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.
Ask most people from Jersey that question and you will often hear liar. It is meant to not be definitive so he can make it what he wants later.
You are right - most people in New Jersey do call him a liar. His popularity in the state has plummeted.
I wouldn't be too concerned about Christie's proposals - I think his chances of being elected are slim to none. Many in NJ feel the reason he hasn't declared yet is because he is waiting for indictments to come down related to the "Bridgegate scandal." That scandal has spread far beyond the lane closures on the GW Bridge. While I doubt Christie will be indicted, many think quite a few people very close to him will be, and it is likely some of them will "sing" to help save themselves.
Gosh. If I had a post retirement income of $200K. I'd be happy and would not care if they took my SS away.
And that's how it starts...
"Well, it doesn't affect me, so sure, let's do it."
And the next thing you know... guess who will be affected?
~~~~~~~~~~~
Remember when income taxes only affected a small percent of people? Back in 1930-whatever? Then it grew and grew. Do you really think that 80K/200K min will never change? So now it's 2017, and we're in another financial bind. So let's drop it to 50K/125K.
Next thing you know, it's all of us.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My point... be very careful when you say something is ok because it doesn't affect you. The real question is, does it make sense, is it smart, is it the right thing to do. NOT "does it affect me".
Yes in the year converted to a ROTH but not when withdrawn. Convert prior to SS. Taking money out of the bank and already taxed isn't income.
I'm not communicating this very well. It is my belief (and that is all, of course) that the language used in his proposal suggests that Roth distributions would count towards the $80,000/$200,000. A requirement to report the Roth distribution/withdrawal, even if not subject to income tax, would insure that the beneficiary's total "non-Social Security income" would be included in the calculation. (Which, now that I think about it, is exactly how means-tested public benefits are calculated.)
Last edited by lenora; 04-14-2015 at 05:41 PM..
Reason: typo
"Well, it doesn't affect me, so sure, let's do it."
And the next thing you know... guess who will be affected?
~~~~~~~~~~~
Remember when income taxes only affected a small percent of people? Back in 1930-whatever? Then it grew and grew. Do you really think that 80K/200K min will never change? So now it's 2017, and we're in another financial bind. So let's drop it to 50K/125K.
Next thing you know, it's all of us.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My point... be very careful when you say something is ok because it doesn't affect you. The real question is, does it make sense, is it smart, is it the right thing to do. NOT "does it affect me".
There will undoubtedly be less economic activity from a percentage of the producers in society that will also result in less taxes, etc. That has to be taken into consideration. Kind of like when the "rich" were taxed at 80% plus percent prior to the marginal rate being lowered to 27%. Guess which resulted in more actual tax revenue.
You are right - most people in New Jersey do call him a liar. His popularity in the state has plummeted.
I wouldn't be too concerned about Christie's proposals - I think his chances of being elected are slim to none. Many in NJ feel the reason he hasn't declared yet is because he is waiting for indictments to come down related to the "Bridgegate scandal." That scandal has spread far beyond the lane closures on the GW Bridge. While I doubt Christie will be indicted, many think quite a few people very close to him will be, and it is likely some of them will "sing" to help save themselves.
Yup, he has issues and is a typical Jersey kick back/pay to play politician.
I'm not communicating this very well. It is my belief (and that is all, of course) that the language used in his proposal suggests that Roth distributions would count towards the $80,000/$200,000. A requirement to report the Roth distribution/withdrawal, even if not subject to income tax, would insure that the beneficiary's total "non-Social Security income" would be included in the calculation. (Which, now that I think about it, is exactly how means-tested public benefits are calculated.)
Then would mutual fund or bank deposit withdrawals count as income? I understand your point the unanswered question is at what point would Roth money count and would it count twice? Once on conversion and once on withdrawal?
You are wrong. Check and see how much you have paid into SS. Would you like to just lose that money?
Yes, I can see not receiving MORE than I actually paid into it, but as I have said before, people should at least get back what they paid into it plus the corresponding minimum savings account interest rate for each year. (I researched it once before, and it was an average of about 5% per year since 1960.)
Get over it.
Yes the government has a statement depicting how much I've paid in and estimates of what I might get someday. But you might want to learn more. It's not like there is some account set up for what I paid in. What I paid in is already gone. It funded existing retirees.
Christies and similar proposals would hit pensioners the most. Pensions are fixed and without annual flexibility. Example if you have a $80K pension you would be at the threshold. If your income was based on retirement account draw downs equaling 80K a year you could withdraw 280K worth in one year and have little or no income for three years. You would avoid
SS taxes for two years, Medicare payments for 2 years and get your full SS for two years. How to crunch the numbers would be easy if you just let your CPA do it. Once again the wealthy would be impacted not as intended and those of lesser resources and no accountant more. Remember 100K in a retirement account is not worth anywhere near what 100K in a taxable account is worth. Millionaires would still get there SS and others making far less wouldn't especially if they are pensioners.
80K is way too low. A means test should start well into 6 figures. And it should be a logarithmic limitation from that point. 1%ers will be most affected in the absolute sense.
"Well, it doesn't affect me, so sure, let's do it."
And the next thing you know... guess who will be affected?
~~~~~~~~~~~
Remember when income taxes only affected a small percent of people? Back in 1930-whatever? Then it grew and grew. Do you really think that 80K/200K min will never change? So now it's 2017, and we're in another financial bind. So let's drop it to 50K/125K.
Next thing you know, it's all of us.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My point... be very careful when you say something is ok because it doesn't affect you. The real question is, does it make sense, is it smart, is it the right thing to do. NOT "does it affect me".
AMT folks ?
Conceived in 1969 as an alternative tax on the wealthiest of Americans.
Today the level that triggers it is $50K for an individual. And that was Congress' "permanent" fix.
That $200K proposed today will be whittled away until YOU no longer get SS.
"Those that forget their history are doomed to repeat it"
Edmund Burke
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.
