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

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,183
60
91
So just deposit the money in Switzerland or an off-shore bank. Is this what the US Govt wants to encourage?
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,897
638
126
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
You're right and I lost sight of it. I had said what you're saying way back. The flip flopping of control just keeps pulling us farther down the mine shaft. Full Dem control of the federal government will bring us down very, very quickly. The sooner it happens, the sooner it's over and the sooner we can start anew.

Why prolong what is an inevitability? It will not be a controlled collapse, it will be sudden but with plenty of warning.
 

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
3,960
33
91
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.
Calling people names doesn't help validate your argument anymore. Actually it just serves to invalidate your argument since to make your point you have to resort to personal attacks against the people that might have a viewpoint different than yours.
 

Sho'Nuff

Diamond Member
Jul 12, 2007
6,211
114
106
Someone explain to me why and how it is the role of government to determine how much one "needs" in retirement?

205,000 at retirement is not the same as 205,000 now. Plain and simple.

Moreover, there are a lot of folks out there that actually worked damn hard to save money at a rate that will see their balances exceeding the proposed cap. And don;t go comparing those folks to Warren Buffet - never before has their been such an utterly non-sensical comparison. Its a bit like comparing someone with a 5 inch vertical to peter pan.

three other points -

1. ex post facto laws are bullshit.

2. Obama and other folks need to realize the endless government spending and intrusion into the lives of U.S. citizens is not the way our government was intended to operate, or should operate.

3. One of these days, I hope that we as Americans can summon the balls to put a stop to this nonsense and demand true reform in government. Thank the lord Obama cannot run for a presidency at the next election. I don't think I could survive another round of paying my "fair share," seeing as how 51% of my paycheck already goes straight into the furnace of wasteful, negligent, and unchecked government spending.
 
Last edited:

Sho'Nuff

Diamond Member
Jul 12, 2007
6,211
114
106
Calling people names doesn't help validate your argument anymore. Actually it just serves to invalidate your argument since to make your point you have to resort to personal attacks against the people that might have a viewpoint different than yours.
Yet his points are largely true. Let me tone them down a bit -

1. Many folks that support Obama are young. At the risk of overgeneralization, many of them do not understand basic economics. How many folks do you know that are age 18-25 are already planning for retirement in a meaningful way? My guess is not many. Yet those same folks are the ones marshalling the rallying cry to raid the "rich," and help the poor. Never mind that the "rich" that they want to raid are, by and large, citizens who busted their ass to get where they were. Many of the other folks supporting Obama's budget are those that stand to gain from it. . . i.e., they have skin in the game because they stand to benefit from government programs that are riddled with inefficiency, are ineptly managed, and are downright wasteful. Ever wonder how its possible for the government to simply lose track of hundred of millions of dollars that were earmarked for a program. I do, and it happens all the damn time. People need to realize that those dollars came from someone and were not simply drawn out of thin air (unless the government prints money). And that someone is the american taxpayer. So to put it simply, the taxpayer is giving the government money for programs, and the government says, "whoops, sorry! Don't know where it went! My bad." And the american citizens suck it up and and say "OK, here's some more money. And you know what, we're ok if you take a little more of the money I worked all (day/year/my life) to earn, cause we know you'll spend it well. Its vomit inducing how complacent we as citizens have become.

As to the posters point about old folks - it is not an unreasonable assertion to say that many of the elderly like helping other people out. Its natural for them to want to do that, and it brings them great satisfaction. Ask your grandmother if you don't believe me. There is nothing wrong with that personal desire, but it is not the role of government to prop up huge swaths of the populace at the expense of another, very hard working swath of the populace. And before you start going "whoa is me, what about the poor, what about the the [insert] group of interest," let me remind you that for the bulk of U.S. history, the extensive government entitlement programs that exist today did not exist. And for good reason. And that is because the founding fathers had the good foresight to understand what it meant to have an overbearing government. Indeed, it could be argued that Obama's recent proposal to limit the balance of tax advantaged IRA accounts is akin to the stamp act of 1765, in which an equally overbearing British government decided to tax the hell out of the colonies.
 

Nintendesert

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2010
7,761
5
0
Someone explain to me why and how it is the role of government to determine how much one "needs" in retirement?


Because the government is the one giving you a tax break on your IRAs. You're free to save money however else you want free of government intrusion, just pay your taxes on it.
 

Sho'Nuff

Diamond Member
Jul 12, 2007
6,211
114
106
Because the government is the one giving you a tax break on your IRAs. You're free to save money however else you want free of government intrusion, just pay your taxes on it.
Yet many, many people have been investing in IRA's because the government INDUCED them to do so because of those tax breaks. In other words, if Obama's proposal passes, it would mean that the government LIED to the public when it passed laws that allowed unlimited contributions to IRA's. How would that not be upsetting to every single person in this nation? It is about as clear an example of a government LIE as one can get.

"Here's a big pot in which you can throw your money. Don't worry, we won't tax you on it. Until we do. Heh heh."

And yes, I'm fucking upset about this. I worked really god damn hard to get where I am. And yes, I took advantage of programs that were CREATED by the government in part to get where i am. I did that BECAUSE I am smart, and BECAUSE I plan ahead. I started dumping money into tax advantaged IRA's roths, 401k, TSP at age 21 because, well, that's what people who make smart financial decisions for retirement do. My choices my very well have been different had I known that 20 some years down the road, someone was going to say "oh you sir! Yeah, the one with a ton of life savings that you worked all your life for. You have too much. So, fork it over." My response to that is a big FU - stop spending money willy nilly on stuff we don't need!

Seriously, I'm going to run for office. My campaign will be "vote for Sho'Nuff - the baddest motherfucker who will give all everyone in this country a beamer and everyone in harlem two beamers." Then when I am elected by an overwhelming vote, I'll say "did I say beamer? I mean a ray of sunshine. You know, the one I shone up your ass to get in power. Now its taxation time. Now whose the baddest? And you saps better damn well say sho'nuff, cause every second you don't I'm raising taxes by 1%."
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,106
13,036
136
Yet many, many people have been investing in IRA's because the government INDUCED them to do so because of those tax breaks. In other words, if Obama's proposal passes, it would mean that the government LIED to the public when it passed laws that allowed unlimited contributions to IRA's. How would that not be upsetting to every single person in this nation? It is about as clear an example of a government LIE as one can get.

"Here's a big pot in which you can throw your money. Don't worry, we won't tax you on it. Until we do. Heh heh."

And yes, I'm fucking upset about this. I worked really god damn hard to get where I am. And yes, I took advantage of programs that were CREATED by the government in part to get where i am. I did that BECAUSE I am smart, and BECAUSE I plan ahead. I started dumping money into tax advantaged IRA's roths, 401k, TSP at age 21 because, well, that's what people who make smart financial decisions for retirement do. My choices my very well have been different had I known that 20 some years down the road, someone was going to say "oh you sir! Yeah, the one with a ton of life savings that you worked all your life for. You have too much. So, fork it over." My response to that is a big FU - stop spending money willy nilly on stuff we don't need!

Seriously, I'm going to run for office. My campaign will be "vote for Sho'Nuff - the baddest motherfucker who will give all everyone in this country a beamer and everyone in harlem two beamers." Then when I am elected by an overwhelming vote, I'll say "did I say beamer? I mean a ray of sunshine. You know, the one I shone up your ass to get in power. Now its taxation time. Now whose the baddest? And you saps better damn well say sho'nuff, cause every second you don't I'm raising taxes by 1%."
So, uhh, you really have $3M or anywhere near that amount in your IRA w/o running a Romney scam? Really?

It's not like you'll never pay taxes on retirement accounts, either- that's why they're called *deferred compensation* plans. You pay taxes when the money comes out...
 

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
3,960
33
91
Yet his points are largely true. Let me tone them down a bit -

1. Many folks that support Obama are young. At the risk of overgeneralization, many of them do not understand basic economics. How many folks do you know that are age 18-25 are already planning for retirement in a meaningful way? My guess is not many. Yet those same folks are the ones marshalling the rallying cry to raid the "rich," and help the poor. Never mind that the "rich" that they want to raid are, by and large, citizens who busted their ass to get where they were. Many of the other folks supporting Obama's budget are those that stand to gain from it. . . i.e., they have skin in the game because they stand to benefit from government programs that are riddled with inefficiency, are ineptly managed, and are downright wasteful. Ever wonder how its possible for the government to simply lose track of hundred of millions of dollars that were earmarked for a program. I do, and it happens all the damn time. People need to realize that those dollars came from someone and were not simply drawn out of thin air (unless the government prints money). And that someone is the american taxpayer. So to put it simply, the taxpayer is giving the government money for programs, and the government says, "whoops, sorry! Don't know where it went! My bad." And the american citizens suck it up and and say "OK, here's some more money. And you know what, we're ok if you take a little more of the money I worked all (day/year/my life) to earn, cause we know you'll spend it well. Its vomit inducing how complacent we as citizens have become.

As to the posters point about old folks - it is not an unreasonable assertion to say that many of the elderly like helping other people out. Its natural for them to want to do that, and it brings them great satisfaction. Ask your grandmother if you don't believe me. There is nothing wrong with that personal desire, but it is not the role of government to prop up huge swaths of the populace at the expense of another, very hard working swath of the populace. And before you start going "whoa is me, what about the poor, what about the the [insert] group of interest," let me remind you that for the bulk of U.S. history, the extensive government entitlement programs that exist today did not exist. And for good reason. And that is because the founding fathers had the good foresight to understand what it meant to have an overbearing government. Indeed, it could be argued that Obama's recent proposal to limit the balance of tax advantaged IRA accounts is akin to the stamp act of 1765, in which an equally overbearing British government decided to tax the hell out of the colonies.
Thank you, you do have some good point.

IRA's have been around forever. From my research IRA where originally created in 1975. The bulk of US history their wasn't tax deferred saving's accounts. People still saved for retirement before IRA's where created. I am if you are for rolling things back then lets roll back that to. Also realistically the biggest part's of the Federal Budget are entitlements and what are the main entitlements, Social Security and MediCare. The recipients of this wealth transfer isn't the young it is the old and retired part's of the US population. It seems to be the largest group that is being propped up by the Government is the Senior Citizens, the over 65 club. It isn't the young population.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
Yet many, many people have been investing in IRA's because the government INDUCED them to do so because of those tax breaks. In other words, if Obama's proposal passes, it would mean that the government LIED to the public when it passed laws that allowed unlimited contributions to IRA's. How would that not be upsetting to every single person in this nation? It is about as clear an example of a government LIE as one can get.
I assume you know this, but 'misspoke' - we have never allowed unlimited contributions to IRA's.

Whether deductible or not, annual contribution limits have also been in place.

(Rollovers are another matter. But I don't see how it's likely a 401k could have such huge amounts given their annual limitations.)

"Here's a big pot in which you can throw your money. Don't worry, we won't tax you on it. Until we do. Heh heh."
I haven't heard the details of this proposal. You seem to be implying that amounts currently in IRAs above the propose limit would be taxed. if so, can you give us a link pls?

But otherwise, I can understand people being angry at what is essentially a retroactive tax law change. That's very rare. It seems to me we've either had one, or perhaps it was merely a proposal. In any case as a tax professional I'm generally opposed to retroactive tax law changes. Bad, bad policy for a number of reasons.

Fern
 

Gunslinger08

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
13,236
2
71
So, uhh, you really have $3M or anywhere near that amount in your IRA w/o running a Romney scam? Really?

