President Obama Proposes Cap On Retirement Savings

[TakeYouToTasker]

If you read this article and aren't completely outraged, your personal politics are so far gone that it invalidates your opinion in any rational discussion.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324050304578412932073225110.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

[meazza]

If you read this article and aren't completely outraged, your personal politics are so far gone that it invalidates your opinion in any rational discussion.

 

http://online.wsj.co...on_AboveLEFTTop

 

The White House explanation is that some people have accumulated "substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving."

 

I just don't think anyone is really surprised. It is quite obvious that governments are more than willing to go after the "savers".

Edited April 13, 2013 by meazza

[Just Jack]

Coming soon, a proposal to cap the amount of money you can hide in your mattress.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Coming soon, a proposal to cap the amount of money you can hide in your mattress.

RICO laws already cover that.

[IDBillzFan]

You can be outraged all you want, but nothing will come of it. The people intentionally elected a man who openly explained to everyone listening, "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money."

 

This is what the people want. The only way to continually sate the takers is to continually find new ways to take from the productive. Capping how much the productive can save is simply brilliant in the eyes of the takers.

 

Outrage will get you nothing because you are outnumbered by the takers. I recommend you shut up, lay low, hide your money and wait for this stupidity to crash in on itself.

Edited April 14, 2013 by LABillzFan

[TPS]

Good way to start: if you don't agree with me, then your opinion is irrational.

 

Your complaint is that the government that created the tax shield for retirement income now wants to cap that tax shield?

 

It doesn't put a cap on retirement savings in general; it puts a cap on how much you can shield in a 401k. They do this all of the time, put limits on how much income you can shield from the tax laws they write. Is it much different from putting a cap on mortgage interest deduction?

 

[Chef Jim]

What the hell?!?! When someone tells me I've saved enough or how much income is enough in my retirement it's time to leave. I really don't know what to say about this.

 

Good way to start: if you don't agree with me, then your opinion is irrational.

 

Your complaint is that the government that created the tax shield for retirement income now wants to cap that tax shield?

 

It doesn't put a cap on retirement savings in general; it puts a cap on how much you can shield in a 401k. They do this all of the time, put limits on how much income you can shield from the tax laws they write. Is it much different from putting a cap on mortgage interest deduction?

 

Not just the 401k but all qualified accounts. You ever hear of required minimum distributions? They're going to get their taxes eventually. How dare they tell me when I've saved enough.

[TPS]

How are they telling you that you saved enough? Again, it puts a cap on what's tax deductible up front. How is it different from capping any other deduction?

 

[Chef Jim]

How are they telling you that you saved enough? Again, it puts a cap on what's tax deductible up front. How is it different from capping any other deduction?

 

WTF are you talking about? There are already caps on what's deductible. Once you've hit an amount saved that will generate an annuity stream of $205k you are not allowed to save anymore. That's absurd. The cap is not on tax deductions it's a cap on tax deferred growth.

[GG]

 

It doesn't put a cap on retirement savings in general; it puts a cap on how much you can shield in a 401k. They do this all of the time, put limits on how much income you can shield from the tax laws they write. Is it much different from putting a cap on mortgage interest deduction?

 

Which is another way of admitting that Social Security will become insolvent quicker than anyone inside Beltway is willing to concede, especially the Distributor in Chief. \

 

But don't worry, the productive class should fork over more of its income to the government, because they're far more effective in distributing it and making the economy grow.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Good way to start: if you don't agree with me, then your opinion is irrational.

 

Your complaint is that the government that created the tax shield for retirement income now wants to cap that tax shield?

 

It doesn't put a cap on retirement savings in general; it puts a cap on how much you can shield in a 401k. They do this all of the time, put limits on how much income you can shield from the tax laws they write. Is it much different from putting a cap on mortgage interest deduction?

The policy is 100% ideological, as additional revenues generated today would be minimal. This President simply wants to eliminate financial independence from government. How dare a US President actively work to disincentivize private savings, especially in times when the dollar is being rapidly devalued and Social Security will be phased out.

[TPS]

 

 

WTF are you talking about? There are already caps on what's deductible. Once you've hit an amount saved that will generate an annuity stream of $205k you are not allowed to save anymore. That's absurd. The cap is not on tax deductions it's a cap on tax deferred growth.

Not according to this statement:

"The Treasury Department says its proposal would still allow existing accounts to continue to grow tax-free until distributions occur, but it would prevent new contributions once a saver hits the cap."

 

You are not allowed to contribute anymore to a tax deferred account, which is not the same thing as saying you are not allowed to save anymore.

 

 

The policy is 100% ideological, as additional revenues generated today would be minimal. This President simply wants to eliminate financial independence from government. How dare a US President actively work to disincentivize private savings, especially in times when the dollar is being rapidly devalued and Social Security will be phased out.

That is an ideological interpretation.

This isn't some god-given right--it's a tax break that was started in 1978, and you're making it sound like the government owes you this entitlement.

[meazza]

That is an ideological interpretation.

This isn't some god-given right--it's a tax break that was started in 1978, and you're making it sound like the government owes you this entitlement.

 

How is a tax deduction an entitlement

 

You just opened a nice can of worms with that statement.

[3rdnlng]

A good question to ask is why did the government create tax deferred retirement accounts in the first place? Is there any chance it was to encourage a certain behavior? Are they attempting to limit that behavior now, and for what reason/s?

[TPS]

 

 

How is a tax deduction an entitlement

 

You just opened a nice can of worms with that statement.

C'mon, let me have a little semantic fun...

 

Seriously, one can view any government tax policy as a giveaway to some industry/individual? Once those giveaways have been in place for long periods, don't they become viewed as entitlements? Mortgage interest deduction, depletion allowances, child tax credits, etc. People fight or go ballistic to keep "their entitlements" when they're in danger of elimination. Look at Tasker's reaction to this.

[Chef Jim]

Not according to this statement:

"The Treasury Department says its proposal would still allow existing accounts to continue to grow tax-free until distributions occur, but it would prevent new contributions once a saver hits the cap."

 

 

Sounds like someone needs a lesson on the difference between tax deductible and tax deferred.

 

And what happens if market fluctuation brings the account value below the cap?

Edited April 14, 2013 by Chef Jim

[TakeYouToTasker]

C'mon, let me have a little semantic fun...

 

Seriously, one can view any government tax policy as a giveaway to some industry/individual? Once those giveaways have been in place for long periods, don't they become viewed as entitlements? Mortgage interest deduction, depletion allowances, child tax credits, etc. People fight or go ballistic to keep "their entitlements" when they're in danger of elimination. Look at Tasker's reaction to this.

...

 

The intellectual gymnastics you are engaging in to make that argument are absolutely astounding.

 

You're trying to invent hypocrisy by ignoring glaring differences. Your premise that alloing people to keep there own money is an entitlement can only logically extend from the notion that all earnings rightly belong to the state, and that particular philosophy has a name. If that isn't your position, then you run into some glaring problems:

 

Not taxing people so that they can save their own money which they have worked to earn in order to meet their expected or desired expenses is the opposite of "entitlements".

 

Trying to nudge people into self-reliance isn't nanny-state-ism at all. Nanny-state-ism is trying to push people into greater reliance on the state by awarding them actual entitlements which they haven't necessarily earned on merit. You're distorting the idea so that any government encouragement of any behavior at all becomes an entitlement. Since anything the government does will encourage something, that makes anything it does "an entitlement" and thereby essentially renders the concept meaningless, and I'm not going to allow you to make that ****ty argument.

[TPS]

 

 

Sounds like someone needs a lesson on the difference between tax deductible and tax deferred.

 

And what happens if market fluctuation brings the account value below the cap?

Semantics to a certain extent. There are caps to how much I can put into a tax-deferred account. Those caps (deductions from today's taxable income) )essentially dictate how much income I can shield from today's taxes. It doesn't change the point. The proposal puts a cap on the overall amount that you can put into tax-deferred savings vehicles; it does not tell you how much you can save overall. Do you have any investments that are not in 401ks? Will there be a limit on those? No.

[TPS]

...

 

The intellectual gymnastics you are engaging in to make that argument are absolutely astounding.

 

You're trying to invent hypocrisy by ignoring glaring differences. Your premise that alloing people to keep there own money is an entitlement can only logically extend from the notion that all earnings rightly belong to the state, and that particular philosophy has a name. If that isn't your position, then you run into some glaring problems:

 

Not taxing people so that they can save their own money which they have worked to earn in order to meet their expected or desired expenses is the opposite of "entitlements".

 

Trying to nudge people into self-reliance isn't nanny-state-ism at all. Nanny-state-ism is trying to push people into greater reliance on the state by awarding them actual entitlements which they haven't necessarily earned on merit. You're distorting the idea so that any government encouragement of any behavior at all becomes an entitlement. Since anything the government does will encourage something, that makes anything it does "an entitlement" and thereby essentially renders the concept meaningless, and I'm not going to allow you to make that ****ty argument.

The hypocrisy is your original post stating that if we are not as outraged as you are, then we are not capable of rational discussion.

 

The government created a tax incentive that allowed people to defer taxes on some portion of their current income. What is so outrageous about the government deciding to change or tweak its own program?

 

Are you going to try to say that this isn't about your own political bias? If you think it will increase the reliance on the state, about what % of the population ends up with $3 million at retirement? Who is going to be affected by this?

[TakeYouToTasker]

The hypocrisy is your original post stating that if we are not as outraged as you are, then we are not capable of rational discussion.

 

The government created a tax incentive that allowed people to defer taxes on some portion of their current income. What is so outrageous about the government deciding to change or tweak its own program?

 

Are you going to try to say that this isn't about your own political bias? If you think it will increase the reliance on the state, about what % of the population ends up with $3 million at retirement? Who is going to be affected by this?

The OP stated that if disincentivization of retirement savings doesn't outrage you, then your opinion doesn't warrant inclusion.

 

I stand firmly by that, and will reiterate that this is nothing more than an ideological war being waged against producers. This cap proposal accomplishes no economic goal, and only serves to give hard-on's to hack pseudo intellectual academics and other class-war soldiers.

 

To borrow from Crayonz: your beard needs trimming.

Edited April 14, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker