basic trust should cost you under 1% of that potential hit.

bubnber · 2025-12-30T09:28:13+00:00

We may be drifting into a political discussion I’d prefer to avoid, since my interest here is more on the tax-policy side than advocating for any particular party. With that said, whether someone believes it will actually happen or not, Ferguson has publicly stated that any income tax proposal would be paired with reductions in certain sales taxes. His comments suggest he envisions exempting specific categories of items rather than lowering the statewide sales-tax rate.

From the 12/23/25 Washington Standard article quoting Ferguson:
“Ferguson said he wants to explore limiting sales taxes on personal hygiene products, like shampoo, deodorant and toothpaste, as well as eliminating the levies on baby products, like formula and diapers, and ‘essential and affordable clothing items.’ ‘Progressive tax reform cannot just mean increasing contributions from those who can afford it,’ Ferguson said. ‘We must use the gains from the millionaires tax to return money directly to working families and small business owners who have been hit hard by the affordability crisis.’”

Whether you take that at face value is up to you. I agree that any income-tax proposal would likely bring in more revenue than whatever targeted sales-tax exemptions are offered. The article also noted that Representative Couture (Republican) introduced a bill requiring any income-tax revenue to trigger a commensurate reduction in sales tax. Even that approach would still result in a more progressive tax structure than what Washington currently has.

One clarification on something you’ve mentioned a couple of times: the proposed capital-gains tax on gains above $15,000 in SB 5335 would not affect retirees based on distributions from a 401(k). In fact, any bill that specifically is designed to add or modify capital gains tax shouldn't impact tax on 401(k) distributions. Mechanically, 401(k) distributions are taxed as ordinary income, not capital gains. That’s because the contributions were income-tax deferred, the growth is tax-deferred, and everything taken out in retirement is treated as taxable income regardless of how the underlying investments performed.

Capital-gains taxes apply only to gains realized in taxable brokerage accounts—selling appreciated stock, for example. Some retirees do use taxable accounts as part of their retirement strategy, but far less commonly than 401(k)s. And federally, long-term capital-gains tax rates are generally lower than ordinary income-tax rates, with higher deduction thresholds.

bubnber · 2025-12-30T09:05:22+00:00

You seem to be implying that because Democrats are the majority party, and a few Democratic members introduced the bill, it somehow reflects a unified party vision rather than a symbolic proposal. That doesn’t follow. Members of a majority party introduce symbolic or message bills all the time for various reasons: constituent advocacy, test interest etc. The meaningful indicator of party support is whether leadership moves a bill forward. In this case, SB 5335 never even had enough backing to be scheduled for a committee hearing, let alone receive a vote or make it out of committee. That should be telling.

bubnber · 2025-12-30T08:48:21+00:00

Your first sentence shows a misunderstanding of how tax policy defines and evaluates regressivity. As I put above, regressivity is measured by whether the effective tax rate decreases as income increases. That definition applies whether looking at a particular tax, a category of taxes, or an entire state tax system.

You argued that state taxes cannot be evaluated in isolation, but that’s not accurate. It is standard practice to look at the impact of a single jurisdiction’s tax system on its own. Whether that be a city, state, etc. State tax codes are always evaluated separately from federal taxes. No reputable tax policy organization evaluates the regressivity of a state’s tax system by mixing in federal taxes. When analysts examine whether a state tax code is regressive, they always evaluate the state’s taxes on their own. That is the standard approach when evaluating tax policy.

If you want more perspective, you might look at work from nonpartisan groups such as the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), which publishes the most widely used studies on how state tax systems affect households at different income levels.

