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

[valuecfa]

This article highlights the risks of the RothIRA well:

http://www.rothiracalculator.org/early-withdrawal-penalty/

 

See, if I die today (before age 59.5), my heirs will owe income tax on all of the gains in the account.

 

 

You are referring to estate taxes (and on the balance over the exemption limit, as opposed to an income tax on just the gains in the Roth), right?

 

By the way, be careful which state you reside in when you die as well

[Otsog]

That is really shitty that there aren't better options for early death withdrawals/transfers.  Definitely a consideration to take into account. 

 

You simply haven't been taxed in the first place in your ROTH IRA gains. I've explained the tax paid at conversion was recapture on a deduction you already took. 

 

The risk of death or divorce is a huge issue to take into consideration that should be discussed but we are mainly talking about your mis-understanding of the structure of the ROTH IRA.  I guess you are conceding by changing the subject?

[valuecfa]

By the way Ericopoly, i don't know your particular circumstances, but wouldn't a simple AB trust (i assume you are married) take care of your problem? Effectively, getting a $10.5 million exemption

 

 

edit: this obviously won't effect the proposed $3 million retirement cap that is the subject of this thread...I was just referring to passing on that large sum to your heirs in general.

[ERICOPOLY]

That is really shitty that there aren't better options for early death withdrawals/transfers.  Definitely a consideration to take into account. 

 

You simply haven't been taxed in the first place in your ROTH IRA gains. I've explained the tax paid at conversion was recapture on a deduction you already took. 

 

The risk of death or divorce is a huge issue to take into consideration that should be discussed but we are mainly talking about your mis-understanding of the structure of the ROTH IRA.  I guess you are conceding by changing the subject?

 

First, you write:

I've explained the tax paid at conversion was recapture on a deduction you already took. 

 

Let me explain:

The account was originally all IRA.  Then it was converted to Roth IRA.

 

This is the order of operations argument:  I paid 35% tax at conversion, but all other things being equal it would have been a 35% tax later on.  Normally people say that's a wash -- due to the order of operations.  You withdraw money from the account early to pay the tax at conversion. This money would have grown at the speed of the account otherwise and would have been there to settle the account bill in full at a later date had I never done the Roth conversion.

 

However the way I did mine is instead of withdrawing money from the account to settle the conversion bill, I kept it all in there and used my already-taxed money to pay the bill.  Most people though don't do it that way and they withdraw a little from the IRA to cover the conversion tax.

 

So that's why your argument isn't valid -- I took the added risk of potentially being taxed yet again if I die early or go through divorce.  Not only taxed twice (killing the order of operations argument), but also losing other things like the step-up in basis.

 

The growth of the tax paid would not have been stunted by early tax bill settlement.  So the guy with a Regular IRA who never paid any of the tax bill early is the one you are talking about -- he is not being taxed twice.  But the RothIRA guy, following the order of operations argument, merely payed the entire tax bill upfront rather than later.  And now he gets taxed a second time if you die early, get divorced, or if Obama makes you withdraw the gains early because it exceeds $3m.

 

 

Then you write:

I guess you are conceding by changing the subject?

 

Oh, yeah, like talking about the risks of the RothIRA is changing the subject when you want to keep the topic about "100%" tax credit certainties right?  Well, your 100% tax credit certainty is a straw man that I'm battling with.

 

It's a myth -- there are no certainties.  I try to explain that to you and you are claiming foul.  You weren't even aware of those death &  divorce rules, and that's why you were "100% certain".

 

There isn't any 100% certainty.  There's just the rules as they are, and there's trying to explain them to you.

 

 

[SouthernYankee]

"You simply haven't been taxed in the first place in your ROTH IRA gains."

 

-As per the agreement an individual made with the government they choose to live under. The seed money ($5000 max per year, I believe) for the Roth IRA was taxed, and that is all the tax each individual is liable for. After that, the government has no claim on any money within that IRA account. In my way of thinking, that is neither a tax credit, a tax break, or whatever other fancy names you want to call it. To be honest, I was not even aware of the fact that if I was to die before age 59-1/2, my wife/children would have to pay the penalty when they receive that money. From this point on, it is a political question, and that is why Obama included this idea in his budget.

[valuecfa]

To be honest, I was not even aware of the fact that if I was to die before age 59-1/2, my wife/children would have to pay the penalty when they receive that money.

 

They won't pay a penalty

[Otsog]

That is really shitty that there aren't better options for early death withdrawals/transfers.  Definitely a consideration to take into account. 

 

You simply haven't been taxed in the first place in your ROTH IRA gains. I've explained the tax paid at conversion was recapture on a deduction you already took. 

 

The risk of death or divorce is a huge issue to take into consideration that should be discussed but we are mainly talking about your mis-understanding of the structure of the ROTH IRA.  I guess you are conceding by changing the subject?

 

First, you write:

I've explained the tax paid at conversion was recapture on a deduction you already took. 

 

Let me explain:

The account was originally all IRA.  Then it was converted to Roth IRA.

 

This is the order of operations argument:  I paid 35% tax at conversion, but all other things being equal it would have been a 35% tax later on.  Normally people say that's a wash -- due to the order of operations.  You withdraw money from the account early to pay the tax at conversion. This money would have grown at the speed of the account otherwise and would have been there to settle the account bill in full at a later date had I never done the Roth conversion.

 

However the way I did mine is instead of withdrawing money from the account to settle the conversion bill, I kept it all in there and used my already-taxed money to pay the bill.  Most people though don't do it that way and they withdraw a little from the IRA to cover the conversion tax.

 

So that's why your argument isn't valid -- I took the added risk of potentially being taxed yet again if I die early or go through divorce.  Not only taxed twice (killing the order of operations argument), but also losing other things like the step-up in basis.

 

The growth of the tax paid would not have been stunted by early tax bill settlement.  So the guy with a Regular IRA who never paid any of the tax bill early is the one you are talking about -- he is not being taxed twice.  But the RothIRA guy, following the order of operations argument, merely payed the entire tax bill upfront rather than later.  And now he gets taxed a second time if you die early, get divorced, or if Obama makes you withdraw the gains early because it exceeds $3m.

 

 

Then you write:

I guess you are conceding by changing the subject?

 

Oh, yeah, like talking about the risks of the RothIRA is changing the subject when you want to keep the topic about "100%" tax credit certainties right?  Well, your 100% tax credit certainty is a straw man that I'm battling with.

 

It's a myth -- there are no certainties.  I try to explain that to you and you are claiming foul.  You weren't even aware of those death &  divorce rules, and that's why you were "100% certain".

 

There isn't any 100% certainty.  There's just the rules as they are, and there's trying to explain them to you.

 

 

 

The ROTH IRA provides a 100% tax credit to all income earned within the account if withdrawn after a certain age.

 

It is a MASSIVE tax break. 

 

Still waiting for a reasonable argument against what I actually wrote.

 

 

[valueorama]

So, if IRA, 401ks are capped at $3mm, does it mean that public pensions, 403s get capped at $3mm too. Because, i can show a lot of people drawing $300k a year after retiring as members of Board of Education.

[wknecht]

"You simply haven't been taxed in the first place in your ROTH IRA gains."

 

-As per the agreement an individual made with the government they choose to live under. The seed money ($5000 max per year, I believe) for the Roth IRA was taxed, and that is all the tax each individual is liable for. After that, the government has no claim on any money within that IRA account. In my way of thinking, that is neither a tax credit, a tax break, or whatever other fancy names you want to call it. To be honest, I was not even aware of the fact that if I was to die before age 59-1/2, my wife/children would have to pay the penalty when they receive that money. From this point on, it is a political question, and that is why Obama included this idea in his budget.

Someone paid for lunch.

[ERICOPOLY]

To be honest, I was not even aware of the fact that if I was to die before age 59-1/2, my wife/children would have to pay the penalty when they receive that money.

 

They won't pay a penalty

 

 

That's semantics.  The "penalty" in the words of the law, is the 10% "early withdrawal" penalty.

 

In reality, the money was withdrawn early from the IRA to pay the conversion tax.  That money didn't then compound at the rate of the account going forward, enjoying tax-deferral along the way.

 

Then when you get divorced and you are forced with withdraw "gains" in order to pay off your wife, you are taxed on those gains as regular income (but not assessed the 10% extra penalty).

 

The trouble is that the tax bill you paid before was frozen in time.  So the real-world penalty you pay is that you now owe income tax on your gains but you paid your tax bill early so those monies now don't cover the gains that the account has made since the conversion.

 

So you lose out.

 

Now, had you never converted the IRA to a Roth IRA in the first place, then everything would be hunky dory.  Your money (had you chosen to do the Roth Conversion but didn't) would have compounded along with the IRA account.

 

So it's a gamble.  If you are 100% certain that you'll live beyond 59.5 and/or won't get divorced, then that's great!  You win by going with the Roth IRA even if tax rates don't change.

 

So the RothIRA is no sure path to victory.

 

Government wins by getting your tax dollars early (time value of money) to solve today's problems.  In exchange, they offer you some sort of reward if you make it to 59.5 without death or divorce.  Plus, they offer certainty of tax rate paid.

 

In exchange, they switch the deal completely after the ink is dry.  And I did that conversion, what, like just 3 years ago?  During Obama's presidency, no less?  After the financial crisis, no less?

 

Had I never done the IRA/RothIRA I could have been putting money into things like GRATS (when BofA was at $5) and into Crummy Trusts.  Thus, I could have been reducing my future estate tax bill.

 

That other dense guy doesn't get it because he doesn't see things in anything other than a vacuum.  The big picture shows that the RothIRA or IRA is a massive trap that keeps you from reducing your taxable estate.

 

You can't put RothIRA into a trust.  You can't!  You can assign a trust to be a beneficiary, but the trust doesn't get the money until after the estate tax is paid.

 

So what will estate taxes be when I die?  50%?  Who knows.  The RothIRA is hardly 100% certain of credits -- only in a vacuum.  Straw man all the way.

 

 

[ericd1]

Give me a break....the last sentence of the article says this new way of robbing the rich and giving to the poor will raise $9B over ten years.  That's almost not worth proposing. $900M a year is a drop in the bucket of government spending. This is only vote-getting fodder.

 

Oh yeah.  I guess government pensions wouldn't be added into the mix here...

 

Perhaps the government should have a cap on spending rather than telling someone how much they can save. Savings isn't a word that's recognized by most politicians.

[ERICOPOLY]

That is really shitty that there aren't better options for early death withdrawals/transfers.  Definitely a consideration to take into account. 

 

You simply haven't been taxed in the first place in your ROTH IRA gains. I've explained the tax paid at conversion was recapture on a deduction you already took. 

 

The risk of death or divorce is a huge issue to take into consideration that should be discussed but we are mainly talking about your mis-understanding of the structure of the ROTH IRA.  I guess you are conceding by changing the subject?

 

First, you write:

I've explained the tax paid at conversion was recapture on a deduction you already took. 

 

Let me explain:

The account was originally all IRA.  Then it was converted to Roth IRA.

 

This is the order of operations argument:  I paid 35% tax at conversion, but all other things being equal it would have been a 35% tax later on.  Normally people say that's a wash -- due to the order of operations.  You withdraw money from the account early to pay the tax at conversion. This money would have grown at the speed of the account otherwise and would have been there to settle the account bill in full at a later date had I never done the Roth conversion.

 

However the way I did mine is instead of withdrawing money from the account to settle the conversion bill, I kept it all in there and used my already-taxed money to pay the bill.  Most people though don't do it that way and they withdraw a little from the IRA to cover the conversion tax.

 

So that's why your argument isn't valid -- I took the added risk of potentially being taxed yet again if I die early or go through divorce.  Not only taxed twice (killing the order of operations argument), but also losing other things like the step-up in basis.

 

The growth of the tax paid would not have been stunted by early tax bill settlement.  So the guy with a Regular IRA who never paid any of the tax bill early is the one you are talking about -- he is not being taxed twice.  But the RothIRA guy, following the order of operations argument, merely payed the entire tax bill upfront rather than later.  And now he gets taxed a second time if you die early, get divorced, or if Obama makes you withdraw the gains early because it exceeds $3m.

 

 

Then you write:

I guess you are conceding by changing the subject?

 

Oh, yeah, like talking about the risks of the RothIRA is changing the subject when you want to keep the topic about "100%" tax credit certainties right?  Well, your 100% tax credit certainty is a straw man that I'm battling with.

 

It's a myth -- there are no certainties.  I try to explain that to you and you are claiming foul.  You weren't even aware of those death &  divorce rules, and that's why you were "100% certain".

 

There isn't any 100% certainty.  There's just the rules as they are, and there's trying to explain them to you.

