General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"Barack Obama's Budget Will Contain A Massive 'Screw You' To Mitt Romney"
Barack Obama's Budget Will Contain A Massive 'Screw You' To Mitt Romneyby Walter Hickey at Business Insider
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-proposes-to-cap-amount-in-iras-2013-4
"SNIP.....................................................
New details about the President's budget proposal due out April 10 have emerged from a senior White House official, POLITICO's Ben White reported this morning
....................................
Under current rules, some wealthy individuals are able to accumulate many millions of dollars in these accounts, substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving. The budget would limit an individuals total balance across tax-preferred accounts to an amount sufficient to finance an annuity of not more than $205,000 per year in retirement, or about $3 million in 2013. This proposal would raise $9 billion over 10 years.
White then said, "You know one person who accumulated a LOT more than $3 million in an IRA? Mitt Romney."
He's referring to the ultra-IRA amassed by the former private equity CEO. Romney has some $100 million squirreled away in the tax-preferred account, a figure that raised a number of eyebrows during the election about how, exactly, Romney was able to get so much money into the account.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-proposes-to-cap-amount-in-iras-2013-4#ixzz2PeX96a6B
...................................................SNIP"
freshwest
(53,661 posts)He is the biggest crook this country has ever produced along with all his pals who supported him doing it. I don't care about jail time. Taking their money is enough punishment since it is all they lived for.
Taxing them is storming their castles to make them pay for their crimes. Let it begin.
cvoogt
(949 posts)You should be able to earn a living, pay your fair share in taxes, then do with you money as you wish.
I think $100+ million is exorbitant. But then I think the real underlying causes should be fixed, i.e. closing 'carried interest' loopholes instead of just capping things at $3 million.
Not everyone intends to waste their money on car elevators. Maybe you want to dispense it to local charities or help out members of your family who have medical expenses or who don't have a great retirement plan. I find that the plan encourages a "me me me" mentality at least as much as it appears to try to divert tax savings to the government (where it can be spent on drones etc) because of its apparent assumption that anyone with a huge retirement plan is just in it for selfish reasons. Depending on where you live and how many people you intend to support with it (kids in college, spouse, elderly parents etc), 205k/yr may not be the windfall it first appears to be.
I'd much rather we cut the real meat: 1. military spending, 2. predatory health care insurance, 3. tax breaks for big businesses, 4. I could go on but would get too far off-topic.
bhikkhu
(10,724 posts)People can save their money however they like and do whatever they want with it, if they pay normal taxes on it as it is earned.
The OP is about special retirement accounts that encourage people to put money aside by deferring taxation on it. There is no need to allow these accounts to become tax shelters larger than any realistic need.
Tax-deffered does not equal not paying taxes. The proposed regulations also don't appear to target carried interest specifically, instead they just cap things at $3 million. Also, the definition 'realistic need' can vary greatly and it bothers me that TPBT might tell us what our realistic needs are; they don't know whether we plan to use it to build a car elevator or help out our elderly parents, grand-children's college expenses, etc. $3 million sounds like a lot but if you are using it for those things it can be gone quickly. If you a) earn enough (200k) and put $50,000 aside a year in a SEP-IRA (allowing a max of 25% wage contribution) you can easily reach 3-5 million by retirement age while paying taxes on the remaining 75% in the highest tax bracket, and the 25% that's tax-deferred will get taxes at another rate when you retire, but you'll still be paying taxes on it. The contribution's already capped at 25% of wages as it is. If you're contributing now and playing by the rules and not using carried interest loopholes, I don't see how it's fair to cap this at $3 million so arbitrarily. I think $100 million (like Mitt did) is obscene, but $3 million isn't as much as it seems if one person plans on using this to help their family, not just hoard it for themselves. The plan seems to perpetuate the mindset that everyone is just interested in hoarding it for themselves, when we should be free to save as much as we want (even if only for ourselves, though I think that's selfish) as long as we follow contribution limits and pay our taxes.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)This isn't about people hording as much cash as they can steal, it is about how much they can defer in paying taxes.
I guess my point is just that if you're paid a 'reasonable' salary of 200k and following SEP-IRA rules of 25% max contribution, you can easily reach $5 million by retirement age, which exceeds their proposed max. So maybe they need to be changing SEP-IRA rules to cap reasonable salaries... like that will ever happen. I understand the gov't wants its tax money sooner rather than later, but SEP-IRA and other tax-deferred options were approved by the gov't too, so folks saving for retirement now have planned their whole retirement strategy on this basis and should not now get punished for following the rules. I guess technically RMoney followed the rules too, though. My point is not everyone saving over $3 million by retirement age intends to use it for selfish purposes, and limiting the total tax-deferred amount clashes with what is currently allowed via SEP-IRA's.
I think it could wind up costing the gov't tax revenue, as high earners realize the situation and find ways to pay lower salaries and instead pay themselves in other ways (stock, etc). The gov't should be happy some people are declaring their entire salary as wages and paying the top income bracket for it, and in exchange those people get to tax-defer 25% of their wages. It could really come back to bite them.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)Why not lower tax deferred contribution limits on higher incomes?
cvoogt
(949 posts)Actually, I forgot that we already cap SEP-IRA contributions at 50,000 a year. But even with that cap you can reach over $3 million by retirement age depending on your salary. So then maybe lower that cap?
Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)My focus is on the tax breaks for current contributions.
Like how Rmoney scammed the system with levered "valueless" equity.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)retirement account, much less $100 million with tax savings.
OffWithTheirHeads
(10,337 posts)More mental masturbation. Like looking at photoshopped pictures of nekkid women that don't exist.
This don't exist either.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)waddirum
(979 posts)My dislike of Mitt is not enough to get me to approve of Obama's blunder.
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)PB
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)gives Mitt Romney almost $1 million a year in tax CUTS
did not get many responses either.
ATRA (the fiscal cliff "deal" cuts the tax rate on dividends from 39.6% down to just 20%. Mitt Romney had $4.9 million in dividend income in 2010. $4.9 million * (.396-.2) = $960,400.
And unlike Obama's proposal, which will never pass, the tax CUT for Romney has been signed into law, by Obama, as a permanent change to the tax code.
Yeah, Obama's really going after Romney.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Seems like the left likes the idea of "screwing" others as much as Republicans do.
As for fairness, the devastation factor should be taken into account.
But really, one positive thing has nothing whatsoever to do with any negative parts. They are separate and distinct provisions.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)That doesn't mean that other parts aren't unfair to others.
I'm surprised that people see a proposal as all bad or all good. Nothing in life is all good or all bad. But then I was a middle child, and you know what they say about birth order.
City Lights
(25,171 posts)hfojvt
(37,573 posts)why that is almost 1.4% of the $666 billion Obama just gave the top 1% in tax cuts with the fiscal cliff deal.
Yeah, that's really gotta sting when your $666 billion tax cut is reduced to a mere $657. Take THAT, you plutocrats.
"wow a whole $9 billion in ten years"
...little bit helps.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2588975
dawg
(10,624 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom