• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

BHO Wants to Limit Your Retirement Savings But not His

JumpinJack said:
If I had that much in retirement accounts, I would:

1. Recognize that I'm wealthy, by the standards of most Americans;
2. Think it's great I can defer taxes on $3.4M, meaning that money will increase significantly with little effort on my part;
3. Think it's reasonable to have a cap at $3.4M on the subsidy, since after all, I am wealthy and don't "need" those funds in retirement, like the average American;
4. Would have no problem putting my additional millions in other holdings, and watch my money grow there with little effort on my part;
5. Continue to pay my accountant to figure out ways to get my ordinary tax income rate below 15%;
6. Be very happy that I pay only 15% on my taxable financial accounts;
7. Move out of NYC as soon as possible, since NY is the MOST EXPENSIVE STATE IN THE COUNTRY FOR RETIREES; and
8. Try not to be jealous of the President's retirement "package," since I'm not willing to run for the Presidency myself.

Do you think you should get food stamps, too?
Click to expand...

That's the part that's killing me. The idea that a retiree who can "only" have the government subsidize his or her first $3.4 million in retirement savings is somehow a victim is just hilarious.
 
JumpinJack said:
You have lost any credibility in criticizing welfare recipients and food stamp recipients for being deadbeats who feel entitled. You and the author of the article have your greedy hands out for a handout from the government for something you don't need, but want. To add to your trunk of gold coins you're hoarding, so that you can continue living in the HIGHEST COST STATE IN THE COUNTRY FOR RETIREES.

Pull your britches up and pay your 15% taxes over the multi-million dollar cap you're allowed a subsidy on. Stop whining about the millions over and above that that won't be subsidized by deferral of taxes. Put your gold in your other investment accounts and pay your 15% decreased taxes (after generous deductions). Your ORDINARY income tax SHOULD be considerably more than 15%, so you will MAKE MORE MONEY that way, anyway.

Unless, of course, your accountants have figured out a way for you to pay less in ordinary income taxes than a hard working middle class who pays 25% in ordinary income taxes.

It is EASY to make big profits, when you have money. Take your pot of gold and go down the street. You're rich. You're greedy. You want what poor people NEED, without having to show your need for it or work for it. How lazy rich people must get, spending their time drooling over their accounts on the internet, instead of mopping floors and cleaning toilets. THOSE are the people that tax deferred accounts are intended to help, so that they hopefully are not POOR in their old age.
Click to expand...

I never criticize food stamp or welfare recipients. I advocate a national income floor. I did not know Virginia (where I live) is highest cost for retirees. Who said it is? Regardless, the law remains a royalist gesture that imposes on citizens a tax-free savings limit at a level producing a benefit only half that enjoyed by the President.
 
ludin said:
save and invest properly and you can have a rich retirement account as well. I plan on doing that exact thing.
Click to expand...


Tell that to a family of 4 making $30k per year. There's no money left for saving and investing. Not that it's your problem, but think about that for a second ... living on about $2000 per month after taxes.


appeal to emotion who cares. none of yours or the governments business.

....
Click to expand...

If it wasn't the government's business then you (nor I nor anyone) would have tax deferred status on the money put into 401(k)s and the like.

In which case, we wouldn't be having this ridiculous debate.
 
Critter7r said:
Tell that to a family of 4 making $30k per year. There's no money left for saving and investing. Not that it's your problem, but think about that for a second ... living on about $2000 per month after taxes.
Click to expand...

I thought the same thing, but I started my 401k anyway. I kept putting money into it. even if you put 5% of it in their over the course of your 45+ years working if you put it in large cap growth funds you will be surprised how much you have. at 35 years working putting in 5% of 30k a year and since large cap growth mutual fund earn about 15% a year on average. at the end of 35 years they will have 1.3m dollars in a 401k.

of course we don't assume that they are going to make 30k their whole life either.



If it wasn't the government's business then you (nor I nor anyone) would have tax deferred status on the money put into 401(k)s and the like.