 

 

 

The ROTH IRA provides a 100% tax credit to all income earned within the account if withdrawn after a certain age.

 

It is a MASSIVE tax break. 

 

Still waiting for a reasonable argument against what I actually wrote.

 

You claim to only be discussing RothIRA.  Given that, we can stop talking about the water under the bridge.  The supposed tax bill that should have been paid in the beginning was on the pre-tax contribution to the IRA.

 

Later I rolled to the RothIRA.  We can go back to talking about IRA's if you want, but as for the RothIRA, I settled that tax bill at conversion.  Had I kept it in the IRA instead of the conversion, then I wouldn't be getting pinched for extra tax relative to the guy with the Regular IRA who never did the conversion.

 

So that's where you're wrong.  By keeping the argument only about RothIRA, you then claim I can't talk about regular IRAs but ignore that what you are advocating for is an additional tax that the Regular IRA payer isn't paying.  And that's the guy who took the initial tax break by putting pre-tax income into the account.

[SouthernYankee]

"Still waiting for a reasonable argument against what I actually wrote."

 

-Otsog,

 

If an individual makes an agreement, through their representatives, with the government, in the form of a ROTH IRA, and that agreement says that any gains accrued in that account will be tax-free (0%), how is the carrying out of that agreement considered a tax-credit, or a tax-break, or whatever else you want to call it?

 

This proposal is a political proposal, if you want to argue the politics, that is something else entirely. I put my money in a Roth IRA (after-tax money) because I thought it was a better deal. An old accountant actually always recommended to his clients that they go with a traditional IRA, where you put the money into an account pre-tax. He always said he did not trust the government to hold up their end of the bargain. It is starting to look like he might have been right. Again, though, that is part of a political argument.

[ERICOPOLY]

To put it differently, I made a wager with the government.

 

They wanted the tax on my IRA paid in 2010 so badly, that they agreed to give me a deal.  If I paid the taxes in 2010, they'd consider it payment in full for all future tax liability.

 

That benefits them because a dollar today in times of crisis is worth more than a dollar in 40 years when many of today's taxpayers (otherwise footing the bill) would be dead.

 

The bet they made is that my RothIRA would grow at just an average rate.  And averaged across all accounts in the population, that is probably true.

 

Now they are selectively reneging on that bet and just the very select few who did far better than average now will be taken a second tax swipe at.

 

So not only did they get their tax bill early, they are now depriving me of the future returns on that tax bill.

 

Thus I'm damaged by their reneging on the deal.  Had I just refused the offer to do the conversion, no less than 3 years ago, I would be bitching a lot less because I could have invested that tax bill in things like BAC to help pay the tax due on the gains the account has made since then.

 

So, a lesson in doing business with the government.  Only 3 years ago they lifted the income restrictions on RothIRA conversions!  The wanted us to do this conversion in the post-crisis, post-bailout world.  Now, bait and switch.

[valuecfa]

To put it differently, I made a wager with the government.

 

They wanted the tax on my IRA paid in 2010 so badly, that they agreed to give me a deal.  If I paid the taxes in 2010, they'd consider it payment in full for all future tax liability.

 

That benefits them because a dollar today in times of crisis is worth more than a dollar in 40 years when many of today's taxpayers (otherwise footing the bill) would be dead.

 

The bet they made is that my RothIRA would grow at just an average rate.  And averaged across all accounts in the population, that is probably true.

 

Now they are selectively reneging on that bet and just the very select few who did far better than average now will be taken a second tax swipe at.

 

So not only did they get their tax bill early, they are now depriving me of the future returns on that tax bill.

 

Thus I'm damaged by their reneging on the deal.  Had I just refused the offer to do the conversion, no less than 3 years ago, I would be bitching a lot less because I could have invested that tax bill in things like BAC to help pay the tax due on the gains the account has made since then.

 

So, a lesson in doing business with the government.  Only 3 years ago they lifted the income restrictions on RothIRA conversions!  The wanted us to do this conversion in the post-crisis, post-bailout world.  Now, bait and switch.

 

I think it goes without saying that someone who contributes to a traditional IRA is guaranteed to realize an immediate tax benefit, whereas someone who contributes to a Roth IRA must wait for a number of years before realizing the tax benefit, and that person assumes the risk that the rules might be changed during the interim. Basically, you got screwed. At least a Roth will reduce your estate taxes (assuming you will meet the now unknown exemption limits at some point far off into the future when you die)  since tax dollars have already been subtracted. A traditional IRA is valued at the pre-tax level for estate tax purposes.

 

 

[ERICOPOLY]

whereas someone who contributes to a Roth IRA must wait for a number of years before realizing the tax benefit, and that person assumes the risk that the rules might be changed during the interim. Basically, you got screwed.

 

By no less than the same person only 3 years later.  Sounds deliberate if you were into conspiracies. 

 

So if I get too pissed I just go to Australia and y'all lose out on maybe tens if not hundreds of millions in inheritance taxes.  My grandfather risked his life for that country, as did my great-grandfather and his 3 brothers were killed in Gallipolli and France.

 

I owe nothing to this country if they fuck me.  Fuck them in return.

[Guest]

aren't you guys getting a little ahead of yourselves here? I mean, doesn't this still have to get through Congress and everything?

[valuecfa]

aren't you guys getting a little ahead of yourselves here? I mean, doesn't this still have to get through Congress and everything?

 

Absolutely. You're right.

 

Let me change my quote to- "Basically you may get screwed"

 

 

[Guest]

aren't you guys getting a little ahead of yourselves here? I mean, doesn't this still have to get through Congress and everything?

 

Absolutely. You're right.

 

Let me change my quote to- "Basically you may get screwed"

 

haha.  ;D

 

 

[ERICOPOLY]

aren't you guys getting a little ahead of yourselves here? I mean, doesn't this still have to get through Congress and everything?

 

Absolutely. You're right.

 

Let me change my quote to- "Basically you may get screwed"

 

Okay, now you are a tease.

[valuecfa]

aren't you guys getting a little ahead of yourselves here? I mean, doesn't this still have to get through Congress and everything?

 

Absolutely. You're right.

 

Let me change my quote to- "Basically you may get screwed"

 

Okay, now you are a tease.

 

:)

 

I completely understand your frustration. I would be just as peeved if i were in your shoes and this proposal passes, having just made the a Roth conversion.

 

Austerity isn't fun.

 

 

 

 

[ERICOPOLY]

aren't you guys getting a little ahead of yourselves here? I mean, doesn't this still have to get through Congress and everything?

 

Absolutely. You're right.

 

Let me change my quote to- "Basically you may get screwed"

 

Okay, now you are a tease.

 

:)

 

I completely understand your frustration. I would be just as peeved if i were in your shoes and this proposal passes, having just made the a Roth conversion.

 

Austerity isn't fun.

 

Right , but I already paid the liability upfront vs in 40 years.  I did my part for cash flow.  Why not assess a tax on unrealized gains for Buffet who is with $ 40 + billion in unrealized gains and nearer the grave when it ALL!!! Goes tax free!!!  Plus he advocates for billionaires to pay more whereas the step up in basis was originally to eliminate the cost of paperwork hassles for heirs of the average Joe.

[Otsog]

You claim to only be discussing RothIRA.  Given that, we can stop talking about the water under the bridge.  The supposed tax bill that should have been paid in the beginning was on the pre-tax contribution to the IRA.

 

Later I rolled to the RothIRA.  We can go back to talking about IRA's if you want, but as for the RothIRA, I settled that tax bill at conversion.  Had I kept it in the IRA instead of the conversion, then I wouldn't be getting pinched for extra tax relative to the guy with the Regular IRA who never did the conversion.

 

So that's where you're wrong.  By keeping the argument only about RothIRA, you then claim I can't talk about regular IRAs but ignore that what you are advocating for is an additional tax that the Regular IRA payer isn't paying.  And that's the guy who took the initial tax break by putting pre-tax income into the account.

 

I am kind of shocked how terrible the conversion rules are.  I did just assume they were only clawing back your initial deductions and not treating the whole thing as a withdrawal.  Sorry about that, I could have saved each of us a bit of typing time if I hadn't jumped to conclusions.

 

I understand that you will be taxed twice if you die/divorce.  That sucks man.  That seems to be a huge flaw in the structure of the IRA's.

 

However, our disagreement did start over a statement by me that is still 100% accurate.  The context of my post was in regards to the IRA's being tax breaks.  Investment income earned in a ROTH IRA is a 100% tax credit.  Just because the conversions rules are crap doesn't change that.  You didn't have to convert and that is not the only way to contribute. 