It's not like you'll never pay taxes on retirement accounts, either- that's why they're called *deferred compensation* plans. You pay taxes when the money comes out...
It's actually not crazy to have $3 million in an IRA by retirement age, if you make some good decisions. You can buy many things besides stocks and bonds - gold, real estate, etc. If you get involved with a successful startup or two during your career that provides an ESOP that gets bought out, you can also rollover all proceeds to an IRA.
 

Nintendesert

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2010
7,761
5
0
It's actually not crazy to have $3 million in an IRA by retirement age, if you make some good decisions. You can buy many things besides stocks and bonds - gold, real estate, etc. If you get involved with a successful startup or two during your career that provides an ESOP that gets bought out, you can also rollover all proceeds to an IRA.


Sure, but it's unusual to have over $100 million in an IRA. We can thank Romney and I'm sure many other rich people for abusing a system setup for the middle class and once again screwing all us regular folk.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,148
617
126
Sure, but it's unusual to have over $100 million in an IRA. We can thank Romney and I'm sure many other rich people for abusing a system setup for the middle class and once again screwing all us regular folk.
Wait...so you think it's Romney's the rich's use of tax-preferred accounts that led to this proposal?

:hmm::eek:D:
 

Xenon

Senior member
Oct 16, 1999
769
8
81
I'm glad Obama is addressing this. This helps the middle class and I fully support it.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,106
13,036
136
It's actually not crazy to have $3 million in an IRA by retirement age, if you make some good decisions. You can buy many things besides stocks and bonds - gold, real estate, etc. If you get involved with a successful startup or two during your career that provides an ESOP that gets bought out, you can also rollover all proceeds to an IRA.
You could win the lottery, too. Your scenario is somewhat more likely, but not by much.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,148
617
126
You could win the lottery, too. Your scenario is somewhat more likely, but not by much.
If you were to contribute max into IRA and nothing else (no 401k), and earn a lifetime average of 10%, you could easily hit $3+million.....

Unfortunately, most people dont start saving, if they save at all, until their 30's or even 40's. We dont teach the value of compound interest in school unfortunately. Saving isnt about economics, its about habits.

I heard a quote by Buffett about 20 years ago that I have always remembered: there are 2 ways to make a nice nest egg...alot of money and a little time, or a little money and alot of time. Most people have more time than money.
 

Vic Vega

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2010
4,537
3
0
Calling people names doesn't help validate your argument anymore. Actually it just serves to invalidate your argument since to make your point you have to resort to personal attacks against the people that might have a viewpoint different than yours.
You might think that my descriptions invalidate the argument but in truth this only occurs with idiots. :thumbsup:
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
18,882
1,792
126
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.
Uh - if by one type of account you mean 'tax advantaged' you'd be correct - but that only leaves one other type of account (Non-tax advantaged):

The cap would apply to the total of all of an individual’s tax-favored retirement accounts.
The cap would be set starting at $3.4 million, the amount needed to fund a $205,000 annual annuity for a 62-year-old, and would be adjusted for the cost of living.
I am not sure that tying the amount to an annuity is a fair way of saying what level of income it will provide given that one is guaranteed (solevancy dependent) and often comes with a ton of caveats/rules while the other is potentially subject to far more volatility. $205,000 is a far cry from what some would term an overly risky 4% SWR, which would get you $136,000

Another issue is that just because you adjusted the cap for inflation it doesn't mean the economy currently gives the person the means to reach the new cap level. Inflation hits and the cap rises to 3.5mill but the economy tanked and your account goes to 2.6mill. The raised cap doesn't do you any good

Because the cap is tied to annuities, it could decline if interest rates rise, according to an analysis by the Employee Benefit Research Institute.
What happens once you hit the cap but your gains go over or the cap decreases? Are you forced to take money out? Pay a penalty? Investment gains are ok but no new money can be contributed?

There are still plenty of ways around taxes. If memory serves insurance, municipal bonds, annuities and charity annuities are exempt or tax advantaged. I am sure there are others as well. I doubt this will generate anywhere near the amount of money the White House claims it will.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY