Obama budget to take aim at wealthy IRAs

[JoeB131]

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?

Because we elected them?

Frankly, we keep voting a lot of these guys back in, so we don't have much to complain about.

I wish I could vote out CEO's... then you'd have an argument.

 

[boedicca]

You can express your displeasure with a CEO: don't buy the company's product and don't buy its stock.

Easy Peasy.

And good luck voting out all of Washington DC. Our corrupt officials have set up a permanent bureaucracy that is pretty much impervious to the will of the people.

 

[JoeB131]

You can express your displeasure with a CEO: don't buy the company's product and don't buy its stock.

Easy Peasy.

And good luck voting out all of Washington DC. Our corrupt officials have set up a permanent bureaucracy that is pretty much impervious to the will of the people.

No, we can't.

HOw about this. Let employees vote out the CEO.

Sounds simple to me.

 

[boedicca]

You can express your displeasure with a CEO: don't buy the company's product and don't buy its stock.

Easy Peasy.

And good luck voting out all of Washington DC. Our corrupt officials have set up a permanent bureaucracy that is pretty much impervious to the will of the people.

No, we can't.

HOw about this. Let employees vote out the CEO.

Sounds simple to me.

Stupid idea unless the company is 100% owned by the employees...but then you are a moonbat socialist.

 

[Erand7899]

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.

The only thing fucked up is your thought processes. The word "we" implies that you are involved in the process of providing decent educations and health care. So are "they", and they provide far more than you do.

Obviously, you are not doing your fair share, and are wanting rich people to pick up your slack. So, get off your ass and make some money, so that you can contribute your fair share to the process. Then, you can teach your own fucking horse to dance.

 

[Erand7899]

[
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.

Because without those rich, greedy assholes making decisions, good or bad, those millions of people wouldn't have the jobs in the first place.

 

[Sunshine]

You can express your displeasure with a CEO: don't buy the company's product and don't buy its stock.

Easy Peasy.

And good luck voting out all of Washington DC. Our corrupt officials have set up a permanent bureaucracy that is pretty much impervious to the will of the people.

No, we can't.

HOw about this. Let employees vote out the CEO.

Sounds simple to me.

It sounds pretty stupid to me.

 

[Sunshine]

You can express your displeasure with a CEO: don't buy the company's product and don't buy its stock.

Easy Peasy.

And good luck voting out all of Washington DC. Our corrupt officials have set up a permanent bureaucracy that is pretty much impervious to the will of the people.

No, we can't.

HOw about this. Let employees vote out the CEO.

Sounds simple to me.

Stupid idea unless the company is 100% owned by the employees...but then you are a moonbat socialist.

For the time some spend on here, they could be getting degrees and become part of the 1%. I really can't understand why they don't.

 

[Clementine]

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?

Clearly, it's aimed at middle class, like virtually every other policy. It's only a matter of time before they start drooling over our savings accounts. It'll happen, just wait.

There is a reason why this regime wants real time access to EVERYONE's financial accounts-checking, savings, IRA, etc. They will know every penny each of us have, they'll know how we spend our money and, best of all, they will have real time access. It's the 'access' part that concerns me. It's one thing to peek, another to be able to get your hands on people's money. We seen how government is when it comes to guarding social security money and how they can't keep their hands out of other peoples' money. We should be worried. Government does not give themselves specific powers unless they intend to use it. And Obama has given himself plenty.

 

[Care4all]

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: @Thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

The reason they used "mitt romney'' was in this Bloomberg article I found...

The most prominent taxpayer with a multimillion-dollar IRA is Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee and co- founder of Bain Capital LLC. Romney disclosed in public filings during the campaign that his retirement account held between $18.1 million and $87.4 million. At one point, the maximum exceeded $100 million.


IRAs have evolved from a retirement-planning technique into an estate-planning tool for some wealthy families because tax laws allow the accounts to be passed on to heirs, said Ed Slott, an IRA specialist and certified public accountant based in Rockville Centre, New York.
‘Critical Mass’

“Over the last election it hit a critical mass when a lot of people found out that Romney had $100 million in his IRA,” Slott said. “People thought, how on earth did that happen? I think that was the tipping point.”



