Jump to content

Obama to cap tax-preferred retirement accts to $3MM


mrvlad0
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hope ERICOPOLY is canadian.

 

http://www.politico.com/playbook/0413/playbook10370.html

 

“Sets limits on tax-preferred retirement accounts for millionaires and billionaires: The budget will also show how we can provide targeted tax relief to strengthen the economy, help middle class families and small businesses and pay for it by eliminating tax loopholes and make the tax system more fair.  The budget will include a new proposal that prohibits individuals from accumulating over $3 million in IRAs and other tax-preferred retirement accounts.  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 individual’s 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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 239
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hope ERICOPOLY is canadian.

 

http://www.politico.com/playbook/0413/playbook10370.html

 

“Sets limits on tax-preferred retirement accounts for millionaires and billionaires: The budget will also show how we can provide targeted tax relief to strengthen the economy, help middle class families and small businesses and pay for it by eliminating tax loopholes and make the tax system more fair.  The budget will include a new proposal that prohibits individuals from accumulating over $3 million in IRAs and other tax-preferred retirement accounts.  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 individual’s 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.

 

So now we are being told how much we can make in retirement?  What a dick move!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CONeal,

 

I'll give you a hint. Any person who does not take Obama to task will find plenty of ways to make sure how to NOT pay more in taxes, or to figure out different ways around any of these rules. Just follow their lead.  ;)

 

I love this line: "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 government will now define "reasonable" for all of its "subjects".  :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest valueInv

Party's over folks. We all made a lot of money using govt. support for banks and other means that propped up the financial system. Now its time to pay the bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is what I do next in my RothIRA if they make this the law.

 

1) Keep the balance in cash at exactly $3m and never grow it (after being forced to withdraw the current excess). 

2) Borrow $3m on margin in my taxable account to purchase Berkshire Hathaway

3)  Hedge the margined shares with puts and write an offsetting number of puts in RothIRA

 

Therefore, I get margin interest deduction and tax-deferred compounding.  When the cash-covered puts expire for a gain in the RothIRA I have an offsetting loss in my taxable account.

 

Better, I can be doing this margin scheme in a trust account for my kids to eliminate a good deal of my taxable estate.

 

The problem with my RothIRA is I can't gift it to my kids without it being a taxable withdrawal.  So it's an inheritance tax nightmare. 

 

And the Crummy Trust allows me to keep my kids from getting control until I determine them to be capable (like when they are 40 or something).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea how this would be implemented.  There are a lot of details which would make it difficult.  What if you own stock that is volatile and one day it's worth $2.9 mil, the next day it's $3.1 mil, then $2.9 mil and so on?  This would add a big expense to the brokerage industry to monitor.  Given that it can't be done on a second by second basis, it would have to be as some measuring point like the end of the month or a given date in the year.  It would lead to much gamesmanship as assets got shuffled around.  I suspect this can't pass right now and will be viewed as a huge negative for the markets.  It's all about posturing and setting up negotiating points that are easy to give up for something more important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, do you own any stocks that have a large variable annuities business? 

 

How about AIG?

 

Millionaires would have no interest in buying variable annuities anymore if they already have $3m in them including their IRAs and 401ks.

 

 

Plus, they might be forced by the law to liquidate their current variable annuities products if they exceed $3m today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How dare those dirty, uncaring, bigoted folks make that much money.  What, those folks made it and earned it -- never mind, they still should not have that much.

 

Envy runs the world.

 

Yeah, don't you have to have earned income to contribute.  And then it could only grow from your own investments and contributions.  Something seems off here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone have any actual merit based objections?  This seems like completely reasonable policy.

 

I'd like to see something like this done on TFSA's and RRSP's in Canada.  When TFSA's were announced I instantly thought of how ridiculously expensive they will be in 20 years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone have any actual merit based objections?  This seems like completely reasonable policy.

 

I'd like to see something like this done on TFSA's and RRSP's in Canada.  When TFSA's were announced I instantly thought of how ridiculously expensive they will be in 20 years.

How one RRSP became a gold mine

 

http://www.thestar.com/business/personal_finance/2008/04/05/how_one_rrsp_became_a_gold_mine.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone have any actual merit based objections?  This seems like completely reasonable policy.

 

I'd like to see something like this done on TFSA's and RRSP's in Canada.  When TFSA's were announced I instantly thought of how ridiculously expensive they will be in 20 years.

 

The government is using a creepy justification in granting itself the right to establish "reasonable" levels of savings. If they wanted to ban Romney type abuses, they could have targeted valuation procedures or eligibility requirements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it unreasonable to tax retirement accounts over $3MM?

 

Don't tax me, don't tax you. Tax that fellow behind the tree!

 

Why limit it to retirement accounts? How about net worth over $3 milliion? Look at how much Buffett is cheating the federal government by not being taxed on all those long-term capital gains he has in his BRK stock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it unreasonable to tax retirement accounts over $3MM?

 

Don't tax me, don't tax you. Tax that fellow behind the tree!

 

Why is reasonable to have tax advantaged retirement accounts at all?  Or the mortgage interest deduction? Or the earned income tax credit?

 

I don't like this move because it's consistent with what I perceive to be Obama's demonization of the rich and socialist slant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share




×
×
  • Create New...