In which case, we wouldn't be having this ridiculous debate.
Click to expand...

the government saw a bad trend. people retiring and living off SS alone which put them in the poor house because SS couldn't maintain their standard of living.
so they provided a way for people to make extra investments in lew of SS.

now Obama and I guess other liberal feel people are saving to much just like he feels that people that make over 250k are rich, and just as he feels that you should pay a penalty for having to much healthcare, and all the other BS things he FEELS.

there isn't a debate.

there are people that want to take something that doesn't belong to them because the FEEL someone has to much. maybe if they did the same thing. they would have that much in their accounts as well.

finally I am almost debt free. Over the past 10 years I have paid off over 10k in credit card debt 2 cars. The only debt I have left is my mortgage and my student loans.
I am going to start putting more money into my 401k even if it is just an extra 2% that is a good bit of savings over time.

I am waiting to see if I get a raise or promotion this year and if I do I will be putting more money into my 401k.

Why? because I know the value of saving and investing.

I don't care that someone has 3.8m in their 401k good for them.
 
Sorry folks but if you think this about just 401Ks you are crazy. I have no issues with this rule at all.
 
ludin said:
the government saw a bad trend. people retiring and living off SS alone which put them in the poor house because SS couldn't maintain their standard of living.
so they provided a way for people to make extra investments in lew of SS.
Click to expand...

I get it. My point was that the government created a vehicle for wealth creation and now people are bitching about the rules that the government is attaching to this vehicle that the government created, saying that it's none of the government's business. If those same people really felt it was none of the government's business, then they should use other, non-governmental vehicles for their wealth creation. otherwise, it's like driving a car: there are rules, if you don't like the rules, ride a bike.
 
Critter7r said:
I get it. My point was that the government created a vehicle for wealth creation and now people are bitching about the rules that the government is attaching to this vehicle that the government created, saying that it's none of the government's business. If those same people really felt it was none of the government's business, then they should use other, non-governmental vehicles for their wealth creation. otherwise, it's like driving a car: there are rules, if you don't like the rules, ride a bike.
Click to expand...

well they haven't attached it yet. it would take an act of congress that they won't approve.
the problem is it doesn't appear that Obama is limited to the same action that he wishes to impose on other
which is another contention.

401ks aren't government vehicles. they are purely private investments.
 
voyager1 said:
Sorry folks but if you think this about just 401Ks you are crazy. I have no issues with this rule at all.
Click to expand...

no you are crazy thinking that some arbitrary number people should be taxed on simply because someone thinks they have to much.
even though they saved and invested their entire lifetime for.

it is nothing but down right thievery.
 
ludin said:
well they haven't attached it yet. it would take an act of congress that they won't approve.
the problem is it doesn't appear that Obama is limited to the same action that he wishes to impose on other
which is another contention.

401ks aren't government vehicles. they are purely private investments.
Click to expand...

Yet I'm allowed to put that money into those investments tax-free until such a time that I withdraw those funds. And I forget, who is it that imposes the 20% penalty for withdrawing those funds early? Do the purely private investment institutions do that?
 
Critter7r said:
Yet I'm allowed to put that money into those investments tax-free until such a time that I withdraw those funds. And I forget, who is it that imposes the 20% penalty for withdrawing those funds early? Do the purely private investment institutions do that?
Click to expand...

that is tax law it has nothing to do with the fact that it is put into private industry.:roll:
 
ludin said:
that is tax law it has nothing to do with the fact that it is put into private industry.:roll:
Click to expand...

That doesn't change the fact that the vehicle (the 401(k) plan) was created by gov't. Which was the point I made.
 
JumpinJack said:
I merely pointe out that someone with multiple millions of dollars in tax-deferred retirement accounts is, by definition, rich, compared to most other Americans. It is YOU who is offended by the word "rich," and seems to think it's class warfare.

The REASON tax-deferred retirement accounts were started was to help Americans build retirement nest eggs to add to their Social Security and hopefully escape the money problems that plague the elderly. YOU are not in that group of people. Rich people have hired accountants to work the system to escape taxes, to enable them to live the life of Reilly.

There is nothing wrong with living off the money you've worked to accumulate. It is having the hand out for a tax subsidy from the government for something that was intended for most Americans.

Getting a tax subsidy on $3.4M is nothing to sneeze at. Put your gold in your other accounts and pay your 15% tax on the gains. That SHOULD be less than the ordinary income tax rate you will have to pay on the $1.5M you would have previously gotten a subsidy on in your tax-deferred accounts.

The rule is this: Whenever you ask someone to fund you, you give that entity the RIGHT to establish rules. You don't like the rules, don't play the game.

Yes, Virginia, you are rich. Wealthy. Advantaged. Compared to most Americans, many of whom are over 50 and have about $25,000 in their retirement accounts.

I don't say there is anything wrong with being wealthy. But don't ask for a subsidy on your gold. That's being greedy. The fact that you get a subsidy on the majority of your multi-millions in retirement accounts is a good thing that you should be happy about. If I had that much in retirement accounts, I would:

1. Recognize that I'm wealthy, by the standards of most Americans;
2. Think it's great I can defer taxes on $3.4M, meaning that money will increase significantly with little effort on my part;
3. Think it's reasonable to have a cap at $3.4M on the subsidy, since after all, I am wealthy and don't "need" those funds in retirement, like the average American;
4. Would have no problem putting my additional millions in other holdings, and watch my money grow there with little effort on my part;
5. Continue to pay my accountant to figure out ways to get my ordinary tax income rate below 15%;
6. Be very happy that I pay only 15% on my taxable financial accounts;
7. Move out of NYC as soon as possible, since NY is the MOST EXPENSIVE STATE IN THE COUNTRY FOR RETIREES; and
8. Try not to be jealous of the President's retirement "package," since I'm not willing to run for the Presidency myself.

Do you think you should get food stamps, too?
Click to expand...

Strawman
 
Critter7r said:
That doesn't change the fact that the vehicle (the 401(k) plan) was created by gov't. Which was the point I made.
Click to expand...

which still has nothing to do with the fact that Obama gets double the limit he wants to impose on other people that he feels have saved to much money.
the reason they have saved that much money is that they wish not to be retirement poor when they get older.
 
ludin said:
which still has nothing to do with the fact that Obama gets double the limit he wants to impose on other people ...
Click to expand...

Correct. It does not. Thanks for pointing out that I made a comment that really had nothing to do with the thread title.
 
Critter7r said:
Correct. It does not. Thanks for pointing out that I made a comment that really had nothing to do with the thread title.
Click to expand...

it is simply another war on prosperity that this president has begun since he came into office.
 
ludin said:
which still has nothing to do with the fact that Obama gets double the limit he wants to impose on other people that he feels have saved to much money.
the reason they have saved that much money is that they wish not to be retirement poor when they get older.
Click to expand...
So what's your point here (and the point of the thread), presidents can only sign laws that have a personal effect on them? That viewpoint doesn't withstand the slightest logical scrutiny.
 
Just FYI, I found this interesting knowing the amount of upheaval about this subject ...

"The average 401(k) balance hit a record high last year—of $91,300, according to Fidelity Investments. Only 72,000 workers had a balance of $1 million or more, and of those, just 9 percent (roughly 6,480 people) had balances surpassing $2 million."

What Obama's proposed cap on 401(k)s and IRAs could mean.

All this debate for something that is going to affect less than 5,000 people in the country.

Now I wonder, why bother with a $3.4 million cap? If you're going to bother making all this fuss, put a $1 million, or $500,000 cap on it and actually generate some tax money.
 
Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014
“We are furious that without debate Congress has placed the burden of rescuing underfunded plans on the people who can least afford it – retirees and surviving spouses who rely on their pensions for food, medication, and other necessities.“ ~ Karen Friedman, executive vice president of the Pension Rights Center
Click to expand...
On Nov. 14, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. reported that 200 of the 1,400 multi-employer plans covering 1 million participants are at risk of failing within the next decade.
... On Dec. 13, Congress agreed to allow trustees in these multi-employer pension plans to cut benefits so that the plans and the fund that insures them can remain solvent.
On Dec. 15, President Obama signed the $1.1 trillion spending bill that contains this amendment.
... Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), chairman of the Finance Committee, criticized the “last-minute scheme worked out largely in private” for producing a “lopsided solution” that will result in rolling back “a major tenet enshrined in pension law – never take away money a pensioner has already earned.”
... Previous pension reforms have left these vested benefits alone. Pensions for people who had worked long enough to become vested were considered untouchable. This protection had lasted primarily because the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 established that although plan trustees could cut benefits that workers hadn’t earned, they couldn’t touch the benefits that workers had already earned. ERISA also created the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.
Click to expand...
guess this is the way our government is going to "strengthen" the middle class: cut middle class pensions
Pension cuts helped keep the government open, but they hurt many retired women - The Washington Post
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom