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.
People need more incentives to save for their own retirements, not less.
The far left hates anything that would enable self-sufficiency. Economic security through personal savings and investment means the loss of a senior citizen's vote. Remember, the Progressives see all money as belonging to the governement rather than the earner/saver/investor. That is the only way they can justify government theft via "social justice".
The far left hates anything that would enable self-sufficiency. Economic security through personal savings and investment means the loss of a senior citizen's vote. Remember, the Progressives see all money as belonging to the governement rather than the earner/saver/investor. That is the only way they can justify government theft via "social justice".
Give it a rest, lifelong. I'm "far left" by your definition, I'm sure. I think this idea stinks.
The far left hates anything that would enable self-sufficiency. Economic security through personal savings and investment means the loss of a senior citizen's vote. Remember, the Progressives see all money as belonging to the governement rather than the earner/saver/investor. That is the only way they can justify government theft via "social justice".
I'm not sure where you're going with this. Are you calling someone with a government-sponsored retirement account "self-sufficient?"
If someone has their own private account saved on their own accord, that is what I would call "self-sufficiency."
A tax advantage is an incentive. A better incentive is a match up to a specified amount as a reward for saving. Save 15% of your gross income, get a full match. Only 5%, get a partial match. Save nothing, get nothing, or get penalized by paying a tax penalty.
I don't know, but the goal for society is to encourage its individual members to build a nest egg in order to provide for retirement security. The question is how to get every member of society to provide for his future.
Give it a rest, lifelong. I'm "far left" by your definition, I'm sure. I think this idea stinks.
The "far left" likes their constituents dependent upon the government for their every need. Without that, they lose voters. Why do you think that the majority of those on welfare, foodstamps, section 8, etc vote democrat?
gvsteve: I wasn't trying to call you out, hope that's clear. It was just the first time I had seen this and thought it might be an interesting discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gvsteve
I think it's crazy that average people working average jobs would need to hire a professional to ensure that they are obeying the law and complying with the tax code.
At the most basic level, it's pretty simple. 401K deduction, maybe an IRA contribution. There's Traditional (tax advantage now but all withdrawals no matter how big they've grown are normal taxed income later) and Roth (no tax advantage now but all withdrawals no matter how big they've grown are tax free later).
However, once you start getting into Roth aging, Substantially Equal Periodic Payments, recharacterizations, conversions, MRDs, multiple types of accounts, different limits, rollovers, not to mention the fact that virtually every 401K plan out there has different plan rules, I think you DO have a point. Once upon a time I was a backup retirement specialist (phone rep), and the sheer volume of ERISA and PenServ data we needed to be versed in was staggering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gvsteve
Why do you need an account with a special IRS code name to save for retirement?
I can kind of see your point, to some extent. Still, I put 14% of my income including my contribution into a Roth 401K and another few thou into a Roth IRA and expect future tax rates to be even higher than my current marginal rate (see $211 Trillion in unfunded liabilities). I like knowing I'm building a decent nest egg that, barring government deciding to raid the Roths, I'll be able to draw from free of income taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gvsteve
The existence of 401ks and IRAs and all that gives advantage to people who know the tax code
Well again, at the outset there's really not too much to know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gvsteve
while disadvantaging people who don't have 401ks and IRAs and such.
I can see the argument about 401Ks, since it is true not all employers offer them. Not all employers match at 1:1 up to 7 or 10%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal
What tax advantage is the OP indicating specifically? I have a self-funded Roth. The money I contribute to my ROTH are taxed before the contribution is made. I do not get any tax deductions if I make investments that lose money so why should gains be taxes if I am not allowed to deduct losses?
The tax advantage of the Roth, assuming you're taking a qualified withdrawal (and assuming they aren't raided/rescinded), is that all the capital gains taxes are waived. That is the tax advantage we're referring to in the case of the Roth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal
Quite frankly, the personal limits on Roth contributions should be removed to match the maximum one can have in a company funded 401K for any given year in order to level the playing field.
I put as much as I can into my Roth 401K. The profit sharing contribution portion is required to be tax deferred however. I know not all plans offer a Roth 401K option.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal
Frankly, if we were to scrape the entire tax code and go to a simplfied consumption tax this would be one less issue about what else the governement could tax.
This brings up another question. What would we do about the Roths if we went to a consumption tax?
So we're going to eliminate.. I mean restructure Social Security... and take away retirement account tax savings? Is the goal here to make sure we're all eating cat food when we're old? I know Americans love to work, but this war on retirement is really confusing me. Am I the only one who is planning on playing with the grandkids and bumming around a beach somewhere in my 60s and beyond?
for a change I agree with you. As for IRA's we have to withdraw a certain amount yearly after age 70, so what do they want?
That's like asking me to prove the sun rises in the East and sets in the West. There's no need for definitive "proof".
Oh okay, you should of just said you were full of it. Thanks for the info.
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.
