• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Hope you don't plan on having more than $3M in your IRA's

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Freedom is not about need. It's about being able to keep what you earn.

Why do you hate freedom?
But IRAs and 401(k)s are about special tax breaks. Not about keeping what you earn. Limiting special tax breaks to serve their intended purpose is not "hating" freedom.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
This idea, at least as explained in the article, makes no sense. Say I have $20 million throwing off $200k per year at today's crappy 1% savings rates (ignore other investments for simplification). I'm good. Then one day the bond market wakes the hell up and interest rates jump to 5%. Now my $20 million is throwing off $1 million a year and I'm supposed to immediately reduce my balance to $4 million to satisfy this proposal. After a bit of 5% rates the economy tanks and interest rates plunge back to 1% but now I have $4 million instead of $20 million.

Why this and not capital gains taxation reform? That's where the big money is.
You do realize that even liberal president's like FDR treated capital gains specially right?
 

sixone

Lifer
May 3, 2004
25,168
3
61
But IRAs and 401(k)s are about special tax breaks. Not about keeping what you earn. Limiting special tax breaks to serve their intended purpose is not "hating" freedom.
Then why did you bring up how much money people need for retirement?
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
76,577
9,703
126
I find it amusing a man who grew up rich is telling us how much money we should have.

Of course all democrats do that but at least Clinton and Carter grew up somewhat down to earth.
 

Vic Vega

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2010
4,537
3
0
Anyone who supports this is.

1.) A stupid child who has no life experience and hasn't even begun planning for retirement and has no concept of what it may cost.

2.) An old angry liberal fuckstick who sucked at life and is jealous of others' success and feels like if they can't have it neither should anyone else.
 

Gunslinger08

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
13,236
2
71
Limiting total account value seems asinine to me. You're essentially punishing people for making smart investments. Sure, limit tax advantages contributions based on income - that actually makes some sense. This does not.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Limiting total account value seems asinine to me. You're essentially punishing people for making smart investments. Sure, limit tax advantages contributions based on income - that actually makes some sense. This does not.
But we can't reward people for making stupid decisions without punishing people for making smart investments.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,083
490
126
So today it is a cap of 3 million. Next time it is another investment tool that tap. I am fully funding my Roth IRA. But I have little hope with idiots like Obama and the people after him that it will be a tax free payout upon retirement in 35 years.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,324
4
0
Contributions are limited to what $17,000/year.

40 years of contributions at the max us $680,000. Obviously hopefully you would have more due to investment gains.

IRAs are intended to be a way for normal people to save for retirement. Not a way to hide money from fair taxation.



Are you saying there shouldn't be any limit?

EDIT: Oops I appear to have confused IRA with 401K. Whatever, I think you can roll over a 401K into an IRA.
Yes, there should be no limit.

It just makes me feel so fuzzy warm in size that there are people out there that can quantify "need".
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,324
4
0
But IRAs and 401(k)s are about special tax breaks. Not about keeping what you earn. Limiting special tax breaks to serve their intended purpose is not "hating" freedom.
yeah, no. It is a replacement of Social Security. See, when you have a 401K deduction, you reduce your amount of social security tax base, therefore LOWERING the amount of social security return in the future.

As for the withholding side, it's an INCENTIVE for people to plan their savings.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
yeah, no. It is a replacement of Social Security. See, when you have a 401K deduction, you reduce your amount of social security tax base, therefore LOWERING the amount of social security return in the future.
-snip-
Not sure I understand what you're trying to say here, and apologize in advance if I have misunderstood you, but your elective deferrals to a 401k are subject to SS and Medicare tax and withholding.

Fern
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
yeah, no. It is a replacement of Social Security. See, when you have a 401K deduction, you reduce your amount of social security tax base, therefore LOWERING the amount of social security return in the future.

As for the withholding side, it's an INCENTIVE for people to plan their savings.
And obviously if you have 3 million you no longer need incentive.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
So? There is no reason to continue the mistakes of the past.
It is not a mistake. 40-50% of average capital gains are illusory "gains" caused by inflation.

Then why did you bring up how much money people need for retirement?
Because the point of retirement accounts is to save for retirement not to shelter an arbitrary amount of money from the government.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,897
638
126
You know how much I need for retirement? Exactly how much I decide - at any time - I need for retirement.
Central planning has deemed otherwise. The entitlement society is at the core. You may not be independent from the state. The master plan does not allow for it.

