President Obama Proposes Cap On Retirement Savings

[IDBillzFan]

...this is nothing more than an ideological war being waged against producers.

 

This, truthfully, is the bottom line. You notice TPS doesn't defend why it's a good idea. He's just defending that there's nothing wrong it. Because people like TPS find they feel better when producers have yet another new rule to "make things fair."

 

So I repeat; the takers won. They're getting what they want, in of spite the inevitable unintended consequences of putting unnecessary burdens on the very people they are relying on to deliver the goods.

[TPS]

 

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.

Actually, all you said was that we should be enraged by the article which impacts very few people. My entire point in this thread is your assumption that we should all express righteous indignation at the proposal.

[Fezmid]

Actually, all you said was that we should be enraged by the article which impacts very few people.

Which seems to the MO -- if it doesn't impact a majority, then we can go ahead and do it because there aren't as many people to complain.

 

Putting aside the ridiculousness of having a cap on the amount of money you can have IN a retirement account (not how much you can CONTRIBUTE, which are two totally different things), why does Uncle Sam have a right to know exactly how much money everyone has in their portfolio at any point in time? Maybe I'm being naive in thinking that they don't have that access now, but if they do - they shouldn't.

[IDBillzFan]

Actually, all you said was that we should be enraged by the article which impacts very few people

 

For starters. The next thing you know we'll be defining millionaires as anyone earning $200,000 a year.

 

But that would never happen.

[Chef Jim]

Which seems to the MO -- if it doesn't impact a majority, then we can go ahead and do it because there aren't as many people to complain.

 

Putting aside the ridiculousness of having a cap on the amount of money you can have IN a retirement account (not how much you can CONTRIBUTE, which are two totally different things), why does Uncle Sam have a right to know exactly how much money everyone has in their portfolio at any point in time? Maybe I'm being naive in thinking that they don't have that access now, but if they do - they shouldn't.

 

They don't and you're right they shouldn't.

[Nanker]

I look back with a certain fond etherealness when I deliberated briefly about buying Apple when Guilliamo was the CEO. It was at $7.00. It was just before he brought back Jobs from Next.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Actually, all you said was that we should be enraged by the article which impacts very few people. My entire point in this thread is your assumption that we should all express righteous indignation at the proposal.

Heh...

 

I was right, though I hoped I wasn't. Your own words name you better than I have.

 

How many times will you burn the world in favor of your utopian dream, Red?

[Chef Jim]

Actually, all you said was that we should be enraged by the article which impacts very few people. My entire point in this thread is your assumption that we should all express righteous indignation at the proposal.

 

Please explain why you think they are proposing this?

[TakeYouToTasker]

Please explain why you think they are proposing this?

I've given him every chance to respond, but he can't without openly exposing himself as a Marxist.

[birdog1960]

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.

while i don't necessarily agree with this plan (i think the better revenue option is higher capital gains taxes), the "class warrior" here is the wsj columnist who announces the purpose of this proposal is to make everyone dependent on the gov't. does anyone really believe that those with $3 mil in retirement will be any more dependent on the gov't under this plan than under the current arrangement ?(other than their needs for roads and bridges and ambulances and schools to train the people they rely on to keep things running and law enforcement and national defense and airports and border patrols and ...)

[TakeYouToTasker]

while i don't necessarily agree with this plan (i think the better revenue option is higher capital gains taxes), the "class warrior" here is the wsj columnist who announces the purpose of this proposal is to make everyone dependent on the gov't. does anyone really believe that those with $3 mil in retirement will be any more dependent on the gov't under this plan than under the current arrangement ?(other than their needs for roads and bridges and ambulances and schools to train the people they rely on to keep things running and law enforcement and national defense and airports and border patrols and ...)

What economic purpose does this proposal serve?

[3rdnlng]

What economic purpose does this proposal serve?

 

The erosion of conservative/libertarian principles.

[TakeYouToTasker]

The erosion of conservative/libertarian principles.

The proposal, as outlined, draws less than 1 billion dollars per year in revenue over the first ten years. When you get beyond those ten, it's a net negative, because those dollars, which otherwise would have been deferred, have already been taxed.

 

I'm begging you commie !@#$s (no, not you, 3rd) to defend it on non-ideological grounds.

Edited April 15, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[3rdnlng]

The proposal, as outlined, draws less than 1 billion dollars per year in revenue over the first ten years. When you get beyond those ten, it's a net negative, because those dollars, which otherwise would have been deferred, have already been taxed.

 

I'm begging you commie !@#$s (no, not you, 3rd) to defend it on non-ideological grounds.

 

Isn't that what I was saying?

[TakeYouToTasker]

Isn't that what I was saying?

It needed emphatic reiteration.

[TPS]

 

 

Please explain why you think they are proposing this?

Is this the only proposal in the budget? How many different proposals are there to generate more revenues or reduce expenditures? Should I be irate at this one or should I be more angry about the chained CPI's impact on SS? The majority of you here have been pining for austerity, but when there is a proposal you don't like, you're enraged? Every government policy has differential impacts. Some hit the bottom more than the top, and vice versa.

 

Why did they cap mortgage interest? Why is there an alt min tax? How is this any different? This was an incentive the government started in 1978, and like many other tax-based incentives, they have decided to cap how much they have allowed you to defer in the first place. In the age of austerity, everyone is a taking a hit.

[birdog1960]

What economic purpose does this proposal serve?

it produces revenue. we need both revenue and spending cuts to balance the budget despite the stupid rhetoric. it certainly doesn't serve the purpose of making the wealthy dependent on the govt nor is it meant to.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Tax deferal is not a tax cut; and you are pretending as if it is. This money all gets taxed, as income. It produces minimal short term revenues, but longer term loss of revenues. All this does is serve to incentivize behaviors, and make socialists, whom I am rapidly beginning to believe have more value stacked in a pile than standing in a room, swoon.

Edited April 15, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[KD in CA]

There are dozens of little ways high-earners get screwed by tax laws, this is just one more so not really a big deal IMO.

 

The bigger concern is we have a POTUS who seems to have no answers for anything and so instead he trots out these little campaign-type tidbits just to create a deeper wedge in his ongoing class warfare agenda. Really, what would be the total savings to the government of this policy if enacted? And how would that compare to say, requiring post-office employees to contribute an equal share to their own retirement plan?

Edited April 15, 2013 by KD in CT

[Fezmid]

Is this the only proposal in the budget? How many different proposals are there to generate more revenues or reduce expenditures? Should I be irate at this one or should I be more angry about the chained CPI's impact on SS? The majority of you here have been pining for austerity, but when there is a proposal you don't like, you're enraged? Every government policy has differential impacts. Some hit the bottom more than the top, and vice versa.

 

Why did they cap mortgage interest? Why is there an alt min tax? How is this any different? This was an incentive the government started in 1978, and like many other tax-based incentives, they have decided to cap how much they have allowed you to defer in the first place. In the age of austerity, everyone is a taking a hit.

Again, all of the things you list hit EARNINGS, not SAVINGS. The government has no right looking in my investment accounts to see if I've saved "enough." They can cap how much I can put in a 401(k) per year or how much I can put in a Roth IRA or whatever, but they shouldn't be allowed to say, "You've saved enough over the past 20 years, you don't need any more money now."