FreudianSlippers

2+ Year Member
Nov 28, 2016
159
151
Hey all it's possible! I'm 1 year post licensure, 2 years post graduation. Have my own private practice and do contract work with another clinic...both jobs finally took off and i'm making more than I ever imagined doing what I love! Don't give up hope :) It's crazy to go from making 35k at postdoc (and even less years prior during practica) to >150k.
 
About the Ads

conky124

5+ Year Member
Feb 18, 2015
114
106
Status
Psychology Student
Hey all it's possible! I'm 1 year post licensure, 2 years post graduation. Have my own private practice and do contract work with another clinic...both jobs finally took off and i'm making more than I ever imagined doing what I love! Don't give up hope :) It's crazy to go from making 35k at postdoc (and even less years prior during practica) to >150k.
Thanks for posting this, it gave me some needed hope! Also I wonder how much cheaper the overhead of private practice can be if you only do telehealth. I bet it reduces no-shows and maybe makes it much cheaper to pay for office space and administration.
 

WisNeuro

Board Certified Neuropsychologist
10+ Year Member
Feb 15, 2009
12,118
12,225
Somewhere
Status
Psychologist
Thanks for posting this, it gave me some needed hope! Also I wonder how much cheaper the overhead of private practice can be if you only do telehealth. I bet it reduces no-shows and maybe makes it much cheaper to pay for office space and administration.
At least in our initial survey of state members, reduces no-shows, but not as much as we thought it would. As for office space, if you were pure telehealth and meant to stay that way, you could do a home office, but most of our members are planning on return to in-person or a hybrid model going forward.
 

conky124

5+ Year Member
Feb 18, 2015
114
106
Status
Psychology Student
At least in our initial survey of state members, reduces no-shows, but not as much as we thought it would. As for office space, if you were pure telehealth and meant to stay that way, you could do a home office, but most of our members are planning on return to in-person or a hybrid model going forward.
That's all good to know, do you know about how much of a reduction in no-shows? I much rather work in person, but it seems like a really simple way to do clinical work and to balance multiple jobs like consulting, teaching, research. Also how things are going and as you all probably know I think we are gonna see a big shift to telehealth services.
 

WisNeuro

Board Certified Neuropsychologist
10+ Year Member
Feb 15, 2009
12,118
12,225
Somewhere
Status
Psychologist
That's all good to know, do you know about how much of a reduction in no-shows? I much rather work in person, but it seems like a really simple way to do clinical work and to balance multiple jobs like consulting, teaching, research. Also how things are going and as you all probably know I think we are gonna see a big shift to telehealth services.
It ranged quite a bit, I imagine there may be some patterns depending on practice characteristics, but we didn't drill down that much, we needed some quick data for legislative lobbying purposes. As for the shift, many people plan on doing more telehealth in the future, but the vast majority of clinicians and patients we surveyed preferred in-person, just not during a pandemic.

And, in terms of my own practice bias, there are a lot of limitations to neuropsychological assessment in a virtual setting. Not to mention many people assuming equivalence between paper and pencil measures and digital versions, when we have good evidence that there are sometimes fairly big differences, particularly with times measures. That, and I simply will not do IMEs virtually.

Edit: forgot to give a number. We saw a range of 10-20 no show rate with self-report
 
Last edited:

conky124

5+ Year Member
Feb 18, 2015
114
106
Status
Psychology Student
It ranged quite a bit, I imagine there may be some patterns depending on practice characteristics, but we didn't drill down that much, we needed some quick data for legislative lobbying purposes. As for the shift, many people plan on doing more telehealth in the future, but the vast majority of clinicians and patients we surveyed preferred in-person, just not during a pandemic.

And, in terms of my own practice bias, there are a lot of limitations to neuropsychological assessment in a virtual setting. Not to mention many people assuming equivalence between paper and pencil measures and digital versions, when we have good evidence that there are sometimes fairly big differences, particularly with times measures. That, and I simply will not do IMEs virtually.

Edit: forgot to give a number. We saw a range of 10-20 no show rate with self-report
Good to know, and I'm kind of glad most clinicians and patients still prefer in-person, maybe that means telehealth won't be our overlords just yet...

I've heard that same issue from others in my internship on neuro rotations. I wonder if there will be more neuro tests that will be developed and eventually implemented that can be completed through a virtual interface. On the other hand, maybe that is not possible.
 

FreudianSlippers

2+ Year Member
Nov 28, 2016
159
151
Thanks all for the support...this forum honestly has been an immense help in so many ways (including during graduate school).

Thanks for posting this, it gave me some needed hope! Also I wonder how much cheaper the overhead of private practice can be if you only do telehealth. I bet it reduces no-shows and maybe makes it much cheaper to pay for office space and administration.
I do have office space from pre-covid (2 days per week and one evening) but I would have needed to get more if it weren't for lockdown. It definitely cuts down costs...but most of my clients ultimately want to go back to in-person eventually (and are physically located near my office) so I don't know if I even would have this big of a case load if I was doing teletherapy only. Cash-only clients seem to prefer in-person, which makes sense when you are paying that much.

Damn, 150k at 24 hours?! Are you cash pay only?
Yes! And the contract work pays pretty well too. I also have been focusing on specializing in my Niche area, which has attracted more cash-only people. My prices are a bit lower than the general specialist in my area. I justify this because I am barely a year licensed....but I think it definitely has led to a greater influx of people needing help
 

WisNeuro

Board Certified Neuropsychologist
10+ Year Member
Feb 15, 2009
12,118
12,225
Somewhere
Status
Psychologist
I've heard that same issue from others in my internship on neuro rotations. I wonder if there will be more neuro tests that will be developed and eventually implemented that can be completed through a virtual interface. On the other hand, maybe that is not possible.
I think it's possible, it would just take a good deal of development and research. At the moment, we have some things that have been ported to digital without re-norming, and people are using the paper and pencil norms. We know that many of those are not equivalent, so I see it as unethical. I'd be willing to use it to test limits, but I would not report the normative score for some.

That's just the tests themselves. When it's in someone's home, we can't control many other variables, such as distractions, or people recording the stimuli, or surreptitiously writing things down. These are not just hypotheticals, two of these have happened numerous times to me in the few short months that I've been testing virtually.
 
About the Ads

Sanman

O.G.
15+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
Sep 1, 2000
2,664
1,999
Dreaming of Margaritaville
www.-----.com
Status
Psychologist
Guessing that's gross. Get two years of income on the books, so you can qualify for a mortgage. Then start looking into how to put things into business expenses. Hire your kids as "child models", and pay them directly into their own IRAs.
"child models":laugh: What do you suggest they model? Oppositional defiant disorder?
 

PsyDr

Psychologist
Lifetime Donor
10+ Year Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,517
4,075
Status
Psychologist
The IRS generally looks down on people hiring children. There are a few special categories where they don't care. "Child model" is one category.

Pickpocketing for Fagan is still a grey area.

If you have a website, you can put pictures of your kids up as potential models. If you pay that crap directly into an IRA for an infant, they will have 59 years of compounding interest. A ONE TIME payment at one year old, at 7% interest , compounded annually, is ~$250k.
 
Last edited:

Sanman

O.G.
15+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
Sep 1, 2000
2,664
1,999
Dreaming of Margaritaville
www.-----.com
Status
Psychologist
The IRS generally looks down on people hiring children. There are a few special categories where they don't care. "Child model" is one category.

Pickpocketing for Fagan is still a grey area.

If you have a website, you can put pictures of your kids up as potential models. If you pay that crap directly into an IRA for an infant, they will have 59 years of compounding interest. A ONE TIME payment at one year old, at 7% interest , compounded annually, is ~$250k.
$5k initial payment, I am assuming? One of the best pieces of financial advice I ever heard was to put $6k in an investment fund for your kids every year for the first 6 years of life. Over 1 million by retirement at 6%.
 