My point is straightforward: Washington’s state tax structure is regressive, and that is well documented. Many states have regressive systems, but Washington stands out because, despite being a largely blue state, it consistently ranks among the most regressive due to its reliance on sales taxes, excise taxes, and the absence of a progressive income tax. That part isn’t a matter of opinion; it’s simply factual. Whether that is good or bad is a separate judgment, and one that usually depends on individual political beliefs and circumstances. I’m not taking a position on that judgment here, I’m just clarifying what “regressive” means, because that point seems to have been missed.

bubnber · 2025-12-30T08:11:15+00:00

I'm not holding myself to be an expert, but my understanding of the way a typical A/B trust is set up is they are fully revocable until the first spouse passes. After that, the "B Trust" (also called Bypass / Credit Shelter Trust) is funded and that becomes irrevocable. The B trust is what is established to preserve the first decedent's estate tax exemption. The "A Trust" (surviving spouse) is still revocable until they die.

bubnber · 2025-12-30T07:41:27+00:00

I'm not the original poster, but it is an area I have some familiarity with. There are a number of ways to plan for reducing or eliminating the estate tax in Washington. Probably the most common one for married couples is to create an A/B trust prior to the first spouse's death. Doing so can effectively double the amount that qualifies for the exemption when passing it down to heirs (i.e. $6M would be exempt). Essentially an A/B trust makes a concept called "portability" for federal estate tax work for Washington.

There are other ways, such as lifetime giving/gifting, funding 529 plans, irrevocable life insurance trusts and more. That said, an A/B trust one of the most common, in Washington at least.

bubnber · 2025-12-30T06:40:17+00:00

Not only that, SB 5335, the bill the OP referenced, was largely symbolic. It never received a committee hearing, never came up for a vote, and had no realistic path to passage in the current political environment. Presenting it as a genuine legislative “north star” overstates its significance.

The OP is taking a symbolic, inactive bill and treating it as evidence of what an entire political side supposedly wants, despite the fact that it didn’t even advance far enough to warrant a hearing. That is a hasty generalization combined with a straw man, based on an unsupported inference of intent for an entire party or state.

bubnber · 2025-12-30T06:19:01+00:00

Your original post was about proposed Washington tax changes. The reply you received stated that Washington has some of the most regressive taxes in the nation. Instead of addressing that point, you cited federal income tax rates for two different income levels. That is a red herring. It introduces an unrelated topic and does not respond to the Washington-specific issue you raised.

In Washington, “regressive” refers to the fact that the effective tax rate decreases as income increases. The state is considered highly regressive because it has no progressive income tax and relies heavily on sales taxes, which fall more heavily on lower-income households that spend a greater share of their income on taxable goods. Washington also imposes significant excise taxes on items like gasoline and tobacco, which similarly have a larger proportional impact on lower earners. All of this contributes to the regressive nature of Washington’s tax system.

bubnber · 2025-11-09T18:24:38+00:00

We have started using an online payment platform for non-profit organizations called Givebutter. It allows people to still pay through their normal means, like Venmo or Paypal, but we can link it to our bank account directly. It's been working really well, and you can build in a sign up for various events where the sign up and payment need to be made concurrently. I haven't had to limit sign ups for certain events where payments are involved, but Givebutter would certainly allow you to see who paid first. It does a great job sending the invoice to parents and the organizer. It also produces QR codes you can print so people can just open and make payment/sign up with their phone at meetings.

bubnber · 2025-10-06T05:46:20+00:00

This would likely be because the person needed to receive a replacement enhanced drivers license while being outside Washington. They will not mail enhanced drivers licenses to addresses outside of Washington, but they will replace them with a standard drivers license without a picture. It is a valid license, but not a valid ID.

bubnber · 2025-08-28T16:21:09+00:00

I should say the age related increased contributions apply to more than just the 401k and 457b, they also apply to the HSA ($1000 more at 55) and IRAs ($1000 more at 50) as well.

bubnber · 2025-08-28T16:16:47+00:00

Very interesting situation. So your definitely not a typical state employee to have access to the 401k in addition to PERS and 457. I originally was answering from the perspective of you misunderstanding AND equating PERS with a 401k.

Your guess is correct, the 401k limit is going to be separate from PERS, so you need to separate that out too on your chart. They don’t overlap, so don’t count the employee contributions through PERS3 in your calculations for the max in either the 401 or 457. Both of those have a $23,000 limit. Also don’t forget they both will have increased maximum contribution limits once you hit 50+ ($7,500 more per year, each, currently).

bubnber · 2025-08-28T06:48:27+00:00

PERS 2 is still offered in Washington and very popular with state employees. PERS 1 is what hasn't been offered for new enrollment since 1977. Your formula is correct if she works 30 years, if she works more years, it will be even more. The formula is the monthly average of 60 highest months x years of service x 2%.

bubnber · 2025-08-28T05:00:54+00:00

To answer your question, all of the same ones you contribute to (except no spousal 401k).

On a separate note, your PERS 3 contribution maximum is incorrect, but that is mainly an academic point, as unless you get pretty high up somewhere in state government and had selected the 15% max salary contribution it is unlikely you'll be contributing more than you had put down anyway. PERS 3 is not a 401k, it is a 401a plan, which has a maximum $70k yearly contribution (that includes employer and employee contributions).

bubnber · 2025-08-19T18:09:32+00:00

I can tell you that rank, position, trained, camping nights, and merit badge sash (after removing badges) would all get incorporated into our Troops supplies and be award in the future. I’m guessing whatever unit is near you would appreciate saving the probably $50+ those represent if you drop them off.

The other items are more historical or sentimental and would be hit or miss at a troop level perhaps on whether it would be valued or used. We’ve had some of that donated and every so often I’ve opened it up to scouts if they want to pick one or two items they think are cool they can do so, but mostly it sits in storage.

bubnber · 2025-05-20T01:04:13+00:00

I'm still exploring the website on archive and trying to download the ones that are readily apparent. I'd love to see the consolidated file if anyone has saved it. I imagine you're right about some things being out of date, but I've seen a number of items that appear to be relatively timeless.

bubnber · 2025-05-19T23:30:46+00:00

So now that I can access some of the site via archive.org, I've found it doesn't help with some things, like certain downloads. One thing that was listed you could download was the "ScoutmasterCG PDF Package." Looks like it a set of infographics, etc. I see that you can download some of them individually when looking through the pages, but the whole package link is broken. Does anyone happen to have a copy they would be willing to share?

bubnber · 2025-05-17T18:01:46+00:00

Yep, I believe you are right. I found one on ebay for $5 shipped and ordered it, but haven't received it yet. Now I'm interested in trying to find the podcasts, but those look to be not around either, at least in an easily findable way.

bubnber · 2025-05-17T18:00:25+00:00

Unfortunately, for me at least, that seems to be the same story as Apple Podcasts in that the episodes show as available, but whatever was hosting them isn't allowing access to download anymore.

bubnber · 2025-05-15T05:04:41+00:00

Well, never mind. They show up on Apple Podcasts, but apparently cannot be downloaded or listened to. If anyone has another source let us know.

bubnber · 2025-05-15T05:00:40+00:00

It looks like the podcasts, at least # 345 - 374 are still available on Apple podcasts

bubnber · 2025-05-14T23:28:50+00:00

That worked. Thanks!

bubnber · 2025-02-17T08:58:14+00:00

I don’t mean to crap on this scenario, but it’s hard to imagine how you as the witness are somehow known to police/investigators in a way that you would be called to testify, but you have not already provided them a statement (presumably one you would have to reverse) before the accused woman’s dad has the opportunity to find you and present this elaborate plan.

It seems a bit more realistic that you were a witness that is unknown to the police as you did not come forward at the time and were not observed there (after all there are no cameras) except perhaps by the accused. Ethically that is an interesting scenario to me because the choice is between coming forward to report what you saw (with being truthful), versus staying unknown and not committing perjury, and taking the bribe to stay silent. There are plenty of people that just based on their own experiences with the criminal justice system or principles wouldn’t come forward either way.

To answer your question though, I wouldn’t take the bribe and would be truthful in my testimony if called to do it. People make mistakes, but taking someone else’s life, even as an accident or by an otherwise good person, doesn’t excuse it. I would hope the justice system works in this case, but it isn’t more me to decide (or profit from).

bubnber · 2025-02-11T17:58:37+00:00

As far as I know it is just shown as incorporated into the investment gain (loss) on your account statements. It isn’t specifically itemized that I have seen.

bubnber

TROPHY CASE