This is in part, sarcasm for the less bright among us but it's entirely possible. We'd better be a united front in the 2014 elections and we'd better retake the WH. We're so damned close to the tipping point that I even doubt a change in party control can reverse it. The Republican party and Democrat party are just different factions of a like-minded group. That being politicians.
 

Attic

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,284
2
76
Government should not attempt to define the results. Give a clear equal opportunity to use the savings accounts with a max defined contribution per year based on income for that year and then let people finish where they may. Attempting to frame the results from a pedestal of "truth" is an unsavory tactic of the left. Once enough people feel envious then the left gets what it wants.

3 million is arbitrary, but its more absurd that adults would stand for this type of defined results system. That type of thinking and policy will destroy incentive.

Beyond that,... There is plenty of money and food to go around, if leadership hadn't so squandered this counties resources and policies to achieve one of the greatest wealth divides of a developed nation, then we would never need a tourniquet placed on the tax code so that most people can afford retirement. Perhaps we need to go back to the drawing board rather than squabbling over the leakage of the great hemorging body that is our current state of affairs in government regulations and their enforcement (lack of if you have the right name or size bank account).
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,604
17
81
It's a shame people can't invest anything in a regular taxable account. I guess Obama's closing those down completely.
...:hmm:



I'd still prefer to see something done about the corruption that leads to wasteful and wasted spending.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
76,577
9,703
126
Anyone who supports this is.

1.) A stupid child who has no life experience and hasn't even begun planning for retirement and has no concept of what it may cost.

2.) An old angry liberal fuckstick who sucked at life and is jealous of others' success and feels like if they can't have it neither should anyone else.
3.) Hungry young liberals who wanna change the world and blindly follow Obama even when they dont understand what he's doing.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
Central planning has deemed otherwise. The entitlement society is at the core. You may not be independent from the state. The master plan does not allow for it.

This is in part, sarcasm for the less bright among us but it's entirely possible. We'd better be a united front in the 2014 elections and we'd better retake the WH. We're so damned close to the tipping point that I even doubt a change in party control can reverse it. The Republican party and Democrat party are just different factions of a like-minded group. That being politicians.
I'm voting for whatever party I can get in that gets us a supermajority, preferably, the Dems. It is quite clear the country does not have the fortitude, or will, to do what is necessary for the US to remain what made the US or for the long term benefit of the US. Thus, I'm using my vote and personal day to day influence to convince as many people as possible to vote for shit who will absolutely, without a doubt, tank this country the fastest. That is the only sane thing to do.

The faster we can hit bottom and burn the better. China, India, TRoTDW isn't waiting now that we've opened, and vastly accelerated, that box.

Chuck
 

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
3,960
33
91
So what after 3 Million you have to invest in a non tax differed account? Oh the horror what to do. This must be class warfare. So you basically either buy stock that with after tax money and then get taxed on the capital gains when you sell it or buy income investment that you will have a income stream from. My grandfather managed to accumulate over 400k in SDGE stock over his life and it wasn't in a taxed differed account. My grandmother and him lived very well on SS and Dividend income from the stock until he passed away.
 

MustISO

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,929
12
81
I have no problem with this. It applies to one type of retirement savings, nothing more. It doesn't say you can't save more than 3 million just not 3 million in this one type of account.

For those of you with 3+ million, just keep it in other types of accounts. You'll be fine.
 

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
3,960
33
91
I have no problem with this. It applies to one type of retirement savings, nothing more. It doesn't say you can't save more than 3 million just not 3 million in this one type of account.

For those of you with 3+ million, just keep it in other types of accounts. You'll be fine.
Exactly, If you where that concerned about taxes keep some in municipal bonds. Get a account with Scott Trade or something and pick out some stocks and buy them. Not rocket science folks.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,649
0
76
www.facebook.com
This is one of the few tax proposals that won't screw the middle class and will make the top 1% actually pay taxes the way the rest of us do. I like it.
If it works, then there will be inflation so people will have to go more into debt to buy what they want and just hope that they make their way out of it. If it doesn't have that effect, then it will just increase expenditures without revenue increases.

It ridiculous that so many people want capital gains taxes raised when taxing CG just creates more inflation. We'd have a more stable currency if CG weren't taxed.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,183
60
91
I could see putting money into a Roth IRA, but not a standard IRA. The limits are for tax deferral purposes. Saving money should be encrouraged.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY