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.
It shouldn't surprise anyone how desperately the right-wingers are trying to come up with some kind of rebuttal to this proposal. Here, we see the President doing something that is, by all objective criteria, fiscally conservative: It's a perfect example of finding waste in government - in this case the granting of tax deferral, intended to reduce the chances of someone becoming dependent on government for the basics of life when they're elderly, when that motivation to save is demonstrably unnecessary and the risk of the individual becoming indigent in old age reaching remarkably low levels, and therefore the granting of the tax deferral doesn't serve a public interest.
Watch the self-centered greed-mongers squirm trying to rationalize their objections to this remarkably right-leaning proposal from the President. Watch them try to deny that this is a conservative gesture, while simultaneously trying not to make it clear that what they mean by "conservative" is helping themselves afford more comfort and luxury, rather than using public resources wisely.
This probably won't make it into law, but it will serve as an enduring indicator of the abject hypocrisy of the Republican Party and their sycophants.
The truth hurts Roadking, I can imagine. I don't mean to make you feel bad about what you support, but the truth must be told, regardless. If you won't reconsider your support for what you support, that's on you. Live with the reality of how offensive that which you've evidently bought into, is.
Reuters) - In the wake of news reports last week that presidential contender Mitt Romney owns an individual retirement account worth as much as $101 million, questions are growing over how it could have gotten so big when contribution limits are capped at $5,000 or $6,000 a year.
Tax lawyers and accountants suggest an answer: Romney may have made use of an Internal Revenue Service loophole that allows investors to undervalue interests in investment partnerships when first putting them into an IRA. These assets can produce returns far in excess of those that could be generated from other investments made at the capped level.
An investor could even set an initial value for a partnership interest at zero dollars, because under tax regulations an interest in a partnership represents future income, not current value, said Chris Sanchirico, co-director of the Center for Tax Law and Policy at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.
The truth of the 3 million dollar IRA limit is it hurts upper income (those making 150-500K) people.
This won't affect the "super wealthy".
I think many people on these message board do not distinguish what's "working income" vs wealth.
People who make 150-500K...maybe even 1-2 million. They usually work.
The super wealthy live off dividen payments, annunities, capital gains etc.
Eventually you will end up having to pay taxes on that income. And guess what? If you withdrawl more than 25K, not only will you pay taxes on IRA distrubtions. But if you start collecting social security, any amount above 25K also becomes taxable.
It's already a double whammy.
They already changed the 412E retirement plan structure so you can't retire at age 55.
Remember, this is my own money I am contributing. It's not like a pension where federal and state workers barely contribute 5% or less of their income over their lifetime...plus many of them are exempt from paying the social security taxes.
I think many people on this message board do not distinguish between what is in the public interest and what is in their own personal interest. They don't distinguish, specifically, between the public interest in reducing the chances that a person will be dependent on public assistance to afford the basics of life when they're elderly and their own personal interest in bolstering their own ability to afford more comfort and luxury in retirement, on the basis of capitalizing on a tax deferral offered to them by society, which would not actually make the difference between them needing public assistance in retirement and not.
Remember: The tax deferral represents money being diverted away from serving today's public needs. It is essentially a license to bypass part of a wage-earner's obligation to help support the society that furnishes a safe, lucrative economic system within which they can earn income.
Support for the ultra-rich is not the only source of waste in our government. We should assess each tax deduction and assess whether it truly serves a public interest, or whether there are ways to more narrowly target deductions precisely where they serve the public interest best.
I think many people on this message board do not distinguish between what is in the public interest and what is in their own personal interest. They don't distinguish, specifically, between the public interest in reducing the chances that a person will be dependent on public assistance to afford the basics of life when they're elderly and their own personal interest in bolstering their own ability to afford more comfort and luxury in retirement, on the basis of capitalizing on a tax deferral offered to them by society, which would not actually make the difference between them needing public assistance in retirement and not.
Remember: The tax deferral represents money being diverted away from serving today's public needs. It is essentially a license to bypass part of a wage-earner's obligation to help support the society that furnishes a safe, lucrative economic system within which they can earn income.
Support for the ultra-rich is not the only source of waste in our government. We should assess each tax deduction and assess whether it truly serves a public interest, or whether there are ways to more narrowly target deductions precisely where they serve the public interest best.
You make a number of valid points there.
I'm actually someone that might be affected by this...lots of variables but it's not unreasonable.
One of my concerns would be how they are going to value peoples defined benefit plans as counting towards the $3mil cap.
I can tolerate this cap. However, some of the other proposals over the years like means testing soc. sec. are grossly unfair to those that have saved and those that have not.
I still remember applying for financial aid for college and my working class parents, driving old cars and canning veggies from the garden...and saving money steadily......we got squat. (And no, there was no magic inheritance or other monies)
Kids with parents making as much or more got financial aid becuase thier folks drove nice cars, took great vacations, ate out all the time and had little in savings.
Those are the types of unfair money grabs or benefit restrictions, well after the fact, that I utterly and completely oppose.
I think many people on this message board do not distinguish between what is in the public interest and what is in their own personal interest. They don't distinguish, specifically, between the public interest in reducing the chances that a person will be dependent on public assistance to afford the basics of life when they're elderly and their own personal interest in bolstering their own ability to afford more comfort and luxury in retirement, on the basis of capitalizing on a tax deferral offered to them by society, which would not actually make the difference between them needing public assistance in retirement and not.
Remember: The tax deferral represents money being diverted away from serving today's public needs. It is essentially a license to bypass part of a wage-earner's obligation to help support the society that furnishes a safe, lucrative economic system within which they can earn income.
Support for the ultra-rich is not the only source of waste in our government. We should assess each tax deduction and assess whether it truly serves a public interest, or whether there are ways to more narrowly target deductions precisely where they serve the public interest best.
We can go on and on "what's best for the public's best interest". In reality, curbing pension costs for many state and federal government workers "is in the public's best interest"
But there will be people who disagree on that.
We can get rid of the mortgage deduction and property taxes deduction. But the realtity of it is usually the the middle class benefits the most of those deductions. Those making 300K and up have their deductions limited. The super wealthy just can pay cash for the homes.
But we need to get to the crux why people are in need of public assistance. How many chances to do give a woman who's got 6-7 kids by the time she's 25? Why don't we force them to name the fathers on each of the birth certificates?
The truth hurts Roadking, I can imagine. I don't mean to make you feel bad about what you support, but the truth must be told, regardless. If you won't reconsider your support for what you support, that's on you. Live with the reality of how offensive that which you've evidently bought into, is.
More government regulation is not "conservative".
Higher taxes is not "conservative".
Discouraging personal savings accounts is not "conservative".
Government deciding what is an appropriate retirement amount for me is not "conservative".
Why? Because the fat-cats have ways of gaming the system in ways that you and I cannot.
So how do the "fat-cats" game the 401k system in ways that you and I cannot?
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.
