I read this article, but failed to see a proposal to tax IRA's any differently than they are taxed now. Traditional IRA's are already taxed at regular rates when you withdraw the money. Roths are not taxed on the earnings. I saw no proposed change in that arrangement. Only a proposal which might limit the maximum amount that can be held in an IRA to so many millions. That shouldn't affect any of you guys. What's the big deal here folks, or can none of you crazies read.
Any amount withdrawn at over $200k per year (205, I think) is not allowed to be withdrawn. Which means people with large IRAs have to withdraw the excess amount (and be taxed heavily accordingly) and people who plan on having more than that amount must stop contributing. Comes to about $3mm in total. Government intervention once again telling us how to live. Piezoe the apologist saying it's no big deal.
+1 ... investment income and IRA issues are only in the light because people like Romney, who have taken advantage of the rules as one should, decided to run for president to massage their big egos and as such brought to light how one can maximize those investments... people bitch about him paying less than 14% income tax, and bitch about how his IRA is over $20MM... but hey, it is all legal and now because the idiot had decided to run, attention has been brought upon those vehicles and income types by those who have failed to see and that never bothered to research and understand what one can do with their IRA's outside of what the "establishments" allow you to do... IRA's can hold lots of different instruments, not just mutual funds... that is the law... (until they change it at least) who is the gov to say that I should only spend $200K a year in my retirement? why should my investment choices now be limited just because 80% of american's choose not to invest in their IRA's or even fund their IRAs?... heck, is not like SS will be around for me or even my kids? why can't I maximize my IRA assets and then if I die roll it over to my wife and then eventually my kids?! I dont think any major changes will affect everyone, considering than most are limited to $5K a year, and those SE can put in abou $50K... but still... if I can grow my account to $5MM with private placements and RE investments... why should I be limited to a max value IRA... but as luck have it... one can always grow a spouse's account, and heck, even kids accounts... and with Roths... I can even make that income tax free... so again... there are always ways as long as one can understand the rules... the true issue here, the new limits that might be placed just because the right way to use that vehicle has been brought to light and publicized(more like attacked) during an election campaign and the idiots who never bothered to understand the rules realized the proper way and are now jealous..
You're missing the point. The proposal is to limit the size of IRA(and apparently all other retirement plans added together) to $3 million. It's unclear how existing plans with more than this would be affected. It's also unclear how the proposal would work. What happens, for example, if your $2 million account hits it big one year and suddenly is >$3mill? The problem I have with it is that it is clearly another of the never-ending liberal camel's nose under the tent type proposals. Only a fool would believe this will be the end of it. Once they have established the principle, then expect more attention to retirement accounts. All along the lines of what is "fair." Not what is the most economical efficient way to encourage savings, or what provides retirees the most security, which was supposed to be the idea. Now it will be based on "fairness", which with these people is a codeword for redistribution. Democrats have already let the cat out of the bag. They want to nationalize all retirement accounts and give people a government pension in exchange for them. Of course, like total firearms confiscation, or socialized medicine, they can't just come right out and propose that. So they do it incrementally. They get people used to the idea. They try to play the class envy card. They tell their voters how "unfair" it is that some saved and were responsible and have big retirement accounts, but the vast majority do not. And of course, the fact that most of those with big accounts are republicans is not lost on them.
"... The administrationâs statement didnât explain in detail how the proposal would work. The cap would apply to the total of all of an individualâs tax-favored retirement accounts. Brian Graff, executive director and chief executive officer of the American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries, said his group will âvigorously opposeâ the idea. âIt is a âplan killer,ââ he said in an e-mailed statement. âAs business owners reach the cap, they will lose their incentive to maintain a plan, and either shut down the plan or greatly reduce benefits. This would leave workers with a greatly diminished plan or without any plan at all.â Slott said the proposal, which wouldnât apply to most taxpayers, would be difficult to implement." http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-05/obama-budget-calls-for-cap-on-romney-sized-iras.html
We're NOT the crazy ones here. We're more like our Founding Fathers. Were they crazy? Can't wait to hear your response to that question.
That's the ONLY reason he's not on ignore. He may be lost, but yes, he is at least polite vs the other 4-5 loons, i.e., AK, RCG, dickter, futurepennies, etc.,