Posted on 04/06/2013 12:51:50 PM PDT by smoothsailing
Lonely Conservative
With his budget proposal, President Obama has told us what he believes is a “reasonable” amount to have in a retirement account. $3 million is the number he chose.
According to a White House statement, the Obama administration believes the current rules allow some wealthy individuals “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,” the statement said. “This proposal would raise $9 billion over 10 years.”
Brian Graff, executive director and chief executive officer of the American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries, told Bloomberg News his group intends to “vigorously oppose” the proposal. (Read More)
Progressives have had their eyes on Americans’ retirement accounts for quite some time. I guess Obama sees this as a good place to start. Or maybe it’s just a major jab at Mitt Romney.
President Obama’s budget, to be released next week, will limit how much wealthy individuals – like Mitt Romney – can keep in IRAs and other retirement accounts. …
Romney, Obama’s 2012 opponent, had an IRA several to many times that amount, leading to questions about how the former Massachusetts governor was able to squirrel away so much money in that sort of retirement account. (Read More)
Obama figures the more crap he throws at the wall, the more will stick. It’s the whole Cloward-Pliven thing.
Exactly!
...he believes is a “reasonable” amount to have in a retirement account. $3 million is the number he chose.
He can blow that much on a vacation (if the taxpayer is paying).
And the Spring Break for his kids probably cost a bundle.
SHAME ON AMERICANS FOR ALLOWING THIS TYPE OF CRAP!
You can have as much money in your retirement account as you'd like. The proposal here is to cap the amount for tax deferral purposes.
If you think this is a ridiculous idea, just keep in mind that the U.S. tax code already puts a cap on retirement plans -- at the front end. There's an annual limit to the amount of money you can deposit in an IRA or 401(k) on a tax-deferred basis. It typically changes with inflation, but you can do a simple Google search to find out how much it is for any given year.
Cloward-Piven-—Overwhelm the System.
Virtually everything he does is geared toward that goal. He has to destroy our country because it offends him.
what does Dave Ramsey suggest at this point?
Keep in mind, though, that this kind of sh!t is exactly why I was telling anyone who would listen that it was a bad idea to do Roth IRA conversions back in the 1990s when the Roth IRAs first came into existence. Anyone who did that had to pay taxes on the conversion from a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA in exchange for future tax exemption for withdrawals from the Roth IRA. I thought it was a bad idea because there was no way for anyone to know how the tax code might change between the time you made the conversion and the time you withdrew the money.
Cloward-Piven-—Overwhelm the System.
Virtually everything he does is geared toward that goal. He has to destroy our country because it offends him.
As long as the United States is strong and soverign they cannot implement the New World Order/One World Government.
0bama is an evil tool who enjoys his job.
I’m with you 100%. As a matter of fact, I just used Fleming v Nestor yesterday in response to a viral ‘Save SS’ email.
I understand completely the SS Ponzi scheme and never believed that it would be there when I retired. It is not mathematically possible.
I’ve operated a small business for the past 20+ years. I’ve always been a ‘Saver’ and lived within my means. I understand completely what ZIRP is doing to the money I’ve tried to save. And now this?
I don’t necessarily blame the 535 as much as the voters with their hands out that put them there.
Yes, that plan was actually proposed by Democrats in 2008 and has recently been revisited, with a few changes. The government wants to take over all current 401Ks and have the company matching share and the employee contribution, go directly to the government to be doled out later, with 3% interest added on. It would really hurt the stock market, not to mention the reduced rate of earnings. I guess if they pulled all the retirement savings accounts out of the stock market, you would be lucky to earn 3% on your savings.
Obama’s new plan, though, is his version of the Cyprus bank account seizures. He’s just warming up people to the idea. If he cannot get a tax increase on the wealthy, maybe he can persuade the public that the government should just force the wealthy to take their money out of the sheltered accounts and pay the taxes on them.
To me it’s the idea of the gov’t inserting itself into your personal life i.e. retirement. They want to control all aspects of your life.
Good question. He has denied that anything like this could happen. Sometime I think Dave ignores the political direction this country is headed. Maybe he has more faith in the common voter than I have.
But I’ve been a saver long before Dave arrived. It wasn’t that long ago that if you actually needed a business loan, you couldn’t get one. So I’ve always lived within my means.
You will be in his sights when the dollar collapses. Your 30K savings in that 401K will become 3 Million in no time.
Seniors especially and every other investor has counted on interest on their savings. Our government has been stealing this money from us for 5 years with their convoluted Q E’s.
I agree with both of your posts. The tax deferred limit seems to be the object of this idea.I really don’t think retirement investment plans will be seized outright. I can see how they may ALL loose tax deferred status at some point in time. I also had the same feelings about the Roth IRA conversions. It seemed hazardous.
This may never see the light of day in Congress, as you say. But the fact that The Won posed his argument by posturing about how much money a person needs for retirement is ridiculous. It was an arrogant and stupid statement (one of many) probably made to appeal to his base that may or may not have any retirement funds. But to any one who has any money in an IRA/401K...the alarm bells go off.
Unfortunately, IRAs are not a God-given right. They were created by Congress in 1974 with the passage of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). In this act, IRAs were introduced where participants were allowed to contribute a maximum of $1,500 of their annual taxable income into an IRA account. The IRA required funds to be held until age 59 1/2 before non-penalized distributions could be made. These distributions would be added to income and had to be started by age 70 1/2.
The IRA was changed several times by later Congressional acts, among these the 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act; the Tax Reform Act of 1986; the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996; the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997; and the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001.
So, it is sad but true that the government has the right to tell us the parameters of how our retirement accounts work and how much we can set aside. We can wish it weren't so all we want, but it clearly is within their purview.
t
An age of 52 or 53 seems like a long enough life for a black president.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.