 

[Cardboard]

Even if it does not get into law or even if it is just to once again demonize the rich, the fact that Obama and company are conceiving these plans is disgusting. All these programs have been put together to encourage people to save and to retire without being a dependent of the state. It is really an attack on savers and people trying their best to create a nest egg for their retirement. These are not the tax evaders and abusers of tax loop holes. These are people who earned a salary doing honest work, put money aside in a program that was law and because they were smart with their money or earned too high of a rate of return on capital are now being targeted.

 

$3 million is not that much if that is all you have, have dependants and you retire at 55 years of age. Actually, many financial advisors will recommend that you aim for such target and I am not talking in 40 years from now.

 

These proposals are destroying the fabric of capitalism. Once trust is gone and the hope to one day be rich, then capitalism is dead. While Ostog is right that these programs are quite advantageous over time, I think that they have been put in place exactly for that purpose. Also, the fact that not so many have achieved such success is a justification to not mess with these programs and give one more excuse for the lazy and not willing to save in them because they don't trust them.

 

Regarding austerity, this is not austerity. It is asset confiscation that is coming like we are seeing in Cyprus. The problem with society nowadays is that everyone wants to have everything that others have without saving or sacrificing to get it. Is everyone entitled to a Playstation or Xbox? Is everyone entitled to a large flat screen? A home? A car? Roller blades? Pool? NO! We need to get back to you eat what you kill. That is what my parents did and thought me to do. You work hard, put money aside and when you have cash then you can buy what you want. While I am all for supporting people in need with the essential, I have a real problem with this asset redistribution mentality for people who have already everything in life.

 

Marc Faber had the best quote this week to summarize the problem: "You have more people that vote for a living than work for a living. I think you have to be prepared to lose 20 to 30 percent. I think you're lucky if you don't lose your life."

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100609635

 

Cardboard

[hyten1]

well said!

 

this has always been one of my frustration, people feel entitled

 

its disgusting to see people complain in this country, because they don't have A or B etc. (people want to talk about poverty and hardship, they should move out of the US)

 

my parents (and many immigrants) came to this country without much, they follow the rules and work hard and sacrifice.

 

while i see american on TV saying they don't have a job or money (while you see everyone in the family has cell phones, flat screens, xbox, cars, living in a decent looking house etc.). there are jobs (just not the one they want). they don't need many of the stuff that they have (but they want it and feel entitled)

 

stop complaining and start doing whatever it takes.

 

I don't think people understand "whatever it takes" mean. (within the law)

 

 

Even if it does not get into law or even if it is just to once again demonize the rich, the fact that Obama and company are conceiving these plans is disgusting. All these programs have been put together to encourage people to save and to retire without being a dependent of the state. It is really an attack on savers and people trying their best to create a nest egg for their retirement. These are not the tax evaders and abusers of tax loop holes. These are people who earned a salary doing honest work, put money aside in a program that was law and because they were smart with their money or earned too high of a rate of return on capital are now being targeted.

 

$3 million is not that much if that is all you have, have dependants and you retire at 55 years of age. Actually, many financial advisors will recommend that you aim for such target and I am not talking in 40 years from now.

 

These proposals are destroying the fabric of capitalism. Once trust is gone and the hope to one day be rich, then capitalism is dead. While Ostog is right that these programs are quite advantageous over time, I think that they have been put in place exactly for that purpose. Also, the fact that not so many have achieved such success is a justification to not mess with these programs and give one more excuse for the lazy and not willing to save in them because they don't trust them.

 

Regarding austerity, this is not austerity. It is asset confiscation that is coming like we are seeing in Cyprus. The problem with society nowadays is that everyone wants to have everything that others have without saving or sacrificing to get it. Is everyone entitled to a Playstation or Xbox? Is everyone entitled to a large flat screen? A home? A car? Roller blades? Pool? NO! We need to get back to you eat what you kill. That is what my parents did and thought me to do. You work hard, put money aside and when you have cash then you can buy what you want. While I am all for supporting people in need with the essential, I have a real problem with this asset redistribution mentality for people who have already everything in life.

 

Marc Faber had the best quote this week to summarize the problem: "You have more people that vote for a living than work for a living. I think you have to be prepared to lose 20 to 30 percent. I think you're lucky if you don't lose your life."

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100609635

 

Cardboard