U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-06-2013, 05:00 PM
 
69,372 posts, read 55,357,998 times
Reputation: 9358

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Nobody is stopping you from putting as much away for retirement as you want. That doesn't mean it has to be given to you with generous tax incentives.
There isnt a tax incentive to put money into an IRA, yes, its taxed later, but the net result is the same..

 
Old 04-06-2013, 05:03 PM
 
Location: NC
10,005 posts, read 8,996,488 times
Reputation: 3073
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Let me quote something I read once, and see if you still agree

Once upon a time there were two farmers named Joe and Bob who lived in the Kingdom of Ira. The King of Ira said to Joe and Bob that they must pay one fourth part of their grain as a tax. But, being a kind and wise king, he gave them a choice. They could pay a fourth of their seed in the spring or a fourth of their harvest in the fall.
Joe chose to pay a fourth of his seed and so could sow only three fields, but kept all that he reaped. Bob decided to keep all his seed, and planted four fields, but had to give the bounty of one of those fields to the king. Both farmers had three fields worth of grain to feed their families and so lived happily ever after.”

But lets go with your argument..

US Treasuries are also tax advanged, does that mean people shouldnt be able to buy $3M+ worth of bonds? Where the hell would the govt be if they did something that dumb?
I don't know why the government would want to restrict the sale of T-bonds, but in terms of tax breaks I think it is entirely reasonable for the government to have the flexibility to limit them.

Think about what you are suggesting. You are basically saying that once the government creates a tax advantage it should never be changed at all regardless of what congress feels is necessary. That makes for a ridged and inflexible system. The fact is we elect congress and the president (via veto power) to among other things set the tax code. I don't think limiting a tax avoidance item, especially at $3m is so horrible or unreasonable.
 
Old 04-06-2013, 05:04 PM
 
Location: NC
10,005 posts, read 8,996,488 times
Reputation: 3073
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
There isnt a tax incentive to put money into an IRA, yes, its taxed later, but the net result is the same..
That is wrong. There very much is a tax incentive to IRAs namely tax deferral, or complete tax avoidance depending on what type of IRA.
 
Old 04-06-2013, 05:05 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,093 posts, read 72,311,213 times
Reputation: 27564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
I don't know why the government would want to restrict the sale of T-bonds, but in terms of tax breaks I think it is entirely reasonable for the government to have the flexibility to limit them.

Think about what you are suggesting. You are basically saying that once the government creates a tax advantage it should never be changed at all regardless of what congress feels is necessary. That makes for a ridged and inflexible system. The fact is we elect congress and the president (via veto power) to among other things set the tax code. I don't think limiting a tax avoidance item, especially at $3m is so horrible or unreasonable.
Change the rules for new entrants into the game.
Don't change the game midway.

No quicker way to lose faith than to promise something, leave it alone for 20-30 years and then when you are in debt up to your eyeballs say..hey..I think I'll tax that money now because you have too much.
 
Old 04-06-2013, 05:05 PM
 
Location: None of your business
5,467 posts, read 3,764,221 times
Reputation: 1170
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
And we've had how many pages of discussions here discussing just 1 other way that people who are rich, arent being attacked, while the working class is by this administration, but how about others..

Hey William, how about people who own businesses worth over $3M, and they plan to sell it upon their retirement? Are they next going to say that you cant own a business worth $x because the value of that business isnt being taxed until its sold and spent?

I know someone who has a car collection, and while the value isnt near $3M, its their retirement fund. How about if they manage to acquire $3M+ in cars, why dont we demand that they stop accumulating?

Hell, my internet company probably has $3M in inventory, and because I'm a sole proprieter, does this mean it cant acquire more? We wouldnt want people to have too much saved when they retire, we want them dependant upon Social Security..

What an asinine proposal..
Obviously according to the Democratic theory after they determine how much inventory you and value in your company you can not grow you're business either. I do hear that the wealthy are investing in art too. They better stop accumulating, then again, Obama will not come after "wealth" he is going after income.
 
Old 04-06-2013, 05:06 PM
 
Location: NC
10,005 posts, read 8,996,488 times
Reputation: 3073
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Change the rules for new entrants into the game.
Don't change the game midway.


No quicker way to lose faith than to promise something, leave it alone for 20-30 years and then when you are in debt up to your eyeballs say..hey..I think I'll tax that money now because you have too much.
I don't think that is fair. That puts all the burden on the next generation. I feel the same way about SS. Sacrifices should be shared not backloaded.
 
Old 04-06-2013, 05:07 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,093 posts, read 72,311,213 times
Reputation: 27564
Quote:
Originally Posted by eRayP View Post
Obviously according to the Democratic theory after they determine how much inventory you and value in your company you can not grow you're business either. I do hear that the wealthy are investing in art too. They better stop accumulating, then again, Obama will not come after "wealth" he is going after income.
Tangibles..art, real estate, collectibles.
Buying farms is a hot new trend among the wealthy.
 
Old 04-06-2013, 05:08 PM
 
69,372 posts, read 55,357,998 times
Reputation: 9358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
I don't know why the government would want to restrict the sale of T-bonds, but in terms of tax breaks I think it is entirely reasonable for the government to have the flexibility to limit them.

Think about what you are suggesting. You are basically saying that once the government creates a tax advantage it should never be changed at all regardless of what congress feels is necessary. That makes for a ridged and inflexible system. The fact is we elect congress and the president (via veto power) to among other things set the tax code. I don't think limiting a tax avoidance item, especially at $3m is so horrible or unreasonable.
Thats my point. So they dont want to restrict investments in Tbills, or any other investment transaction used by "the rich", because it makes so much more sense to go after the working class of society.

The fact that the decisions are voted in by Congress doesnt mean its right..
 
Old 04-06-2013, 05:10 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,715 posts, read 11,525,405 times
Reputation: 5606
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
There isnt a tax incentive to put money into an IRA, yes, its taxed later, but the net result is the same..
I disagree, there is an advantage or people wouldn't do it. But if you think there is no difference you have no cause to complain.
 
Old 04-06-2013, 05:10 PM
 
69,372 posts, read 55,357,998 times
Reputation: 9358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
That is wrong. There very much is a tax incentive to IRAs namely tax deferral, or complete tax avoidance depending on what type of IRA.
Really? Imagine someone who put, well lets pull a figure out of our ass just to make it good,

$100 MILLION into an IRA

with the understanding that they would be tax free until you withdraw funds..

If this bill passes, do you think they will be in a much better shape than had they simply paid their tax prior to putting the money in? And of course one would be a complete fool to not think that they want to adjust the tax rate higher on these same individuals, meaning they'll get a double whammy by delaying the tax than had they just paid the thing to begin with.
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top