Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-10-2019, 09:31 AM
 
106,653 posts, read 108,790,719 times
Reputation: 80143

Advertisements

meh ,, old news
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-10-2019, 09:32 AM
 
Location: SoCal
20,160 posts, read 12,756,236 times
Reputation: 16993
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysr_racer View Post
Ok, now it's posted again.
It’s not passed yet. It’s been two months already. Nothing to discuss.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2019, 09:37 AM
 
Location: S-E Michigan
4,278 posts, read 5,935,039 times
Reputation: 10879
  • Other than the 70-1/2 to age 72 start of RMD's it doesn't appear to affect many of the Retiree or Imminent Retiree category.
  • Not sure why anyone with Student Loan Debt would have $10K in their 529 account to withdraw to pay the debt. Aren't the two mutually exclusive?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2019, 09:39 AM
 
11,230 posts, read 9,318,331 times
Reputation: 32252
Geez, if the summaries above are accurate, I have rarely seen a more inflammatory and less accurate thread heading.


An accurate one would be more like


"Congress contemplates fine tuning 401k and IRA rules; may require more rapid RMDs of inherited IRAs".


But I guess that doesn't sound Chicken Little enough.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2019, 10:03 AM
 
17,343 posts, read 11,274,075 times
Reputation: 40962
Quote:
Originally Posted by turf3 View Post
Geez, if the summaries above are accurate, I have rarely seen a more inflammatory and less accurate thread heading.


An accurate one would be more like


"Congress contemplates fine tuning 401k and IRA rules; may require more rapid RMDs of inherited IRAs".


But I guess that doesn't sound Chicken Little enough.
That title has a lot less drama which isn't the objective here, LOL
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2019, 10:39 AM
 
Location: California side of the Sierras
11,162 posts, read 7,635,022 times
Reputation: 12523
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysr_racer View Post
Sorry, the two biggest changes I see are:

It pushes the RMD out to 72.5 and it forces non spouses that inherit your IRA to withdraw the funds in 10 years.

So if you leave your children a 1 million dollar IRA, instead of taking RMDs, they may have to take $100,000 a year until it's depleted. Thereby paying the taxes sooner.

Unfortunately it also raises the taxes of whoever inherited it.
I don't see a problem with either of these.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2019, 11:08 AM
 
Location: The High Desert
16,078 posts, read 10,738,506 times
Reputation: 31470
They better decide PDQ -- I'm 71 and looking at a first RMD.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2019, 11:08 AM
 
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
10,352 posts, read 7,984,186 times
Reputation: 27758
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100 View Post
I don't see a problem with either of these.
Some people with special-needs children use stretch IRAs to help insure their child's financial welfare after their own demise, and this change would effect their ability to do that. But that's a special case. In general, I don't have a problem with retirement accounts being treated as just that - money intended to be spent in retirement, not passed onto heirs on a tax-advantaged basis.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2019, 12:38 PM
 
Location: California side of the Sierras
11,162 posts, read 7,635,022 times
Reputation: 12523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aredhel View Post
Some people with special-needs children use stretch IRAs to help insure their child's financial welfare after their own demise, and this change would effect their ability to do that. But that's a special case. In general, I don't have a problem with retirement accounts being treated as just that - money intended to be spent in retirement, not passed onto heirs on a tax-advantaged basis.
A special needs trust can solve this problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2019, 01:00 PM
 
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
10,352 posts, read 7,984,186 times
Reputation: 27758
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100 View Post
A special needs trust can solve this problem.
Yes, but only if you didn't already put the money into an IRA under the assumption that the tax laws wouldn't change and the stretch IRA provisions would remain intact. Those are the people I feel sorry for. (Although maybe there's a way the IRA could be inherited by a trust to avoid those big early RMD payouts.)

Going forward, saving money in a Special Needs Trust is definitely the safer move!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


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 > Retirement
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:23 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top