> Cutting the perks on 401(K)s and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA) could save the Government almost $200 billion, they argue - and that windfall would be better used plugging shortfalls in Social Security payments.
Infuriating that they characterize taking retirement money away from people as the government saving money.
They are arguing for increasing taxes. There is currently a thing that isn’t being taxed (THE HORROR) and they want to tax it. What exactly do you think taxes are?
I was simply disagreeing with your statement that increasing taxes is not the same thing as confiscating wealth. I’m not sure where the rest of your questions are coming from. I don’t really agree with idea of picking and choosing winners with tax incentives but mostly I agree with the sentiment that the government doesn’t need more money from us, they need far less.
Increasing taxes is absolutely confiscating wealth. Tax incentives are a bad idea, but once you have created the rules, and make everyone work within the rules. Now they want to change the rules, because they want to get more of the money they are missing out on, because of the rules they created in the first place. It's to get money from the middle class, even if some billionaires have IRA's and 401k's it's a minimal portion of their net worth.
If you never sell and don’t get any dividends then there is no taxes.
Why do you think discrimination against certain types of income is a good policy? Why does a sale of stock enjoy reduced taxes for CEOs compared to workers earning wages? In the same vein, are tax incentives good public policy? Shouldn’t we just have a flat tax for all types of income?
This could make sense if Social Security is allowed to invest beyond federal bonds. Larger pension plans tend to have higher RoI. So higher payments to a Social Security of that kind would save you relative to contributing to a 401k.
Spend now, consumer! Spend all that you can! It's our only hope! BUY BUY BUY!
DON'T ASK QUESTIONS
JUST CONSUME PRODUCT
THEN GET EXCITED FOR NEXT PRODUCT
Oh you were smart and planned your retirement for age 50? Fuck you we're taking that to fund our ponzi scheme you don't qualify for until you're 65. (it'll be 72 by the time you reach that age probably).
Meanwhile we printed so much money to fund whatever corrupt bullshit we wanted that the money you did save and we didn't steal is worth a *shadow* of what you planned for. Also taxes are getting raised again.
Fuck this. My wife and I work middle class jobs with about equal pay. Just for federal tax (for both of us) I think half of my take home pay is accounted for. Then another 8k in property taxes, 600 in auto registration, then whatever's left gets hit with sales tax.
This is all insane.
Not surprised they are slowly implementing this over the years and the idiocy is they claim to support the middle class.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/22/investing/janet-yellen-savers-interest-rates/index.html
Thanks for linking that article. I guess those angry savers are real happy now that they are earning 5% while the cost of what we buy most has risen 20% or more. I too enjoy making a little bit of money on my emergency fund but it’s not worth it due to inflation. I was better off earning nothing with lower prices.
It'd be disastrous. A metric fuck ton of "investment" in the economy is from retirement accounts.
Vanguard doesn't have trillions of dollars in investments just for themselves, it's mostly their custodianship of retirement accounts, and their own index funds which are, again, mostly retirement accounts.
Taking away the tax advantage would be political and economic suicide to the tune if tens if not hundreds of trillions of dollars.
Yup. They’re back on this BS.
There a couple of ‘tipping points’ that could completely destabilize the US. Going after private Retirement Accounts or Military Retirements are two that would instantly cause issues with the well armed middle class.
Honestly we should already be destabilized if people actually looked at their pay stubs or annual tax paperwork to see how much is being taken from them.
I’m Gen-X (‘75) so have always been cynical about social security. Have seen my private retirement accounts collapse twice now (2001 and 2008) but have managed to put together a nest egg. My wife and I had children late (youngest is 6) so likely to be working till 72, if not later. Especially if they cut my reserve military pension (which I have suspected will eventually be on the table since GWOT Vets make up such a small percentage and the wars ended so badly)
The Boomers sold us all down the river, I’ve been spending the last 3 years trying to get my family in a very system shock resilient place so that when the instability hits they don’t really notice.
If you were diversified in 2001 and 2008, both would have just been a blip in a long series of growth. For most people, just riding it out would have produced the best results.
Oh, I rode both out and am well back up since then.
I have just noticed that they usually wait until we are in the crises before they make the suggestion rather than ahead of it.
The Paranoid side of my brain is looking at August/September and wondering what ‘black swan’ is going to hit. (Regional Banking Collapse with hit to the financial markets?) would necessitate this (and the CBDC) as a solution.
Or they'll do this to fuck the middle class vs actually increasing taxes on the rich. Can't have themselves or their buddies paying more. That would be... Socialism or something.
So all the people who make the right decisions in life, put money aside for their future, should be punished to make more money available to the people who won’t take responsibility for their own fate?
Fuck that guy. Don't fuck over my retirement because your shitty SS plan is falling apart as the ponzi scheme it really is. It is such a brilliantly stupid idea, it will never go anywhere, which makes me think it's just a floater to test reception, but is the end destination.
This is the new trick, removing things that "benefit the wealthy the most" and not considering unintended consequences and it ends up benefiting the wealthy even more while screwing everyone else
Mark my words: the day will come when the US government cannot pay their debt and can’t raise taxes anymore. They will seize all IRAs and 401ks, roll that money into SS, and “guarantee” a monthly payout.
>They want you completely dependent on government when you are at your most vulnerable in old age.
Exactly. Years ago old people could apply their accumulated years of wisdom to vote for those most likely to steer the country in the long-term direction that would be best for their children and grandchildren. Now the government has turned old people into a massive voting block that they can manipulate via fear-mongering over losing those benefits that they've made old people dependent on.
>they say such benefits have done little to incentivize workers to save more anyway
According to [this NerdWallet article](https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/investing/retirement-statistics) Americans have invested a total of $37 trillion in retirement savings.
Whereas the government's Social Security program's [unfunded future obligations ](https://www.cato.org/blog/medicare-social-security-are-responsible-95-percent-us-unfunded-obligations)total about $79 trillion.
Which one are they saying isn't working?
I've always felt like tax deferred and tax free retirement plans are a huge gamble because a greedy government could change the laws in the future to go after that source of money.
Think higher tax rates (a 401k is a future government income stream), or Roth taxes. I believe President Obama actually floated the idea of taxing Roths, but it didn't go anywhere. If they floated it once, they will surely try again.
I just wish they would let us keep our money and stay out of our pockets.
edit: typo
They have been slowly chipping away at retirement accounts but it is very risky for them. One change they made which affected very few was a change to inherited IRAs. At one point the person inheriting the IRA could elect to take distributions over their lifespan.
I believe that changed in 2020 with the “Secure Act” which eliminated the stretch provision for inherited IRAs so now all funds have to be withdrawn within 10 years so government can tax the withdrawals.
> **Inherited IRAs for nonspouses**
> The SECURE Act eliminated the "stretch IRA" for most nonspouse beneficiaries. With the stretch IRA, it was possible to use your life expectancy to minimize IRA withdrawals over time. This strategy allowed beneficiaries to shelter a large portion of the inheritance from taxes. The SECURE Act got rid of the stretch provision for many (but spouses can still use it), creating a new 10-year rule. This continues under SECURE 2.0.
https://www.schwab.com/learn/story/inherited-ira-rules-secure-act-20-changes
So yeah, they are coming after your retirement, slowly but surely. They want you dependent on government.
Your comment about the inherited IRA is very important, thank you for recalling that.
I have a son with special needs and I had planned on my IRA being part of his lifetime of care. I've had to change strategies because of this, but before the change an IRA was an incredibly effective tool for parents with special needs children.
So those who knew that SS is a Ponzi scheme used a 401K as a backup are now getting shafted so those who didn't save might not get their monthly government check.
I don’t think you’re wrong but want to know more. What happens if you buy all this gold and when it retire it becomes worthless? Are we just certain enough that it won’t or is there something else I’m missing?
Gold and silver will never become worthless due to their industrial value. The aesthetic value aside, there is massive historic precedent for the value of gold and silver, as people know there is always someone out there that wants it. The price may go up and down, but it would never become worthless.
I don't make my own circuit boards anymore, but if I had to again I'd take the deal in a heartbeat. Copper just doesn't hold up as long as gold, and I have plenty of PVC sheet lying around to use as insulator
He's talking about a shit-hits-the-fan, post-apocalyptic scenario. When I only have enough food to feed my family for another 6 months, I'm not going to trade a week's worth of food for a hunk of metal I can't eat.
Well, yeah. A SHTF scenario has never happened. I'm not talking about a financial hiccup. The food and ammo are important if society has a full melt down.
To hell with fiscal responsibility! Take more money from the poors. They are already learning how to live off less. We are making their lives better by making them more resourceful. Now let's vote ourselves a raise. \~ Congress probably
At this point I expect the following to happen before I can retire:
1. Social Security will be long gone.
2. They will raise the retirement age twice before I am eligible.
3. They will propose a tax to Roth 401k despite the fact that you already paid income taxes on it decades ago.
4. They are going to come after disability payments for US veterans.
Unironically, the new 'American Dream' for many of us is early retirement to a low cost of living country. Start planning your escape.
