Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You come across as if these "decisions" are made from the people.
They aren't. These decisions are made by a select group of global bankers.
That just argues even more so against the previous poster's perspective. Even if things were fairly determined it would not be specifically design to placate his own personal avarice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ
i think you mischaracterized what i said as "complaining" when i was just stating a matter of fact.
No: What you posted were complaints: Expressions of dissatisfaction with the way things are. Criticisms of what the government is doing, in general, and doing "to" you in particular. Complaining.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ
you are full of tactics and mischaracterizations for someone who tries to attack the "tactics" of others.
I'm very effectively confronting the perspectives you're posting...what else are you going to say?
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilnewbie
I think it is funny that the government says 3 million is a lot for a person but that 14 trillion isn't a lot for the US Gov....
I suppose you'd find it "funny" that a family of five spends a lot more on food than a single person.
No: What you posted were complaints: Expressions of dissatisfaction with the way things are. Criticisms of what the government is doing, in general, and doing "to" you in particular. Complaining.
you are very obviously wrong. the fact that i cant contribute to the roth ira doesnt bother me at all. i would never mention it as a complaint, its just a reality when talking about my options.
Personally, i think it is foolish and arrogant to cap it at 3 million solely on the reason because "it is a lot of money" ....It sounds like they couldn't come up with a legitimate reason...
Maybe a controlled deflation is planned/baked in the cake? If that's the case, then $3million sounds about right.
In past threads', several posters have said that tax-deferred doesn't mean much in the scheme of things, so what's the problem?
Based on what I read in the WSJ this weekend - the plan will work as follows. You can accumulate money in your retirement accounts until it reaches a sum which is capable of generating a lifetime annuity of X. That lump sum is currently about $3 million. Once you reach the lump sum - you won't be able to make additional contributions - but you can keep earning money on the money in the accounts. I haven't read anything about penalties on "excess amounts" in the accounts - or "excess distributions". Has anyone read anything else about this? Robyn
Based on what I read in the WSJ this weekend - the plan will work as follows. You can accumulate money in your retirement accounts until it reaches a sum which is capable of generating a lifetime annuity of X. That lump sum is currently about $3 million. Once you reach the lump sum - you won't be able to make additional contributions - but you can keep earning money on the money in the accounts. I haven't read anything about penalties on "excess amounts" in the accounts - or "excess distributions". Has anyone read anything else about this? Robyn
No word yet, and it is not expected to pass. It is also important to remember that the 3 mill figure is for someone retiring in 2013. The cap would change over time because it would be indexed to the CPI. I have absolutely no problem with the gist of this proposal. Tax-advantaged retirement accounts should be geared towards those who most need them: middle and low income Americans who don't earn enough salary to sufficiently save for retirement.
No word yet, and it is not expected to pass. It is also important to remember that the 3 mill figure is for someone retiring in 2013. The cap would change over time because it would be indexed to the CPI. I have absolutely no problem with the gist of this proposal. Tax-advantaged retirement accounts should be geared towards those who most need them: middle and low income Americans who don't earn enough salary to sufficiently save for retirement.
I'm not aware that anything is tied to inflation. What it is tied to is interest rates. From Saturday's WSJ:
But the budget proposal isn't tied to a specific dollar figure, EBRI points out. Instead, it is based on the amount needed to generate an annuity payment of $205,000 a year for a 62-year-old worker in a traditional, defined-benefit pension plan. If interest rates rise, annuities could get cheaper, meaning the cap could shrink. Going back to late 2006, for example, annuities paying that amount cost as little as $2.2 million for someone age 65, says Jack VanDerhei, EBRI's research director.
So - if interest rates go up a lot - the maximum allowed in the accounts could go down a lot. And - of course - interest rates vary over time. And the timing might not be fortuitous for any particular person - especially a younger person - who wants to save as much money as possible when he/she is young (to take advantage of the wonder of long term compound interest).
BTW - as the WSJ also pointed out - this proposal will possibly have a large effect on lower and middle income workers whose employers terminate plans for all workers because the employers have "max'd out":
The danger for rank-and-file workers, whose account balances typically fall under the proposed cap, is that the people who would be among the most affected by it—business owners and other successful investors—could disband 401(k) plans for all employees and move money into other tax-sheltered tools, retirement-industry experts say.
So people shouldn't assume the proposal won't affect them just because they aren't "rich". Robyn
The budget says it would “limit an individual’s total balance across tax-preferred accounts to an amount sufficient to finance an annuity of not more than $205,000 per year in retirement, or about $3 million for someone retiring in 2013.”
The limit is actually a moving target because the annuity amount ($205,000 today) would be indexed to inflation and the lump sump needed to finance that amount ($3 million today) would also change as interest rates change.
So both inflation and interest rates would play a role in determining the cap. I'm not sure I buy the argument that business owners would disband 401k plans en masse, but perhaps this point would come up in committee if the proposal even makes it that far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robyn55
I'm not aware that anything is tied to inflation. What it is tied to is interest rates. From Saturday's WSJ:
But the budget proposal isn't tied to a specific dollar figure, EBRI points out. Instead, it is based on the amount needed to generate an annuity payment of $205,000 a year for a 62-year-old worker in a traditional, defined-benefit pension plan. If interest rates rise, annuities could get cheaper, meaning the cap could shrink. Going back to late 2006, for example, annuities paying that amount cost as little as $2.2 million for someone age 65, says Jack VanDerhei, EBRI's research director.
So - if interest rates go up a lot - the maximum allowed in the accounts could go down a lot. And - of course - interest rates vary over time. And the timing might not be fortuitous for any particular person - especially a younger person - who wants to save as much money as possible when he/she is young (to take advantage of the wonder of long term compound interest).
BTW - as the WSJ also pointed out - this proposal will possibly have a large effect on lower and middle income workers whose employers terminate plans for all workers because the employers have "max'd out":
The danger for rank-and-file workers, whose account balances typically fall under the proposed cap, is that the people who would be among the most affected by it—business owners and other successful investors—could disband 401(k) plans for all employees and move money into other tax-sheltered tools, retirement-industry experts say.
So people shouldn't assume the proposal won't affect them just because they aren't "rich". Robyn
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
