Obama's wants to cap tax credits on IRAs (Page 3)

The fact that .03% of all IRAs (.11% of those held by people over 60) and .0041% of 401ks have that balance sort of doesn't help you make that point.  

link:  http://www.ebri.org/pdf/PR-1017.Advise.10Apr13.RetCap.pdf

The worst number to argue my point is that if the number were adjusted down to $2.2million, 6% of people aged 26-35 would be affected by the time they reached age 65.  The way the wealth gap is in this country, some of those 6% probably would be considered middle class, but not that many.  I would LOVE to be one of those affected, but things like a kid and daycare have sort of eaten into my savings ability.  I didn't come anywhere near 15% in 2012.  Some of that has been shifted to college savings for the newbie as well.  Even so, my wife is in the state retirement plan since she's a teacher, I have an ESOP through work, and i'm dumping what I can into a Roth.  So, I'm not actually affected by it all unless they decide to throw Roths in there.  Even if they did, I'll be glad to pay some tax on what my Roth went over the threshold and stash any extra funds in my twilight years of employment somewhere else.

I should acknowledge that I oversimplified here and, no, it's not always that simple.  Good people do stuggle even after working their a$$ off. 

But, I'm a still firm believer that you are the only one that is really responsible for creating your future and that there is always a way to get from where you are to where you want to be.

KSH - 2013-04-12 9:25 AM

mr2tony - 2013-04-11 2:19 PM

KSH - 2013-04-11 2:12 PM

TriRSquared - 2013-04-10 3:49 PM

OK maybe a slightly sensation headline.. just kidding...

http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/10/retirement/obama-retirement-saving/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

He wants to remove the tax benefits from IRAs exceeding $3 million.  $3mil is not exactly an extravagant amount money to retire on, especially considering the current rate at which the Fed is printing money and hence the cost of goods and services are rising.

Just yet another way the government feels they know better than you.  They know how much you need to "retire comfortably."

And yes, it'll effect a relatively small # of people.  But that's not the point...

HAHAHAHAHAAA! I'm going to be lucky if my retirement fund makes it over $50,000.

Great, just another entitled Texan I have to take care of when we get old. Cant you people secede already, please?

Whatever! I'm going to be a WalMart greeter!!! Actually I'll just take my $50,000 retirement fund and go freeze to death on Everest. That's my "I'm not going into a nursing home" plan.

Hmmmm I kinda like this plan!  I may need to look into it!

trinnas - 2013-04-12 7:35 AM

KSH - 2013-04-12 9:25 AM

mr2tony - 2013-04-11 2:19 PM

KSH - 2013-04-11 2:12 PM

TriRSquared - 2013-04-10 3:49 PM

OK maybe a slightly sensation headline.. just kidding...

http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/10/retirement/obama-retirement-saving/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

He wants to remove the tax benefits from IRAs exceeding $3 million.  $3mil is not exactly an extravagant amount money to retire on, especially considering the current rate at which the Fed is printing money and hence the cost of goods and services are rising.

Just yet another way the government feels they know better than you.  They know how much you need to "retire comfortably."

And yes, it'll effect a relatively small # of people.  But that's not the point...

HAHAHAHAHAAA! I'm going to be lucky if my retirement fund makes it over $50,000.

Great, just another entitled Texan I have to take care of when we get old. Cant you people secede already, please?

Whatever! I'm going to be a WalMart greeter!!! Actually I'll just take my $50,000 retirement fund and go freeze to death on Everest. That's my "I'm not going into a nursing home" plan.

Hmmmm I kinda like this plan!  I may need to look into it!

Seriously. I had figured I'd just end up driving off a cliff when I got to a certain point. Now I'm going to go find somewhere cool to do it.

KSH - 2013-04-12 8:25 AM Whatever! I'm going to be a WalMart greeter!!! Actually I'll just take my $50,000 retirement fund and go freeze to death on Everest. That's my "I'm not going into a nursing home" plan.

Kevin Smith said if you feel suicidal just try to climb Everest.  Heard something like 1/3 people you try it die and who knows if you make it you just might want to live.

Being the oldest person to climb it might give you enough press to keep you alive for a bit longer.

new retirement plan:

Buy a metal detector.

chirunner134 - 2013-04-12 10:15 AM

KSH - 2013-04-12 8:25 AM Whatever! I'm going to be a WalMart greeter!!! Actually I'll just take my $50,000 retirement fund and go freeze to death on Everest. That's my "I'm not going into a nursing home" plan.

Kevin Smith said if you feel suicidal just try to climb Everest.  Heard something like 1/3 people you try it die and who knows if you make it you just might want to live.

Being the oldest person to climb it might give you enough press to keep you alive for a bit longer.

 

Because if there's an expert on climbing things, it's Kevin Smith.

Ah so unless we all live in crushing poverty we have nothing to worry about.

Care to expand?  Are we supposed to feel guilty about this issue?  No...it qualifies as an issue being debated in the United States of America where private citizens are supposed to be the ones...and only ones....that determine what is enough to fund their own retirement and what they choose to do in retirement.

No one is telling you what to do with your retirement plan, how/where to invest it.  The proposal is just removing a perk you (or people with over $3M in qualified assets) once had.  Isn't that what personal responsibility is?  Don't expect the government to help you fund your retirement....

If everyone followed that advice we wouldn't have (such a bad) economic crisis.

...and this is NOT a case of the government "funding your retirement".  It's a matter of the government raising taxes on the rich.  Yet again.

Everyone seems to forget that this money is MINE and YOURS.  Not the government's.  The government has NO money except that which they take from the citizens.

I'm referring more to the comments made by some that "no one needs more than 3 million to retire".  I'm the one who decides that....and I won't be anywhere close.   Where did I say anything about what I do/invest within my retirement plan ? Who said anything about the gov't funding my retirement?

So some pigs are way more equal than others.... again.  Maybe the feds should get out of the picking winners and losers game and quit trying to socially engineer everything with taxes.  Simply use taxes to raise needed revenue!

Reminded me of this article by John Stossel from last year.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danbigman/2012/04/03/john-stossel-tax-the-rich-the-rich-dont-have-enough-really/

I'm referring more to the comments made by some that "no one needs more than 3 million to retire".  I'm the one who decides that....and I won't be anywhere close.   Where did I say anything about what I do/invest within my retirement plan ? Who said anything about the gov't funding my retirement?

The true irony of all this is it will probably result in a negative tax gain and likely give the government less revenue.  I can pretty much guarantee you that anyone who does have a 401k that goes north of $3M will never put another dime into it.  They may get a quick one time hit, but that's it and then they'll completely remove the incentive for said individual to invest in their 401k and she'll take the money elsewhere to avoid it being taxed.  Ask California how all their tax increases are working out in the revenue dept.

If I came to your house and took all the money you left on your coffee table you'd most certainly not put any money on the coffee table the next time I come over. 

Not necessarily. They could invest in lower yield but still tax free instruments such as muni bonds outside their 401ks. It would depend on the after tax yield vs risk aspect of other possible investments.

Obviously they're going to continue to invest, just not in 401k's anymore which was my point.

Um, isn't the purpose of the proposal to not allow contributions to (401k and other) accounts over $3MM? And the resulting tax deferment that comes from the contribution? How is that going to result in a negative tax gain, when the government limits the deferment? Folks are still going to earn the money, aren't they, just won't be able to defer the taxes.