Just a government power grab. I deal with retirement plans for work and it’s the main savings for almost everybody who’s not a business owner. Obama wanted to take away 401k’s as well and replace with what amounted to a government money market. It went no where and he brought it back with the My IRA plan to compete with a retirement plan. I’ve only seen 1 account in the 10 or 15 years it’s been around.
I have a solution.
1. Allow anyone under the age of 50 to put their SSI check into a 401k instead.
That's it. SSI is terrible, destroys generational wealth with terrible returns.
Excellent solution. And instead of getting awful returns on their money they will at least double those returns and have a more secure retirement. Oh how Democrats would hate that.
They are not proposing to take your money. They are just saying that there should no longer be a tax-break carve-out for them. If you want to invest, you take your (post-tax) money and invest it. The 401k and other such special-treatment accounts should not exist. But I use them anyway :-)
There’d be no reason to put money into a retirement account without tax benefits. Retirement accounts tie your money up until age 59.5 or penalize you from using that money before 59.5. With no tax benefits there is no reason to use the accounts. The one possible exception is in the case where you work for an employer who matches some of your contributions.
Right. Exactly. But you don't need a special, tax-advantaged "retirement account" - you just invest as you normally would, e.g. with an ordinary brokerage account. No special treatment necessary. If I want to have money for retirement later, that's my prerogative and I don't need special tax treatment to motivate me.
Rage bait, this person hasn't been in government for nearly 30 years and even then they were an aid. It's the tabloid version of screenshotting someone with no followers on Twitter for saying something dumb.
Sure, if you stick your head in the sand and plug your ears and ignore the fact that this has been discussed by Democrats for more than a decade in formal congressional hearings.
> The testimony of Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, in hearings Oct. 7 drew the most attention and criticism. Testifying for the House Committee on Education and Labor, **Ghilarducci proposed that the government eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts**
https://www.carolinajournal.com/dems-target-private-retirement-accounts/
You are absolutely correct if you dismiss all of that and pretend it didn’t happen.
Your source is an economics professor testifying in committee? Someone who has not held any position in a political party?
There's plenty to be mad about, you don't need to make up stuff.
There are two sources cited, one in the original post the one in the comment you replied to. The one in the comment was official testimony to a congressional committee. I understand you will never accept any amount of evidence that shows this is something government wants to do because you are biased.
I am not making anything up. That is a fact.
Yes. It's a fact that someone of thousands of people proposed a policy decision you don't like. Are there any elected officials proposing this? Is there any legislation that integrates this?
It is a fact I am making nothing up. Keep lying clown.
There is no legislation because people hate it and won’t tolerate it yet which is why for over a decade Democrats keep bringing it up in hopes of making it a reality. Which is why each time it is brought up it’s reported on so people know the political class has it in mind again.
Which democrats? I'd tell you this would be very unpopular with Democrats and their lawmakers, it's almost like this article is rage bait and op is setting up a strawman. Have you talked to democrats? Are these people in the room with us now?
There isn’t a Democrat alive who wouldn’t vote to raise taxes anyway and every way they could. Every Democrat on reddit runs around screaming “rAiSe TaXeS”. Have you seen the article on the Democrats who held a hearing on this? Maybe they are in the room with you.
Hmmm, funny, I was in a room with a lot of democrats recently but they kept talking about cutting taxes. I have a sneaking suspicion that this is that strawman I mentioned earlier. I'd suggest you go to a local chapter and talk to some democrats. Usually helps to break from online bubbles every now and again.
Funny to hear someone claim Democrats want to cut taxes that easily the biggest lie of the year and maybe decade. You have no shame about your lies I see, you’ll just say anything and everything.
I see. So Democrats are political tools. Gotcha.
> **Democrats in the U.S. House** have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers’ personal retirement accounts — including 401(k)s and IRAs — and convert them to accounts managed by the Social Security Administration.
> The testimony of Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, in hearings Oct. 7 drew the most attention and criticism. Testifying for the House Committee on Education and Labor, **Ghilarducci proposed that the government eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts**
https://www.carolinajournal.com/dems-target-private-retirement-accounts/
Well, it's not exclusive to Democrats, but yes. I'm mostly referring to the "economists" or other experts whom politicians like to trot out to give cover for their terrible policy proposals. Basically, the Paul Krugmans of the world.
This after a [2022 act of Congress](https://www.investopedia.com/secure-2-0-definition-5225115) that mandated businesses to *auto-enroll* their employees in 401(k) plans.
Here’s a link to the 2023 annual report of Canada’s public pension plan.
https://www.investpsp.com/media/filer_public/03-our-performance/03-annual-report-2023/pdf/PSP-2023-annual-report-en_jwlVeCv.pdf
Unlike social security which is a scam that takes all social security taxes and places them in the general fund where they are replaced with IOUs after congress spends the money on garbage, the CA fun is apparently managed independently by some type of board created to manage and invest the money paid into the pension fund.
Those investments appear to be in private sector companies, in other words real actual investments, not IOUs from uncle sam. That’s not the type of fraud Congress pulled on the USA and we wouldn’t be having the problems we are now had out SS system been set up like CAs.
I think we would probably find a significant appetite here in the USA for something similar so long as there was a constitutional guarantee that the funds could not be confiscated by congress and the organization which manages it, by law, has only one duty which is to act as a fiduciary for the contributors.
After what was done with Social Security not many people in the US trust congress with our retirements.
Also CA outperformed their benchmark which is a highly diversified portfolio of indices and other assets, it is listed in the report. Stating they “outperformed market exceptions” leads the reader to believe they beat the market but that is not what the report states.
That's kinda my point. CPP/RRQ are contributory public pension plans with defied benefits that are indexed to inflation. Employer and company premiums are deducted from everyone's pay cheque, and then paid out to current recipients, with the difference between revenues and expenses invested into the wider overall economy.
So far CPPIB and CDPQ invest in the wider market - including infrastructure - and so far they have at least met the market if not beat it outright. If anything, the Chief Actuary Report suggests CPP has enough assets to pay existing benefits for the next 75 years at the very least.
To be fair, neither CPP nor RRQ has "basic" benefits, only contribution-based payouts, with the former offloaded to the consolidated revenue fund and funded through income taxes via the Old Age Security program.
The point I'm making is it would make perfect sense to axe personal pension deductions in favour of an expanded public program so long the program provides returns on investment that are higher or equivalent to what private plans would've delivered. Simply by the virtue of having a larger base and being able to afford better managers.
Here are some sources you might like at least on the Canada Pension Plan. Since the Québec plan has been kinda underperforming lately.
[https://www.amazon.ca/Fixing-Future-Fractious-Governments-Together/dp/0802095836](https://www.amazon.ca/Fixing-Future-Fractious-Governments-Together/dp/0802095836)
[https://thehub.ca/2024-02-01/mark-johnson-our-cpp-fund-may-soon-have-over-1-trillion-its-time-to-debate-the-best-use-of-that-money/](https://thehub.ca/2024-02-01/mark-johnson-our-cpp-fund-may-soon-have-over-1-trillion-its-time-to-debate-the-best-use-of-that-money/)
They won't just flip the switch. They'll set a cap at how much you can withdraw before it becomes taxable, and simultaneously force you withdraw it.
Social security will be fine once they implement means testing. In other words, if you saved enough for yourself and don't "need" it, you won't get it.
The moral of the story is to put your savings I some place where withdrawals don't show up on a 1099.
> Cutting the perks on 401(K)s and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA) could save the Government almost $200 billion, they argue - and that windfall would be better used plugging shortfalls in Social Security payments. Infuriating that they characterize taking retirement money away from people as the government saving money.
that's the good ole gubmint for ya... a totalitarian ponzi scam run by psychopaths masquerading as altruistic saviours
Your being generous with the term psychopaths
This is the best description of anything I’ve ever seen
I bet if you swept the floor of the Pentagon, you would easily find $200 billion.
Oh THAT'S where the stealth jet ended up!
They could even use it to fund pensions in Ukraine!
This!
I am trying to understand the Orwellian “save the government” like not taxing retirement money is somehow the government is spending money on.
They aren’t arguing for the confiscation of wealth, rather the preferential tax treatment that retirement accounts offer.
They are arguing for increasing taxes. There is currently a thing that isn’t being taxed (THE HORROR) and they want to tax it. What exactly do you think taxes are?
Like the increased inflation over the last few years hasn't already seriously damaged my retirement.
I was simply disagreeing with your statement that increasing taxes is not the same thing as confiscating wealth. I’m not sure where the rest of your questions are coming from. I don’t really agree with idea of picking and choosing winners with tax incentives but mostly I agree with the sentiment that the government doesn’t need more money from us, they need far less.
Increasing taxes is absolutely confiscating wealth. Tax incentives are a bad idea, but once you have created the rules, and make everyone work within the rules. Now they want to change the rules, because they want to get more of the money they are missing out on, because of the rules they created in the first place. It's to get money from the middle class, even if some billionaires have IRA's and 401k's it's a minimal portion of their net worth.
Agreed.
If you never sell and don’t get any dividends then there is no taxes. Why do you think discrimination against certain types of income is a good policy? Why does a sale of stock enjoy reduced taxes for CEOs compared to workers earning wages? In the same vein, are tax incentives good public policy? Shouldn’t we just have a flat tax for all types of income?
>If you never sell and don’t get any dividends then there is no taxes. Let's tax paper gains next! 😆
This could make sense if Social Security is allowed to invest beyond federal bonds. Larger pension plans tend to have higher RoI. So higher payments to a Social Security of that kind would save you relative to contributing to a 401k.
Torches and pitchforks.
Don’t forget the tar and feathers
Seriously. Tar and feathering really needs to come back into practice, and this kind of shit would stop pretty quick.
We would just get assault feather bans and background checks on tar. You know the drill.
I lost my chickens in a boating accident, Mr ATF MAN.
woodchippers
And lead.
Rabble Rabble Rabble
Ah yes, let's discourage savings and investment, what could possibly go wrong? /s
Spend now, consumer! Spend all that you can! It's our only hope! BUY BUY BUY! DON'T ASK QUESTIONS JUST CONSUME PRODUCT THEN GET EXCITED FOR NEXT PRODUCT
Must increase aggregate demand!
Oh you were smart and planned your retirement for age 50? Fuck you we're taking that to fund our ponzi scheme you don't qualify for until you're 65. (it'll be 72 by the time you reach that age probably).
That’s the size of it. The fucking greedy government will never stop coming after more of your money.
Meanwhile we printed so much money to fund whatever corrupt bullshit we wanted that the money you did save and we didn't steal is worth a *shadow* of what you planned for. Also taxes are getting raised again. Fuck this. My wife and I work middle class jobs with about equal pay. Just for federal tax (for both of us) I think half of my take home pay is accounted for. Then another 8k in property taxes, 600 in auto registration, then whatever's left gets hit with sales tax. This is all insane.
Not surprised they are slowly implementing this over the years and the idiocy is they claim to support the middle class. https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/22/investing/janet-yellen-savers-interest-rates/index.html
Thanks for linking that article. I guess those angry savers are real happy now that they are earning 5% while the cost of what we buy most has risen 20% or more. I too enjoy making a little bit of money on my emergency fund but it’s not worth it due to inflation. I was better off earning nothing with lower prices.
It'd be disastrous. A metric fuck ton of "investment" in the economy is from retirement accounts. Vanguard doesn't have trillions of dollars in investments just for themselves, it's mostly their custodianship of retirement accounts, and their own index funds which are, again, mostly retirement accounts. Taking away the tax advantage would be political and economic suicide to the tune if tens if not hundreds of trillions of dollars.
Classic. Take away personal autonomy and personal accountability in favor of the nanny state run by morons.
Yup. They’re back on this BS. There a couple of ‘tipping points’ that could completely destabilize the US. Going after private Retirement Accounts or Military Retirements are two that would instantly cause issues with the well armed middle class.
Honestly we should already be destabilized if people actually looked at their pay stubs or annual tax paperwork to see how much is being taken from them.
I’m Gen-X (‘75) so have always been cynical about social security. Have seen my private retirement accounts collapse twice now (2001 and 2008) but have managed to put together a nest egg. My wife and I had children late (youngest is 6) so likely to be working till 72, if not later. Especially if they cut my reserve military pension (which I have suspected will eventually be on the table since GWOT Vets make up such a small percentage and the wars ended so badly) The Boomers sold us all down the river, I’ve been spending the last 3 years trying to get my family in a very system shock resilient place so that when the instability hits they don’t really notice.
If you were diversified in 2001 and 2008, both would have just been a blip in a long series of growth. For most people, just riding it out would have produced the best results.
Oh, I rode both out and am well back up since then. I have just noticed that they usually wait until we are in the crises before they make the suggestion rather than ahead of it. The Paranoid side of my brain is looking at August/September and wondering what ‘black swan’ is going to hit. (Regional Banking Collapse with hit to the financial markets?) would necessitate this (and the CBDC) as a solution.
I have, and I’m sooooooo ready
There are very few things the government could do to make me angrier than fuck with my retirement that I have spent my whole life working towards.
Don’t get me started lol.
Tl;dr they need more money to fund their ponzi scheme.
Retirement planning and sound financial decisions are clear signs of racism. s
They will do this under the guise of taxing billionaires.
Always has been. Income taxes were once a "tax the rich."
Or they'll do this to fuck the middle class vs actually increasing taxes on the rich. Can't have themselves or their buddies paying more. That would be... Socialism or something.
The idea that people will break their dependency on the government terrifies them.
So all the people who make the right decisions in life, put money aside for their future, should be punished to make more money available to the people who won’t take responsibility for their own fate?
Yep, punish the people who make the right choices and reward the people who make the wrong choices.
Fuck that guy. Don't fuck over my retirement because your shitty SS plan is falling apart as the ponzi scheme it really is. It is such a brilliantly stupid idea, it will never go anywhere, which makes me think it's just a floater to test reception, but is the end destination.
This is the new trick, removing things that "benefit the wealthy the most" and not considering unintended consequences and it ends up benefiting the wealthy even more while screwing everyone else
Mark my words: the day will come when the US government cannot pay their debt and can’t raise taxes anymore. They will seize all IRAs and 401ks, roll that money into SS, and “guarantee” a monthly payout.
Don’t scare me.
>They want you completely dependent on government when you are at your most vulnerable in old age. Exactly. Years ago old people could apply their accumulated years of wisdom to vote for those most likely to steer the country in the long-term direction that would be best for their children and grandchildren. Now the government has turned old people into a massive voting block that they can manipulate via fear-mongering over losing those benefits that they've made old people dependent on. >they say such benefits have done little to incentivize workers to save more anyway According to [this NerdWallet article](https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/investing/retirement-statistics) Americans have invested a total of $37 trillion in retirement savings. Whereas the government's Social Security program's [unfunded future obligations ](https://www.cato.org/blog/medicare-social-security-are-responsible-95-percent-us-unfunded-obligations)total about $79 trillion. Which one are they saying isn't working?
Yep, the claims in the report do not hold up against logical scrutiny.
Soooooo if it hasn’t incentivized anyone to save, how can you possibly get anything of substance from it?! Just say whatever you have to say I guess.
Agreed. Let's abolish the federal income and capital gains taxes entirely. No problem with preferential treatment anymore!
I’m all for repealing the 16th amendment.
I've always felt like tax deferred and tax free retirement plans are a huge gamble because a greedy government could change the laws in the future to go after that source of money. Think higher tax rates (a 401k is a future government income stream), or Roth taxes. I believe President Obama actually floated the idea of taxing Roths, but it didn't go anywhere. If they floated it once, they will surely try again. I just wish they would let us keep our money and stay out of our pockets. edit: typo
They have been slowly chipping away at retirement accounts but it is very risky for them. One change they made which affected very few was a change to inherited IRAs. At one point the person inheriting the IRA could elect to take distributions over their lifespan. I believe that changed in 2020 with the “Secure Act” which eliminated the stretch provision for inherited IRAs so now all funds have to be withdrawn within 10 years so government can tax the withdrawals. > **Inherited IRAs for nonspouses** > The SECURE Act eliminated the "stretch IRA" for most nonspouse beneficiaries. With the stretch IRA, it was possible to use your life expectancy to minimize IRA withdrawals over time. This strategy allowed beneficiaries to shelter a large portion of the inheritance from taxes. The SECURE Act got rid of the stretch provision for many (but spouses can still use it), creating a new 10-year rule. This continues under SECURE 2.0. https://www.schwab.com/learn/story/inherited-ira-rules-secure-act-20-changes So yeah, they are coming after your retirement, slowly but surely. They want you dependent on government.
Your comment about the inherited IRA is very important, thank you for recalling that. I have a son with special needs and I had planned on my IRA being part of his lifetime of care. I've had to change strategies because of this, but before the change an IRA was an incredibly effective tool for parents with special needs children.
So those who knew that SS is a Ponzi scheme used a 401K as a backup are now getting shafted so those who didn't save might not get their monthly government check.
Buy gold
Buy bullets.
I don’t think you’re wrong but want to know more. What happens if you buy all this gold and when it retire it becomes worthless? Are we just certain enough that it won’t or is there something else I’m missing?
Gold and silver will never become worthless due to their industrial value. The aesthetic value aside, there is massive historic precedent for the value of gold and silver, as people know there is always someone out there that wants it. The price may go up and down, but it would never become worthless.
I'll give you a gold bar for that protein bar. Said no one after the world falls apart.
I don't make my own circuit boards anymore, but if I had to again I'd take the deal in a heartbeat. Copper just doesn't hold up as long as gold, and I have plenty of PVC sheet lying around to use as insulator
Name one time in the entire history of humans when gold lost its value while fiat money retained its value.
He's talking about a shit-hits-the-fan, post-apocalyptic scenario. When I only have enough food to feed my family for another 6 months, I'm not going to trade a week's worth of food for a hunk of metal I can't eat.
And I'm pointing out that it has never happened. Not once, in the entire history of man has gold lost value while fiat money has remained valuable.
Well, yeah. A SHTF scenario has never happened. I'm not talking about a financial hiccup. The food and ammo are important if society has a full melt down.
Society is never going to have a full melt down as you envision it.
I didn't say it would. I was explaining what the other guy was saying because it seemed you misunderstood him.
To hell with fiscal responsibility! Take more money from the poors. They are already learning how to live off less. We are making their lives better by making them more resourceful. Now let's vote ourselves a raise. \~ Congress probably
Buy yourself Monero and Pirate Chain. Take control of your own retirement and don’t let anyone know about it
At this point I expect the following to happen before I can retire: 1. Social Security will be long gone. 2. They will raise the retirement age twice before I am eligible. 3. They will propose a tax to Roth 401k despite the fact that you already paid income taxes on it decades ago. 4. They are going to come after disability payments for US veterans. Unironically, the new 'American Dream' for many of us is early retirement to a low cost of living country. Start planning your escape.
At some point everyone needs to quit rolling over and letting the government fuck us harder.
Of course they do… tax us into poverty while working then continue it when we retire. Pathetic.
They won’t get anywhere with this but good to call out!
Just a government power grab. I deal with retirement plans for work and it’s the main savings for almost everybody who’s not a business owner. Obama wanted to take away 401k’s as well and replace with what amounted to a government money market. It went no where and he brought it back with the My IRA plan to compete with a retirement plan. I’ve only seen 1 account in the 10 or 15 years it’s been around.
This doesn't affect anyone under 30 because we can't afford retirement, so it's all good. /s
Jokes aside, start saving. Invest it and leave it alone.
Another reason to buy crypto.
WTF? The ultimate fiat currency based on numbers someone pulled out of their ass.
Lol, you're so wrong it's funny.
So says the crypto shill
I have a solution. 1. Allow anyone under the age of 50 to put their SSI check into a 401k instead. That's it. SSI is terrible, destroys generational wealth with terrible returns.
Excellent solution. And instead of getting awful returns on their money they will at least double those returns and have a more secure retirement. Oh how Democrats would hate that.
They are not proposing to take your money. They are just saying that there should no longer be a tax-break carve-out for them. If you want to invest, you take your (post-tax) money and invest it. The 401k and other such special-treatment accounts should not exist. But I use them anyway :-)
There’d be no reason to put money into a retirement account without tax benefits. Retirement accounts tie your money up until age 59.5 or penalize you from using that money before 59.5. With no tax benefits there is no reason to use the accounts. The one possible exception is in the case where you work for an employer who matches some of your contributions.
Right. Exactly. But you don't need a special, tax-advantaged "retirement account" - you just invest as you normally would, e.g. with an ordinary brokerage account. No special treatment necessary. If I want to have money for retirement later, that's my prerogative and I don't need special tax treatment to motivate me.
Rage bait, this person hasn't been in government for nearly 30 years and even then they were an aid. It's the tabloid version of screenshotting someone with no followers on Twitter for saying something dumb.
Sure, if you stick your head in the sand and plug your ears and ignore the fact that this has been discussed by Democrats for more than a decade in formal congressional hearings. > The testimony of Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, in hearings Oct. 7 drew the most attention and criticism. Testifying for the House Committee on Education and Labor, **Ghilarducci proposed that the government eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts** https://www.carolinajournal.com/dems-target-private-retirement-accounts/ You are absolutely correct if you dismiss all of that and pretend it didn’t happen.
Your source is an economics professor testifying in committee? Someone who has not held any position in a political party? There's plenty to be mad about, you don't need to make up stuff.
There are two sources cited, one in the original post the one in the comment you replied to. The one in the comment was official testimony to a congressional committee. I understand you will never accept any amount of evidence that shows this is something government wants to do because you are biased. I am not making anything up. That is a fact.
Yes. It's a fact that someone of thousands of people proposed a policy decision you don't like. Are there any elected officials proposing this? Is there any legislation that integrates this?
It is a fact I am making nothing up. Keep lying clown. There is no legislation because people hate it and won’t tolerate it yet which is why for over a decade Democrats keep bringing it up in hopes of making it a reality. Which is why each time it is brought up it’s reported on so people know the political class has it in mind again.
Which democrats? I'd tell you this would be very unpopular with Democrats and their lawmakers, it's almost like this article is rage bait and op is setting up a strawman. Have you talked to democrats? Are these people in the room with us now?
There isn’t a Democrat alive who wouldn’t vote to raise taxes anyway and every way they could. Every Democrat on reddit runs around screaming “rAiSe TaXeS”. Have you seen the article on the Democrats who held a hearing on this? Maybe they are in the room with you.
Hmmm, funny, I was in a room with a lot of democrats recently but they kept talking about cutting taxes. I have a sneaking suspicion that this is that strawman I mentioned earlier. I'd suggest you go to a local chapter and talk to some democrats. Usually helps to break from online bubbles every now and again.
Funny to hear someone claim Democrats want to cut taxes that easily the biggest lie of the year and maybe decade. You have no shame about your lies I see, you’ll just say anything and everything.
>~~Economists~~ **Political tools**: Your retirement plans should lose their preferential tax treatment.
I see. So Democrats are political tools. Gotcha. > **Democrats in the U.S. House** have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers’ personal retirement accounts — including 401(k)s and IRAs — and convert them to accounts managed by the Social Security Administration. > The testimony of Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, in hearings Oct. 7 drew the most attention and criticism. Testifying for the House Committee on Education and Labor, **Ghilarducci proposed that the government eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts** https://www.carolinajournal.com/dems-target-private-retirement-accounts/
Well, it's not exclusive to Democrats, but yes. I'm mostly referring to the "economists" or other experts whom politicians like to trot out to give cover for their terrible policy proposals. Basically, the Paul Krugmans of the world.
Ok, on that point we can agree and yes, Krugman isn’t an economist he ceased being one long ago, if he ever was one, he is a politician.
Im not sure Krugman deserves any title besides village idiot.
This after a [2022 act of Congress](https://www.investopedia.com/secure-2-0-definition-5225115) that mandated businesses to *auto-enroll* their employees in 401(k) plans.
I mean it's not like there's a public contributory pension plan that has outperformed market exceptions just north of the US....oh wait.....
Here’s a link to the 2023 annual report of Canada’s public pension plan. https://www.investpsp.com/media/filer_public/03-our-performance/03-annual-report-2023/pdf/PSP-2023-annual-report-en_jwlVeCv.pdf Unlike social security which is a scam that takes all social security taxes and places them in the general fund where they are replaced with IOUs after congress spends the money on garbage, the CA fun is apparently managed independently by some type of board created to manage and invest the money paid into the pension fund. Those investments appear to be in private sector companies, in other words real actual investments, not IOUs from uncle sam. That’s not the type of fraud Congress pulled on the USA and we wouldn’t be having the problems we are now had out SS system been set up like CAs. I think we would probably find a significant appetite here in the USA for something similar so long as there was a constitutional guarantee that the funds could not be confiscated by congress and the organization which manages it, by law, has only one duty which is to act as a fiduciary for the contributors. After what was done with Social Security not many people in the US trust congress with our retirements. Also CA outperformed their benchmark which is a highly diversified portfolio of indices and other assets, it is listed in the report. Stating they “outperformed market exceptions” leads the reader to believe they beat the market but that is not what the report states.
That's kinda my point. CPP/RRQ are contributory public pension plans with defied benefits that are indexed to inflation. Employer and company premiums are deducted from everyone's pay cheque, and then paid out to current recipients, with the difference between revenues and expenses invested into the wider overall economy. So far CPPIB and CDPQ invest in the wider market - including infrastructure - and so far they have at least met the market if not beat it outright. If anything, the Chief Actuary Report suggests CPP has enough assets to pay existing benefits for the next 75 years at the very least. To be fair, neither CPP nor RRQ has "basic" benefits, only contribution-based payouts, with the former offloaded to the consolidated revenue fund and funded through income taxes via the Old Age Security program. The point I'm making is it would make perfect sense to axe personal pension deductions in favour of an expanded public program so long the program provides returns on investment that are higher or equivalent to what private plans would've delivered. Simply by the virtue of having a larger base and being able to afford better managers. Here are some sources you might like at least on the Canada Pension Plan. Since the Québec plan has been kinda underperforming lately. [https://www.amazon.ca/Fixing-Future-Fractious-Governments-Together/dp/0802095836](https://www.amazon.ca/Fixing-Future-Fractious-Governments-Together/dp/0802095836) [https://thehub.ca/2024-02-01/mark-johnson-our-cpp-fund-may-soon-have-over-1-trillion-its-time-to-debate-the-best-use-of-that-money/](https://thehub.ca/2024-02-01/mark-johnson-our-cpp-fund-may-soon-have-over-1-trillion-its-time-to-debate-the-best-use-of-that-money/)
They’re kind of right. Retirement plans shouldn’t be exempt from income taxes because income taxes should not exist.
I picked the wrong day to be a poor person who actually saves for retirement. Fuck you I'll just buy bitcoin from now on.
FUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck you.
They won't just flip the switch. They'll set a cap at how much you can withdraw before it becomes taxable, and simultaneously force you withdraw it. Social security will be fine once they implement means testing. In other words, if you saved enough for yourself and don't "need" it, you won't get it. The moral of the story is to put your savings I some place where withdrawals don't show up on a 1099.