WisNeuro

Board Certified Neuropsychologist
10+ Year Member
Feb 15, 2009
12,118
12,225
Somewhere
Status
Psychologist
$5k initial payment, I am assuming? One of the best pieces of financial advice I ever heard was to put $6k in an investment fund for your kids every year for the first 6 years of life. Over 1 million by retirement at 6%.
True, but for it to go into a tax advantaged IRA, it has to be qualifying earned income.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AbnormalPsych

beginner2011

Beginner's Mind
7+ Year Member
Apr 13, 2011
375
394
Status
Post Doc
Hmmm. Am I the only one who sees tax evasion (legal or otherwise) as unethical, immoral, and leading to bad outcomes for society? Isn't this similar to the kind of things those on the left (myself included) have vilified the Trumps for doing?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: acclivity

AbnormalPsych

Psychologist
5+ Year Member
Dec 8, 2014
694
876
Everywhere
Status
Psychologist
This is not tax evasion. And aside from reducing your taxable income a bit it really has little to do with taxes.

This is legal retirement planning strategy, it follows the guidelines and utilizes the available retirement accounts our own government set up.

It is done pretty widely by people who can here is just a start and quick link (need to run to a meeting): My Children's Inheritance | White Coat Investor
 
About the Ads

Sanman

O.G.
15+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
Sep 1, 2000
2,664
1,999
Dreaming of Margaritaville
www.-----.com
Status
Psychologist
Hmmm. Am I the only one who sees tax evasion (legal or otherwise) as unethical, immoral, and leading to bad outcomes for society? Isn't this similar to the kind of things those on the left (myself included) have vilified the Trumps for doing?
Have you ever contributed to a 401k or IRA? Congrats you are a tax evader. I don't make the rules of the game, I just try to live by them. The criminals are the ones that do not, though live a bit longer and you start to understand unintentional or even intentional criminality as different from morality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NeuroDuckWannab

beginner2011

Beginner's Mind
7+ Year Member
Apr 13, 2011
375
394
Status
Post Doc
Have you ever contributed to a 401k or IRA? Congrats you are a tax evader. I don't make the rules of the game, I just try to live by them. The criminals are the ones that do not, though live a bit longer and you start to understand unintentional or even intentional criminality as different from morality.
I think there's a difference between contributing to your own 401k and setting up an IRA for a child under the pretense that they were working as a child model, no?
 
  • Like
Reactions: FreudianSlipper

Sanman

O.G.
15+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
Sep 1, 2000
2,664
1,999
Dreaming of Margaritaville
www.-----.com
Status
Psychologist
I think there's a difference between contributing to your own 401k and setting up an IRA for a child under the pretense that they were working as a child model, no?
As long as they were a child model on your website, brochures, etc not really. Both are taking advantage of tax loopholes. One is just more popular and accessible than the other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Therapist4Chnge

AbnormalPsych

Psychologist
5+ Year Member
Dec 8, 2014
694
876
Everywhere
Status
Psychologist
I think there's a difference between contributing to your own 401k and setting up an IRA for a child under the pretense that they were working as a child model, no?
This is key (legally and morally, imo). Yes, they have to work. And their pay has to be reasonable. Luckily some things like child models make bank if you look up standard rates.
 

PsyDr

Psychologist
Lifetime Donor
10+ Year Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,517
4,075
Status
Psychologist
Hmmm. Am I the only one who sees tax evasion (legal or otherwise) as unethical, immoral, and leading to bad outcomes for society? Isn't this similar to the kind of things those on the left (myself included) have vilified the Trumps for doing?
A. Frankly, you don't know what you're talking about.

1) Tax AVOIDANCE is completely legal (and the legally obligated behavior for those with a fiduciary responsibility of a business).

2) Tax evasion, is a federal crime.

Please be careful when accusing someone of a federal crime.


Money is amoral. Corporations and their officers are obligated to reduce their tax burdens as much as possible. Same for family home offices and trusts, which are reflected in the Panama papers. The courts have upheld corporations are "persons". Therefore, there are a blanket set of rules and tools available. If someone wants to be a martyr, and give more than their obligation to the gov't, they are free to do so. If those people assume those funds are being used appropriately, that's on them. See: ATT's fiber network theft, Bank of America's tax payments, war contractors, etc.

There's a reason I am able to donate incredible amounts to the poor.
 
Last edited:

beginner2011

Beginner's Mind
7+ Year Member
Apr 13, 2011
375
394
Status
Post Doc
Frankly, you don't know what you're talking about.

1) Tax AVOIDANCE is completely legal (and the legally obligated behavior for those with a fiduciary responsibility of a business).

2) Tax evasion, is a federal crime.

Please be careful when accusing someone of a federal crime.
My apologies for the use of inappropriate terminology. Also, to be clear, I didn't accuse anyone of anything.

I'll rephrase the question:

Am I the only one who sees tax avoidance in the context of estate tax and the intergenerational transfer of wealth in particular as unethical, immoral, and/or bad for society? (So far the answer appears to be yes.)
 

Sanman

O.G.
15+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
Sep 1, 2000
2,664
1,999
Dreaming of Margaritaville
www.-----.com
Status
Psychologist
My apologies for the use of inappropriate terminology. Also, to be clear, I didn't accuse anyone of anything.

I'll rephrase the question:

Am I the only one who sees tax avoidance in the context of estate tax and the intergenerational transfer of wealth in particular as unethical, immoral, and/or bad for society? (So far the answer appears to be yes.)
So, why is it bad for society? Suggesting it to be unethical or immoral assumes that the morals and ethics of the legislature that makes the rules is superior to that of the people avoiding taxes. So, you consider congress to be the last word on morality and ethics?

In the context of the estate tax, who gets to set the number and hold the monopoly on morality? Or are you suggesting we tax everything? In which case tax avoidance would simply take the form of cash or gold instead of property and bank accounts.
 

PsyDr

Psychologist
Lifetime Donor
10+ Year Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,517
4,075
Status
Psychologist
My apologies for the use of inappropriate terminology. Also, to be clear, I didn't accuse anyone of anything.

I'll rephrase the question:

Am I the only one who sees tax avoidance in the context of estate tax and the intergenerational transfer of wealth in particular as unethical, immoral, and/or bad for society? (So far the answer appears to be yes.)
No. There are absolutely loopholes. Our "representatives" are allowed to accept bribes by these interests. Those interests make use of these loopholes. These practices are supported by our legal system. Then our legal system declared corporations to be "people".

1) coca cola is a person, and is legally obligated to use techniques to limit how much they contribute.
2) psydr is a person. Should he play by different rules? And if so, does that mean he is a different class of people?


The rules are crappy. What one does with their money is more definitive of their ethics.
 

beginner2011

Beginner's Mind
7+ Year Member
Apr 13, 2011
375
394
Status
Post Doc

Sanman

O.G.
15+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
Sep 1, 2000
2,664
1,999
Dreaming of Margaritaville
www.-----.com
Status
Psychologist
No. There are absolutely loopholes. Our "representatives" are allowed to accept bribes by these interests. Those interests make use of these loopholes. These practices are supported by our legal system. Then our legal system declared corporations to be "people".

1) coca cola is a person, and is legally obligated to use techniques to limit how much they contribute.
2) psydr is a person. Should he play by different rules? And if so, does that mean he is a different class of people?


The rules are crappy. What one does with their money is more definitive of their ethics.
Which bathroom do you suppose coca cola is allowed to use in North Carolina?
 
About the Ads

Sanman

O.G.
15+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
Sep 1, 2000
2,664
1,999
Dreaming of Margaritaville
www.-----.com
Status
Psychologist
Wealth inequality is bad. source: Effects of economic inequality - Wikipedia



In my opinion: yes and yes -- see above.
Who says tax avoidance has anything to do with the reasons we have wealth inequality in this country? So, you think PsyDr shouldn't use a tax loophole and that will fix wealth inequality, but Coca cola gets a pass?


EDIT: If you think that, you have not really looked at the numbers and why wealth inequality exists. The estate tax has little to do with this. In fact, I am confused why someone who wants to eliminate economic inequality is not FOR the estate tax?
 
Last edited:

beginner2011

Beginner's Mind
7+ Year Member
Apr 13, 2011
375
394
Status
Post Doc
Who says tax avoidance has anything to do with the reasons we have wealth inequality in this country?
Source?

So, you think PsyDr shouldn't use a tax loophole and that will fix wealth inequality, but Coca cola gets a pass?
Look at the questions he posed and how I responded.

EDIT: If you think that, you have not really looked at the numbers and why wealth inequality exists. The estate tax has little to do with this. In fact, I am confused why someone who wants to eliminate economic inequality is not FOR the estate tax?
I am saying that I think it's unethical for people to avoid paying estate taxes by using loopholes. I'm not sure how you've misunderstood that, but that's been my stance from the beginning of this conversation.
 

Sanman

O.G.
15+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
Sep 1, 2000
2,664
1,999
Dreaming of Margaritaville
www.-----.com
Status
Psychologist
Source?



Look at the questions he posed and how I responded.



I am saying that I think it's unethical for people to avoid paying estate taxes by using loopholes. I'm not sure how you've misunderstood that, but that's been my stance from the beginning of this conversation.
We all use loopholes to avoid paying some percentage of taxes. There is an entire profession funded (multiple actually) based on tax planning and avoidance. I am unclear what the estate tax has to do with anything. Nothing listed here will stop anyone from paying taxes on money in excess of 11 million dollars. There are exclusions related to gift tax exemptions. What PsyDr mentioned is an income tax loophole and has nothing to do with the estate tax.

Most of the loopholes you are criticizing are used by regular people to help improve their lives, there by decreasing economic inequality. Removing all loopholes would actually benefit the rich even more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AbnormalPsych

beginner2011

Beginner's Mind
7+ Year Member
Apr 13, 2011
375
394
Status
Post Doc
We all use loopholes to avoid paying some percentage of taxes. There is an entire profession funded (multiple actually) based on tax planning and avoidance. I am unclear what the estate tax has to do with anything. Nothing listed here will stop anyone from paying taxes on money in excess of 11 million dollars. There are exclusions related to gift tax exemptions. What PsyDr mentioned is an income tax loophole and has nothing to do with the estate tax.

Most of the loopholes you are criticizing are used by regular people to help improve their lives, there by decreasing economic inequality. Removing all loopholes would actually benefit the rich even more.
Huh! Good to know. I guess my ignorance and low income graduate student are showing.

I'd still say that I have ethical concerns with the idea of using loopholes to avoid paying taxes (estate or otherwise) on intergenerational transfers of wealth.
 

Sanman

O.G.
15+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
Sep 1, 2000
2,664
1,999
Dreaming of Margaritaville
www.-----.com
Status
Psychologist
Huh! Good to know. I guess my ignorance and low income graduate student are showing.

I'd still say that I have ethical concerns with the idea of using loopholes to avoid paying taxes (estate or otherwise) on intergenerational transfers of wealth.
Okay, that just means that middle/upper middle class people will become more poor. The majority of individual wealth above $10 million dollars is actually in business equity. The estate tax exemption just means that you would be able to inherit your parents house in the Bay area without owing the government a ton of money in taxes on the 1 million dollar value today and being forced to sell it to some rich person to pay the taxes.
 

beginner2011

Beginner's Mind
7+ Year Member
Apr 13, 2011
375
394
Status
Post Doc
Okay, that just means that middle/upper middle class people will become more poor. The majority of individual wealth above $10 million dollars is actually in business equity. The estate tax exemption just means that you would be able to inherit your parents house in the Bay area without owing the government a ton of money in taxes on the 1 million dollar value today and being forced to sell it to some rich person to pay the taxes.
****. That's a damn good point. Thanks for setting me straight.
 

Sanman

O.G.
15+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
Sep 1, 2000
2,664
1,999
Dreaming of Margaritaville
www.-----.com
Status
Psychologist
****. That's a damn good point. Thanks for setting me straight.
Want to have your mind really blown? Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the country. His annual salary $81,840. Less than many members of this board. His total annual non-cash compensation? 1.6 million. His net worth 100+ billion. Remember that the next time someone is talking about increasing income taxes. It would not touch him. He might even have gotten the government COVID cash.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FreudianSlipper

Sanman

O.G.
15+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
Sep 1, 2000
2,664
1,999
Dreaming of Margaritaville
www.-----.com
Status
Psychologist
A great reason to support wealth taxes instead/in addition. Most of the racial inequality is in wealth vs. income as well.
The problem with wealth taxes is that they are very hard to implement on assets or unrealized gains. Now that we have all been pushed into 401k retirement plans, increasing capital gains taxes hurts everyone. See what they did there?

More of an issue in racial inequality was redlining and unfair mortgage lending. More reform in those areas would be the best thing for helping minority wealth accumulation.
 

PsyDr

Psychologist
Lifetime Donor
10+ Year Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,517
4,075
Status
Psychologist
In my opinion: yes and yes -- see above.
Where are the limits on the other side of that reasoning? Why shouldn't an individual live in absolute poverty so as to give more than their fair share?


A great reason to support wealth taxes instead/in addition. Most of the racial inequality is in wealth vs. income as well.

Yeah, tax wealth. Great idea.


That won’t immediately lead to the wealthy moving their assets into an FLP or LLC or irrevocable trust. Then they definitely wouldn’t say, “I’m actually quite poor as a person”, which prevents them from lawsuits just like Epstein. And they definitely wouldn’t use those articles of incorporation to dictate that their shares of the company be sold to their heirs for $0.02 in the event of their death. And they definitely wouldn’t pay themselves dividends out of those structure because dividends are taxed at 15%. If they have about $50MM+ they could offshore those assets.

yeah, the wealthy won’t defiantly do those things. They’ll pay wealth tax just like the middle class. Everyone will pay their fair share. Then we can all meet up for the sing a long.

Me, personally? I’m gonna do what the wealthy do. There was a reason I was have been able to do hundreds of pro bono neuropsychs and pay my employees well above market rates.
 

WisNeuro

Board Certified Neuropsychologist
10+ Year Member
Feb 15, 2009
12,118
12,225
Somewhere
Status
Psychologist
I'm with @PsyDr , money is amoral. I got here by myself, and I'd rather use my money the way I choose. The more money I don't pay in taxes for my business (as a household we still pay a substantial amount) the more I can use for charitable causes of my choosing, or in psychology advocacy. Sure, I can pay more taxes that go to corporate subsidies, or propping up the weapons industry, but I'd rather direct it to better causes. Also, I'm going to make damn sure I have more than enough to take care of myself when I am retired. Not against my personal code of ethics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paired Associate

beginner2011

Beginner's Mind
7+ Year Member
Apr 13, 2011
375
394
Status
Post Doc
Where are the limits on the other side of that reasoning? Why shouldn't an individual live in absolute poverty so as to give more than their fair share?
Slippery slope. Nuance is possible.



Yeah, tax wealth. Great idea.


That won’t immediately lead to the wealthy moving their assets into an FLP or LLC or irrevocable trust. Then they definitely wouldn’t say, “I’m actually quite poor as a person”, which prevents them from lawsuits just like Epstein. And they definitely wouldn’t use those articles of incorporation to dictate that their shares of the company be sold to their heirs for $0.02 in the event of their death. And they definitely wouldn’t pay themselves dividends out of those structure because dividends are taxed at 15%. If they have about $50MM+ they could offshore those assets.

yeah, the wealthy won’t defiantly do those things. They’ll pay wealth tax just like the middle class. Everyone will pay their fair share. Then we can all meet up for the sing a long.

Me, personally? I’m gonna do what the wealthy do. There was a reason I was have been able to do hundreds of pro bono neuropsychs and pay my employees well above market rates.
Thus my issue with tax avoidance.

I'm with @PsyDr , money is amoral. I got here by myself, and I'd rather use my money the way I choose. The more money I don't pay in taxes for my business (as a household we still pay a substantial amount) the more I can use for charitable causes of my choosing, or in psychology advocacy. Sure, I can pay more taxes that go to corporate subsidies, or propping up the weapons industry, but I'd rather direct it to better causes. Also, I'm going to make damn sure I have more than enough to take care of myself when I am retired. Not against my personal code of ethics.
I think that's where we disagree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PsySeeker

Spydra

5+ Year Member
Aug 16, 2014
260
179
Status
Psychology Student
If you have a website, you can put pictures of your kids up as potential models. If you pay that crap directly into an IRA for an infant, they will have 59 years of compounding interest. A ONE TIME payment at one year old, at 7% interest , compounded annually, is ~$250k.
Wouldn't doing this make them ineligible for a number of financial aid options (because this might be considered an asset) should they go to college?
 
About the Ads