Obama budget to take aim at wealthy IRAs

[Crackerjaxon]

Jealous much?

Riddle me this: do you watch MOVIES or SPORTING EVENTS? How rich are the performers and athletes who are doing basically trivial fluff?

Here's a clue: people have THE RIGHT to spend THEIR OWN MONEY however their tastes and means afford them. You may not like dressage, but that is absolutely not a criteria for how someone else spends HIS OWN MONEY.

but the right bitches all the time about how poor people spend

Link?

The criticisms I see are how poor people spend ENTITLEMENT MONEY provided by OTHER PEOPLE on cigarettes, booze, and drugs. That's a valid criticism. Food stamps via EBT allow a great deal of fraud and misuse.

I'm sure that you lose sleep worrying that some broke-ass welfare recipient managed to swap a coffee cake for a joint.

Relax. Think of it as the beginning of entrepreneurial spirit.

You'll feel better.

 

[boedicca]

Teresa Ghilarducci has been advocating for nationalization of IRAs and 401Ks for years...and the Dems are listening to her.

How Guaranteed Retirement Accounts work

Structure. Guaranteed Retirement Accounts are like universal 401(k) plans except that the government, as befits a large and enduring institution, will invest and manage the pooled savings.

Participation. Participation in the program is mandatory except for workers participating in equivalent or better employer defined-benefit plans where contributions are at least 5% of earnings and benefits take the form of life annuities.

Contributions. Contributions equal to 5% of earnings are deducted along with payroll taxes and credited to individual accounts administered by the Social Security Administration. The cost of contributions is split equally between employer and employee. Mandatory contributions are deducted only on earnings up to the Social Security earnings cap,2 and workers and employers have the option of making additional contributions with post-tax dollars. The contributions of husbands and wives are combined and divided equally between their individual accounts.

Refundable tax credit. Employee contributions are offset through a $600 refundable tax credit, which takes the place of tax breaks for 401(k)s and similar individual accounts and is indexed to wage inflation. Eligibility for the tax credit is extended to part-time workers, caregivers of children under age six, and those collecting unemployment benefits. If an individual’s annual contributions amount to less than $600, some or all of the tax credit is deposited directly into the account in order to ensure a minimum annual deposit of $600 for all participants.

Fund management. The accounts are administered by the Social Security Administration and funds are managed by the Thrift Savings Plan or similar body. Though funds are pooled, workers are able to track the dollar value of their accumulations, as with 401(k)s and other individual accounts.

Investment earnings. The pooled funds are conservatively invested in financial markets. However, participants earn a fixed 3% rate of return adjusted for inflation, guaranteed by the federal government. If the trustees determine that actual investment returns have been consistently higher than 3% over a number of years, the surplus will be distributed to participants, though a balancing fund will be maintained to ride out periods of low returns.

Retirement age. Participants begin collecting retirement benefits at the same time as Social Security, and therefore no earlier than the Social Security Early Retirement Age. Funds cannot be accessed before retirement for any reason other than death or disability.

Retirement benefits. Account balances are converted to inflation-indexed annuities upon retirement to ensure that workers do not outlive their savings. However, individuals can opt to take a partial lump sum equal to 10% of their account balance or $10,000 (whichever is higher), or to opt for survivor benefits in exchange for a lower monthly check. A full-time worker who works 40 years and retires at age 65 can expect a benefit equal to roughly 25% of pre-retirement income, adjusted for inflation, assuming a 3% real rate of return (see Table 1). Since Social Security provides the average such worker with an inflation-adjusted benefit equal to roughly 45% of pre-retirement income, the total replacement rate for this prototypical worker will be approximately 70%.

Death benefits. Participants who die before retiring can bequeath half their account balances to heirs; those who die after retiring can bequeath half their final account balance minus benefits received....


Guaranteed Retirement Accounts: Toward retirement income security | Agenda for Shared Prosperity



Essentially, this means the government "pooling" (nationalizing) our retirement accounts and treating them as an entitlement pool, which will be abused just like the SS trust fund has been.

Note how now, one's retirement accounts can be left 100% to one's heirs - but under the GRA plan, the government takes at least half.

 

[Sunshine]

The rich are going to be fine, really.

I mean, they might only have to buy ONE dressage horsie this year, but they will be fine.

I'm sure you won't mind eating that horse after you've murdered all the "wealthy" and stolen all their goods. I cannot imagine you would know what else to do with a fine, well-trained animal of that sort.

Actually, teaching a horse how to dance is sort of humiliating to the horse. Shooting it would be a mercy.

Something is truly fucked up if we can't provide decent education and health care for all America's children, but some rich douchebag can spend money teaching a fucking horse to dance.

You can mandate children to go to school. You can't mandate they learn. And I won't even comment on medicaid. No one in this country has to do without education and health care. When someone is as burdened as you are about the state of the nation's children, I always wonder why you spend you days on a message board and are not out there helping them.

 

[boedicca]

Funny how this article starts out with "like Mitt Romney" and doesn't start out with "like Barrack Obama." Wonder why? It would actually make sense to do so.

President Obama’s budget, to be released next week, will limit how much wealthy individuals – like Mitt Romney – can keep in IRAs and other retirement accounts.

The proposal would save around $9 billion over a decade, a senior administration official said, while also bringing more fairness to the tax code.


Read more: Obama budget to take aim at wealthy IRAs - The Hill's On The Money
Follow us: [MENTION=27326]The[/MENTION]hill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

OK maybe I need some clarification here. The IRS already caps the maximum pre-tax IRA contribution. Although you can put in more in, you will pay your going tax rate on any contribution in excess of the cap. Even at that, there are limits to the excess amount put into an IRA. Then, when you start drawing against the IRA, don't you pay taxes on the money at that time? (tax deferred)
Just what exactly does the crook-in-chief thinks people with sufficient funds to become victims of this criminal proposal are going to do with their money? Do the really rich even have IRAs? I'm thinking they probably don't need IRAs. So which demographic is the real target of such an asinine proposal?

The real target is the middle class. And you are correct, the Kennedys, the Rockefellers, etc etc have 'mist fortunes' - money that is in family trust accounts which remain intact and pass unscathed by the IRS from generation to generation. Many will be sucked in by the because they don't understand that it targets the middle class.

How to Set Up a Family Trust Account | eHow.com

Bingo. The Obama plan limits retirement accounts to $3M. Considering the rich pensions provided to government employees, the capital required to fund many is at least $5M per person. But some disciplined middle class person who saved for the future and made intelligent investment choices is supposed to be capped at $3M.

No wonder this country is in trouble. The Left is intent on punishing the successful. Well, when you do that, you get a bunch of failures.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

some people just hate the founders intention for the peopel to have power

And Idiots like you advocate for the government to concentrate power and destroy individual rights.

Go figure.

you mean like setting a state religion?

Don't forget state flowers. There's no end to our perfidy.

 

[FA_Q2]

Interesting that the idea of the government to create a more ‘fair’ system is making sure that everyone is subject to different rules.

I think that Obama and I have VERY different meanings for the word fair.

 

[Sunshine]

some people just hate the founders intention for the peopel to have power

Illiterates rarely have power.

 

[Sunshine]

some people just hate the founders intention for the peopel to have power

And Idiots like you advocate for the government to concentrate power and destroy individual rights.

Go figure.

you mean like setting a state religion?

Ahhhhhhhhh..........don't you just luv the smell of toluene in the morning!

 

[boedicca]

And Idiots like you advocate for the government to concentrate power and destroy individual rights.

Go figure.

you mean like setting a state religion?

Ahhhhhhhhh..........don't you just luv the smell of toluene in the morning!

And vodka breakfast. That's TMN's favorite.

 

[Sunshine]

you mean like setting a state religion?

Ahhhhhhhhh..........don't you just luv the smell of toluene in the morning!

And vodka breakfast. That's TMN's favorite.

IOU + rep.

 

[BillyV]

Funny how this article starts out with "like Mitt Romney" and doesn't start out with "like Barrack Obama." Wonder why? It would actually make sense to do so.

President Obama’s budget, to be released next week, will limit how much wealthy individuals – like Mitt Romney – can keep in IRAs and other retirement accounts.

The proposal would save around $9 billion over a decade, a senior administration official said, while also bringing more fairness to the tax code.


Read more: Obama budget to take aim at wealthy IRAs - The Hill's On The Money
Follow us: [MENTION=27326]The[/MENTION]hill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

I really don’t have too much of a problem with this. Despite the hand wringing over class warfare (which on many levels I agree with), here the only way to amass more than $3 million is really to outsmart the system. For this year the maximum contribution to a 401K plan is $17,500; $22,000 if you’re over 50. Your employer can match some portion of that, so let’s take a nice round number of $30,000 as a possible average total contribution. Now, if you assume -0- returns, it will take 100 years to accumulate that $3,000,000; at 30 yrs, you would need to average around 7.25% (certainly not impossible but far from assured over that length of time); over 40 years you would need about 4.5%. So how do you get more than $3 million in your retirement account? You buy stock in companies you know are grossly undervalued but that you know will be big winners, as it is reputed that Romney had done. He was in the business of buying failing companies and turning them into winners; he just was smart enough to know when he acquired the company for next to nothing, he could buy the shares through his retirement fund. Then when they took off and he made millions on the sale of the stock, the profits were safely tucked away in a tax deferred retirement vehicle. Genius!

Since the purpose of individual retirement tax deferrals is to provide an incentive for people to save for the future so that they will not become wards of the state, it seems allowing $3 million is more than adequate. No one is suggesting (at least in the OP’s link) taking away their profits, just capping the amount that can be sheltered from ordinary taxation.

This is the way the system is supposed to work; it’s a battle between the wealthy, who seek ways to avoid paying any more taxes than absolutely necessary, and the taxing authorities, trying to keep up and change tax laws that the wealthy have legally found their way around. Otherwise, thousands of tax accountants would be at street corners with signs offering to add columns of numbers for food.

 

[DiamondDave]

Actually, teaching a horse how to dance is sort of humiliating to the horse. Shooting it would be a mercy.

Something is truly fucked up if we can't provide decent education and health care for all America's children, but some rich douchebag can spend money teaching a fucking horse to dance.

Jealous much?

Riddle me this: do you watch MOVIES or SPORTING EVENTS? How rich are the performers and athletes who are doing basically trivial fluff?

Here's a clue: people have THE RIGHT to spend THEIR OWN MONEY however their tastes and means afford them. You may not like dressage, but that is absolutely not a criteria for how someone else spends HIS OWN MONEY.

but the right bitches all the time about how poor people spend

ONLY when they are given freebie handouts... you can be poor and spend your money however you choose, crackwhore... but if you are getting assistance at the forced expense of others, you best show it is used for the necessities.. not lap dances, smokes, and other frivolous shit... but hell, you should not be getting those freebies at all

 

[boedicca]

Funny how this article starts out with "like Mitt Romney" and doesn't start out with "like Barrack Obama." Wonder why? It would actually make sense to do so.

President Obama’s budget, to be released next week, will limit how much wealthy individuals – like Mitt Romney – can keep in IRAs and other retirement accounts.

The proposal would save around $9 billion over a decade, a senior administration official said, while also bringing more fairness to the tax code.


Read more: Obama budget to take aim at wealthy IRAs - The Hill's On The Money
Follow us: [MENTION=27326]The[/MENTION]hill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

I really don’t have too much of a problem with this. Despite the hand wringing over class warfare (which on many levels I agree with), here the only way to amass more than $3 million is really to outsmart the system. For this year the maximum contribution to a 401K plan is $17,500; $22,000 if you’re over 50. Your employer can match some portion of that, so let’s take a nice round number of $30,000 as a possible average total contribution. Now, if you assume -0- returns, it will take 100 years to accumulate that $3,000,000; at 30 yrs, you would need to average around 7.25% (certainly not impossible but far from assured over that length of time); over 40 years you would need about 4.5%. So how do you get more than $3 million in your retirement account? You buy stock in companies you know are grossly undervalued but that you know will be big winners, as it is reputed that Romney had done. He was in the business of buying failing companies and turning them into winners; he just was smart enough to know when he acquired the company for next to nothing, he could buy the shares through his retirement fund. Then when they took off and he made millions on the sale of the stock, the profits were safely tucked away in a tax deferred retirement vehicle. Genius!

Since the purpose of individual retirement tax deferrals is to provide an incentive for people to save for the future so that they will not become wards of the state, it seems allowing $3 million is more than adequate. No one is suggesting (at least in the OP’s link) taking away their profits, just capping the amount that can be sheltered from ordinary taxation.

This is the way the system is supposed to work; it’s a battle between the wealthy, who seek ways to avoid paying any more taxes than absolutely necessary, and the taxing authorities, trying to keep up and change tax laws that the wealthy have legally found their way around. Otherwise, thousands of tax accountants would be at street corners with signs offering to add columns of numbers for food.

What a whinge fest.

You're forgetting one big factor: inflation. Here's how the government works this. It's what they did with income taxes and social security "contributions"...now they're focusing on wealth. At first, they introduce a concept that is aimed at taxing The Rich. Over time, as inflation pushes more and more middle class people into the nominal dollar category that used to be Rich, but is actually due to the inflation driven destruction of the value of the dollar, the true target is taxed: the broad working and middle classes who are geographically held hostage.

 

[Sunshine]

Funny how this article starts out with "like Mitt Romney" and doesn't start out with "like Barrack Obama." Wonder why? It would actually make sense to do so.

President Obama’s budget, to be released next week, will limit how much wealthy individuals – like Mitt Romney – can keep in IRAs and other retirement accounts.

The proposal would save around $9 billion over a decade, a senior administration official said, while also bringing more fairness to the tax code.


Read more: Obama budget to take aim at wealthy IRAs - The Hill's On The Money
Follow us: [MENTION=27326]The[/MENTION]hill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

I really don’t have too much of a problem with this. Despite the hand wringing over class warfare (which on many levels I agree with), here the only way to amass more than $3 million is really to outsmart the system. For this year the maximum contribution to a 401K plan is $17,500; $22,000 if you’re over 50. Your employer can match some portion of that, so let’s take a nice round number of $30,000 as a possible average total contribution. Now, if you assume -0- returns, it will take 100 years to accumulate that $3,000,000; at 30 yrs, you would need to average around 7.25% (certainly not impossible but far from assured over that length of time); over 40 years you would need about 4.5%. So how do you get more than $3 million in your retirement account? You buy stock in companies you know are grossly undervalued but that you know will be big winners, as it is reputed that Romney had done. He was in the business of buying failing companies and turning them into winners; he just was smart enough to know when he acquired the company for next to nothing, he could buy the shares through his retirement fund. Then when they took off and he made millions on the sale of the stock, the profits were safely tucked away in a tax deferred retirement vehicle. Genius!

Since the purpose of individual retirement tax deferrals is to provide an incentive for people to save for the future so that they will not become wards of the state, it seems allowing $3 million is more than adequate. No one is suggesting (at least in the OP’s link) taking away their profits, just capping the amount that can be sheltered from ordinary taxation.

This is the way the system is supposed to work; it’s a battle between the wealthy, who seek ways to avoid paying any more taxes than absolutely necessary, and the taxing authorities, trying to keep up and change tax laws that the wealthy have legally found their way around. Otherwise, thousands of tax accountants would be at street corners with signs offering to add columns of numbers for food.

What a whinge fest.

You're forgetting one big factor: inflation. Here's how the government works this. It's what they did with income taxes and social security "contributions"...now they're focusing on wealth. At first, they introduce a concept that is aimed at taxing The Rich. Over time, as inflation pushes more and more middle class people into the nominal dollar category that used to be Rich, but is actually due to the inflation driven destruction of the value of the dollar, the true target is taxed: the broad working and middle classes who are geographically held hostage.

Taxes are going nowhere but up. If I were starting today, I would have a Roth IRA. The taxes are paid on the front end of that one.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Funny how this article starts out with "like Mitt Romney" and doesn't start out with "like Barrack Obama." Wonder why? It would actually make sense to do so.

President Obama’s budget, to be released next week, will limit how much wealthy individuals – like Mitt Romney – can keep in IRAs and other retirement accounts.

The proposal would save around $9 billion over a decade, a senior administration official said, while also bringing more fairness to the tax code.


Read more: Obama budget to take aim at wealthy IRAs - The Hill's On The Money
Follow us: [MENTION=27326]The[/MENTION]hill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

OK maybe I need some clarification here. The IRS already caps the maximum pre-tax IRA contribution. Although you can put in more in, you will pay your going tax rate on any contribution in excess of the cap. Even at that, there are limits to the excess amount put into an IRA. Then, when you start drawing against the IRA, don't you pay taxes on the money at that time? (tax deferred)
Just what exactly does the crook-in-chief thinks people with sufficient funds to become victims of this criminal proposal are going to do with their money? Do the really rich even have IRAs? I'm thinking they probably don't need IRAs. So which demographic is the real target of such an asinine proposal?

The real target is the middle class. And you are correct, the Kennedys, the Rockefellers, etc etc have 'mist fortunes' - money that is in family trust accounts which remain intact and pass unscathed by the IRS from generation to generation. Many will be sucked in by the because they don't understand that it targets the middle class.

How to Set Up a Family Trust Account | eHow.com

Oh, I can see where the proposed robbery would appeal to the Joe's who make up the 47% who vote for only those candidates that promise to rape, pillage, and burn every person deemed "wealthy" and then to redistribute those ill-gotten gains to the greedy, envious, lazy, ignorant 47% they represent.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Uhhh.. so now you also get to control demand for product... or the free will of the company to make what it wants and live or die by those decisions (and they should have been allowed to die)... my, what power hungry little fuckers you collectivists are

Point was.. if it were SO easy and if their compensation were easy to get because even little simpletons like yourself could do it right, YOU WOULD BE DOING IT

Why should millions of people lose their jobs because a few rich, greedy assholes make bad decisions?

Frankly, I think you are halfway making my case for me.

 

[JoeB131]

My point is, is why do they name Romney when in fact Obama is one of the 1 percenters? Or Al Gore was bragged about just recently about being richer then Romney. We all know why, but it needs asked any way.

OH, was THAT your point?

Maybe it was because Romney went around talking about how half the country wouldn't vote for him because they weren't going to benefit from his tax cuts because they were all on Welfare.

Maybe because Romney was the guy talking about making 120 Chinese women share a single bathroom at a factory behind barbed wire was a "Great investment".

Maybe because he went around saying stuff like "I like to be able to fire people" and "I'm not concerned about the very poor."

And JoeI is reduced yet again to misrepresentations and flat out lies...

Pitiful

Please point out one thing I got wrong.

Mitt Romney was a Mormon Douchebag, and you fools nominated him.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Teresa Ghilarducci has been advocating for nationalization of IRAs and 401Ks for years...and the Dems are listening to her.

How Guaranteed Retirement Accounts work

Structure. Guaranteed Retirement Accounts are like universal 401(k) plans except that the government, as befits a large and enduring institution, will invest and manage the pooled savings.

Participation. Participation in the program is mandatory except for workers participating in equivalent or better employer defined-benefit plans where contributions are at least 5% of earnings and benefits take the form of life annuities.

Contributions. Contributions equal to 5% of earnings are deducted along with payroll taxes and credited to individual accounts administered by the Social Security Administration. The cost of contributions is split equally between employer and employee. Mandatory contributions are deducted only on earnings up to the Social Security earnings cap,2 and workers and employers have the option of making additional contributions with post-tax dollars. The contributions of husbands and wives are combined and divided equally between their individual accounts.

Refundable tax credit. Employee contributions are offset through a $600 refundable tax credit, which takes the place of tax breaks for 401(k)s and similar individual accounts and is indexed to wage inflation. Eligibility for the tax credit is extended to part-time workers, caregivers of children under age six, and those collecting unemployment benefits. If an individual’s annual contributions amount to less than $600, some or all of the tax credit is deposited directly into the account in order to ensure a minimum annual deposit of $600 for all participants.

Fund management. The accounts are administered by the Social Security Administration and funds are managed by the Thrift Savings Plan or similar body. Though funds are pooled, workers are able to track the dollar value of their accumulations, as with 401(k)s and other individual accounts.

Investment earnings. The pooled funds are conservatively invested in financial markets. However, participants earn a fixed 3% rate of return adjusted for inflation, guaranteed by the federal government. If the trustees determine that actual investment returns have been consistently higher than 3% over a number of years, the surplus will be distributed to participants, though a balancing fund will be maintained to ride out periods of low returns.

Retirement age. Participants begin collecting retirement benefits at the same time as Social Security, and therefore no earlier than the Social Security Early Retirement Age. Funds cannot be accessed before retirement for any reason other than death or disability.

Retirement benefits. Account balances are converted to inflation-indexed annuities upon retirement to ensure that workers do not outlive their savings. However, individuals can opt to take a partial lump sum equal to 10% of their account balance or $10,000 (whichever is higher), or to opt for survivor benefits in exchange for a lower monthly check. A full-time worker who works 40 years and retires at age 65 can expect a benefit equal to roughly 25% of pre-retirement income, adjusted for inflation, assuming a 3% real rate of return (see Table 1). Since Social Security provides the average such worker with an inflation-adjusted benefit equal to roughly 45% of pre-retirement income, the total replacement rate for this prototypical worker will be approximately 70%.

Death benefits. Participants who die before retiring can bequeath half their account balances to heirs; those who die after retiring can bequeath half their final account balance minus benefits received....


Guaranteed Retirement Accounts: Toward retirement income security | Agenda for Shared Prosperity



Essentially, this means the government "pooling" (nationalizing) our retirement accounts and treating them as an entitlement pool, which will be abused just like the SS trust fund has been.

Note how now, one's retirement accounts can be left 100% to one's heirs - but under the GRA plan, the government takes at least half.

Sure, the Social Security Administration. We all know how well they've managed our coerced contributions so far. I am just so inspired, so confident that I will receive a "living stipend" when I retire, if I am allowed to retire.

 

[JoeB131]

[q


Jealous much?

Riddle me this: do you watch MOVIES or SPORTING EVENTS? How rich are the performers and athletes who are doing basically trivial fluff?

Here's a clue: people have THE RIGHT to spend THEIR OWN MONEY however their tastes and means afford them. You may not like dressage, but that is absolutely not a criteria for how someone else spends HIS OWN MONEY.

It's not an issue of jealously.

Frankly, I think sports stars and movie stars are overpaid too, but they usually don't get there by screwing over a lot of working stiffs, so they have that going for them.

If Mitt wants to humiliate a horse, he's more than welcome to.

After he's paid his fair share in taxes.

 

[boedicca]

Why should millions of people lose their jobs because a few rich, greedy assholes make bad decisions?

Frankly, I think you are halfway making my case for me.

I agree with you. Why should a few rich, greedy assholes (in The White House Congress, and heading up The Federal Reserve) be able to make bad decisions which cause millions of people to lose their jobs?