The Romney campaign didn’t explain how he amassed that much money in an IRA when contribution limits are much lower. Most taxpayers can contribute a maximum of $5,500 for 2013. Older workers, self-employed workers and those who save through 401(k)-style plans have higher caps and can roll those accounts into IRAs.

Obama?s Budget Would Cap Romney-Sized Retirement Accounts - Bloomberg

 

[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?

Clearly, it's aimed at middle class, like virtually every other policy. It's only a matter of time before they start drooling over our savings accounts. It'll happen, just wait.

There is a reason why this regime wants real time access to EVERYONE's financial accounts-checking, savings, IRA, etc. They will know every penny each of us have, they'll know how we spend our money and, best of all, they will have real time access. It's the 'access' part that concerns me. It's one thing to peek, another to be able to get your hands on people's money. We seen how government is when it comes to guarding social security money and how they can't keep their hands out of other peoples' money. We should be worried. Government does not give themselves specific powers unless they intend to use it. And Obama has given himself plenty.

Absolutely. This regime has also been very closely watching to see what kind of response the Great Cyprus Bank Robbery has received.

 

[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: @Thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

The reason they used "mitt romney'' was in this Bloomberg article I found...

The most prominent taxpayer with a multimillion-dollar IRA is Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee and co- founder of Bain Capital LLC. Romney disclosed in public filings during the campaign that his retirement account held between $18.1 million and $87.4 million. At one point, the maximum exceeded $100 million.


IRAs have evolved from a retirement-planning technique into an estate-planning tool for some wealthy families because tax laws allow the accounts to be passed on to heirs, said Ed Slott, an IRA specialist and certified public accountant based in Rockville Centre, New York.
‘Critical Mass’

“Over the last election it hit a critical mass when a lot of people found out that Romney had $100 million in his IRA,” Slott said. “People thought, how on earth did that happen? I think that was the tipping point.”



The Romney campaign didn’t explain how he amassed that much money in an IRA when contribution limits are much lower. Most taxpayers can contribute a maximum of $5,500 for 2013. Older workers, self-employed workers and those who save through 401(k)-style plans have higher caps and can roll those accounts into IRAs.

Obama?s Budget Would Cap Romney-Sized Retirement Accounts - Bloomberg

Pre-tax contributions are limited to the lower amount. I understand that any additional amounts are allowed as long as the contributions do not exceed the IRA account holders earned income.

 

[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.

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.

What a whinge fest.

Ouch! You really got me with that one! I had to look it up just to find out I was offended.



I’m not “forgetting” inflation; actually, the numbers I used would be if you started your 30-40 years today. If you applied the same analysis to existing plans, you would have to double or triple the returns in order to come close to reaching that $3 million due to the lower limits that were in place in the past. Besides, it would be easy enough to build in inflation indexing, as they do with most other limits in the tax code. Again, this part of the code serves a specific purpose; to incentivize people to save for retirement, not to shelter significant wealth. The ability to shelter many times what would be considered a “normal” retirement was an unintended consequence and I don’t see any reason not to close it.

This administration has introduced a lot of bad legislation; I’d suggest focusing on that rather than sniping at these kinds of common sense measures. It just makes the right look like shills.

 

[chikenwing]

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

So you have finally done some self examination?

Amazing how doing one thing saying another is so easy for so many.

 

[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.

Because without those rich, greedy assholes making decisions, good or bad, those millions of people wouldn't have the jobs in the first place.

Except they don't make good decisions, or at least not good decisions for working people.

And that's the problem. The focus SHOULD be keeping people employed, not making obscene profits for the wealthy.

Case in point. My phone company recently screwed up my bill. I called to resolve it, and it took 10 minutes of going through an automated operator before I finally got to a person in a call center in the Philippines. Barely spoke English and took another 10 minutes to resolve my problem.

Now, while that made some asshole wealthier for thinking of it, it didn't do me any good, as it was a waste of my time, and it didn't help the workforce any, as an American should have been doing that job.

But keep saying how it's so important that the top 20% have 85% of the wealth and the rest of us should be happy fighting over the scraps with illegals and people in other countries.

 

[JoeB131]

You can express your displeasure with a CEO: don't buy the company's product and don't buy its stock.

Easy Peasy.

And good luck voting out all of Washington DC. Our corrupt officials have set up a permanent bureaucracy that is pretty much impervious to the will of the people.

No, we can't.

HOw about this. Let employees vote out the CEO.

Sounds simple to me.

It sounds pretty stupid to me.

But begging for their scraps like you do, that's fine?

Actually, companies in Germany and Japan already do this.

And while American CEO's make 400 times what a line worker makes, German and Japanese CEO's make only about 10-15 times what line workers make.

And oddly, it works out.

Amazing!

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

Shows how much Obama knows about tax laws.

For one, any single person making over 68K and couples making over 112K a year cannot contribute to an IRA.

SO therefore any money Romney has in an IRA was deposited before he became an evil rich guy and quite frankly it probably isn't that much.

As far as other retirement plans like 401Ks there are contribution limits that apply to everyone no matter what their income is. The current maximum annual contribution is 17.5K a year and people over 50 are allowed an additional 5.5K a year.

So you see the so called rich do not have an advantage over anyone in regards to traditional retirement savings vehicles.

Besides these savings are not the deal the government would have you believe anyway because all of the growth is taxed as ordinary income rather than capital gains.

 

[Sunshine]

No, we can't.

HOw about this. Let employees vote out the CEO.

Sounds simple to me.

It sounds pretty stupid to me.

But begging for their scraps like you do, that's fine?

Actually, companies in Germany and Japan already do this.

And while American CEO's make 400 times what a line worker makes, German and Japanese CEO's make only about 10-15 times what line workers make.

And oddly, it works out.

Amazing!

Then got to Germany. And for your information, I earn 6 figures a year.

 

[Sunshine]

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.

Because without those rich, greedy assholes making decisions, good or bad, those millions of people wouldn't have the jobs in the first place.

Except they don't make good decisions, or at least not good decisions for working people.

And that's the problem. The focus SHOULD be keeping people employed, not making obscene profits for the wealthy.

Case in point. My phone company recently screwed up my bill. I called to resolve it, and it took 10 minutes of going through an automated operator before I finally got to a person in a call center in the Philippines. Barely spoke English and took another 10 minutes to resolve my problem.

Now, while that made some asshole wealthier for thinking of it, it didn't do me any good, as it was a waste of my time, and it didn't help the workforce any, as an American should have been doing that job.

But keep saying how it's so important that the top 20% have 85% of the wealth and the rest of us should be happy fighting over the scraps with illegals and people in other countries.

The CEO of a private company is not there to make good decisions 'for working people.' They are there to run the company and turn a profit for the shareholders. DUH!

Have you been raiding TMs stash of cannabis?

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Because without those rich, greedy assholes making decisions, good or bad, those millions of people wouldn't have the jobs in the first place.

Except they don't make good decisions, or at least not good decisions for working people.

And that's the problem. The focus SHOULD be keeping people employed, not making obscene profits for the wealthy.

Case in point. My phone company recently screwed up my bill. I called to resolve it, and it took 10 minutes of going through an automated operator before I finally got to a person in a call center in the Philippines. Barely spoke English and took another 10 minutes to resolve my problem.

Now, while that made some asshole wealthier for thinking of it, it didn't do me any good, as it was a waste of my time, and it didn't help the workforce any, as an American should have been doing that job.

But keep saying how it's so important that the top 20% have 85% of the wealth and the rest of us should be happy fighting over the scraps with illegals and people in other countries.

Of course you failed to note that it was YOU who purchased that plan that makes it happen. That CEO did not make the decisions because he thought he could screw another person out of a job. He made that decision because his customers demanded a cheaper product. Had he stayed with what YOU are demanding: an American help line employed by some nice union employees with fast and reliable service, you would have dropped them faster than a hot potato as soon as you seen the bill. That is the reality. There are no companies that offer this service anymore (because there was a time when they did) because the customers flocked to the cheaper venue. The one time affair was not worth paying hundreds more a year.

You continually ignore this basic fact. For one that claims demand drives the economy and supply is totally irrelevant, for one that is supposedly a Keynesian economic proponent, you seem to not understand the most basic of concepts.

You want to know why we are here in this situation, Americans are refusing to take personal responsibility in the decisions they make regarding their money. Instead, they beg and grovel for the government to do it for them so they can be fat and lazy without thinking about their purchases. How has that turned out? Asking the government owned by the major corporations to look out for us? Yes, not so well.