IRA'S: NO TAX FREE CONTRIBUTIONS AFTER $500K

[DIRTYSECRET]

Most nest eggs don't go much higher. Since the amount is not that much it will encourage people to keep working-at least part time. People with pensions and SSI seem to be getting gravy train investments that the poor just don't have access to. From time to time congress can allow $100k withdrawals for investment purposes as long as they have that extra $100k($600k). Keeps the money flowing.

[colorado tanker]

Source?

[T. P. Pole]

Darn it, where’s my decoder ring?

[Vaduz]

Democrats kick dogs spit on kids the meal ticket is gone have to go back to the lunch date scam.

[KarlInOhio]

Is this your proposal? Is it a change the Senate is trying to sneak in to the proposed tax law? Is that $500k in total IRA current assets? $500k in income?

[Sacajaweau]

Makes sense....same thing as a cap?

[proxy_user]

$500K? That’s chump change. Now $5 million, that I could see. That would give you a very nice retirement over 30 years or so.

[DIRTYSECRET]

Source? You heard it here first. People with a net worth over a million bucks need no help from Uncle Sam. Eliminate capital gains, corporate tax, death. 10% income tax for EVERYONE. Either that or a national fair tax, import tax, sin. There should be a limit from uncle sugar as well as an incentive to get that first million.

[Uncle Miltie]

Bunny? Pancake?

[DIRTYSECRET]

Our freedom is what leads us horses to water. Not everyone takes a drink. Therefore I say make the public trough smaller in all ways. Everyone will get smarter/concerned as a result of these limits. Make them go their own independent(libertarian) way.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Is that $500k in total IRA current assets? $500k in income?

The title says “contributions.” But It’s not clear if that means $500K of contributions or if it means total IRA assets. If the former, it’s a less onerous restriction than if it is the latter. If you are retired and withdrawing from your IRA, you wouldn’t be affected because you wouldn’t be contributing in any event.

[DIRTYSECRET]

Of course $500k is chump change. Is $5 million a one per-center? That 5 million fella can rest on his laurels as long as $4.5 million of that was not tax free. He’ll probably get there quicker with no capital gains/corporate tax. BTW get rid of the mortgage deduction over $300k. These people can live in squalor b4 hitting up the taxpayer. Life is tough.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

If the limit is on contributions totaling above $500K, that is fairly high. If the limit is on present value of IRA, that would be a bit more restrictive - always assuming that the stock market does OK.

[DIRTYSECRET]

Once your account goes to $500 I say no b4 tax contributions. If it goes below $500k restore it. Once that half a million is reached it’s total laissez faire.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

It’s Christmas time. I think that’s in Furbish.

[GizzyGirl]

Would this just mean that contributions to accounts beyond $500k value would shift to Roth vs. Traditional? Pay the tax man now or later, but not twice?

[DIRTYSECRET]

Good question. Can’t say that I have the answer. My trick is to just get that nest egg to $500k. In difficult times congress releases up to $100k tax free. Let the rich get us out off recessions while the left continues to holler tax cuts for the rich.

As for the $2 trillion stored overseas elimination of the corporate tax can be done in sync. No need for pandemonium.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Eliminate capital gains

That could be taken two ways. What I think you mean is to eliminate favorable tax treatment capital gains—and I strongly disagree, for two reasons:

1. Typically “long term capital gains” include a health dose of, or consist entirely of, an asset simply retaining its value while the dollar shrinks via inflation. Is taxing inflation fair???

2. You start a business and build it up, and then you sell it. What is the buyer buying? The buyer is buying the anticipated income stream of the business.
   1. you don’t actually know that the anticipated income will be realized, and
   2. whatever income is realized will be taxed then.

   Suppose you are good at starting up profitable businesses, but get bored with day-to-day operation of a no-longer-dynamic company. You can either hang around doing what does not interest you anymore, or you can sell out and start up a new business. Which is better for the economy ^society ? I would maintain that it is obviously beneficial to society if you sell out and do your thing, creating a new service or product which others in society will be pleased to pay enough for to make it profitable.

   Taxation of capital gains, however, says “Nah—you don’t want to pay the taxes involved. Just vegetate where you are."

Is it any wonder, in that context, that there is no case on record of a cut in the capital gains tax rate actually decreasing revenue??? Or of an increase in the capital gains tax rate actually increasing revenue??? You are discouraging prudence.

[DIRTYSECRET]

Let’s do it this way: Allow 14 year old fast food workers put ALL their money in a tax free IRA. Parents pay their bills. Lets say he/she gets lucky and has that $500k at age 30. I do believe he/she will be smart enough to monitor that nest egg without any help. For most it won’t happen b4 age 50 but EVERYONE will be suspicious of the government trying to ‘help’. No need for college. Just don’t touch me or mine.

[DIRTYSECRET]

Mr compassion: sorry but too much information.