- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Congress is considering big changes to the way you retire
Posted on 8/10/19 at 6:25 pm
Posted on 8/10/19 at 6:25 pm
quote:
The Secure Act
It includes measures to allow small employers to band together to offer 401(k) plans, give part-time workers access to retirement plans, take away the 70½ age limit for individual retirement account contributions and raise the age for required minimum distributions to 72, from 70½.
It also would expand the inclusion of annuities in 401(k) plans and put a 10-year time limit on how long non-spouse beneficiaries can stretch out an inherited IRA.
quote:
Social Security 2100 Act
The proposal would give those who are or will be receiving benefits a raise that is the equivalent of 2% of the average benefit. It would also set the new minimum benefit at 25% above the poverty line.
The plan also would increase the amount of non-Social Security income one can earn before benefits begin to be taxed. The new limits would go to $50,000 for individuals and $100,000 for couples, up from today's $25,000 and $32,000 thresholds.
In order to pay for those changes, the bill calls for raising payroll taxes on wages over $400,000. Wages up to $132,900 are currently taxed.
It also calls for increased payroll contributions from workers and employers. That rate would increase to 7.4% from 6.2% and would be gradually phased in from 2020 to 2043.
quote:
Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act
The new bill would let pensions borrow money to remain solvent so that they can continue to pay retirees. The legislation would create a Pension Rehabilitation Administration within the Treasury Department and a trust fund from which the loans would be distributed.
quote:
More proposals on Medicare and Social Security
The Health Savings for Seniors Act, a bipartisan bill, introduced by Reps. Ami Bera, D-Calif., and Jason Smith, R-Mo., in July. This bill would allow individuals who are on Medicare to continue to contribute to health savings accounts. Currently, they are prohibited from doing so.
Another proposal by Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, the Equal Treatment of Public Servants Act, would enable public workers to get larger Social Security benefits. A current rule, the Windfall Elimination Provision, reduces their benefits based on how much pension income they receive.
LINK
Democrats:
For your retirement accounts
13
Posted on 8/10/19 at 6:47 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
quote:
The plan also would increase the amount of non-Social Security income one can earn before benefits begin to be taxed. The new limits would go to $50,000 for individuals and $100,000 for couples, up from today's $25,000 and $32,000 thresholds.
So a "retired" individual can withdraw and continue to work with a $50,000 a year salary?
Posted on 8/10/19 at 7:13 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
quote:
and put a 10-year time limit on how long non-spouse beneficiaries can stretch out an inherited IRA.
This is bullshite.
Posted on 8/10/19 at 7:15 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
quote:
Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act
The new bill would let pensions borrow money to remain solvent so that they can continue to pay retirees. The legislation would create a Pension Rehabilitation Administration within the Treasury Department and a trust fund from which the loans would be distributed.
Bailing out poorly managed and corrupt unions?
Posted on 8/10/19 at 7:47 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
Where in those bills does it say they are going to take money from existing 401k accounts or IRAs?
Posted on 8/10/19 at 8:25 pm to Janky
quote:Why is that bullshite?
and put a 10-year time limit on how long non-spouse beneficiaries can stretch out an inherited IRA.
This is bullshite.
Posted on 8/10/19 at 8:34 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Why is that bullshite?
Are you dumb? It was a tax benefit used in estate planning to pass along inherited wealth. Instead of being able to “stretch” over the lifespan of the recipient it’s now 10 years.
Posted on 8/10/19 at 8:54 pm to LSURussian
I believe in the stretch.
Posted on 8/10/19 at 8:57 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
quote:
put a 10-year time limit on how long non-spouse beneficiaries can stretch out an inherited IRA.
quote:No, but you are. That's been evident for years.
Are you dumb?
quote:Nope. That's only for a "spousal beneficiary."
Instead of being able to “stretch” over the lifespan of the recipient it’s now 10 years.
The proposed change that janky called "bullshite" is for a "non-spousal beneficiary."
Under current regs, in most cases a "non-spouse beneficiary" who inherits an IRA after the original IRA owner has begun taking distributions only has FIVE years to "stretch out" the IRA's amount. Under the proposal, that will change to TEN years. ETA: At least that's how I read the article you linked in your OP. All of the proposed provisions are better for IRA owners and beneficiaries.
So the change makes it better for someone who wants to make the IRA last longer.
Dumbass.
This post was edited on 8/10/19 at 9:03 pm
Posted on 8/10/19 at 8:58 pm to Janky
quote:Then you're in luck. You'll have twice as long to stretch out an inherited non-spousal IRA.
I believe in the stretch.
Posted on 8/10/19 at 9:12 pm to HailToTheChiz
quote:Or more importantly, $100,000 for couples filing jointly. That's a nice tax cut for couples who've planned for their retirement properly and don't want to have to pay so much tax on their social security income.
The plan also would increase the amount of non-Social Security income one can earn before benefits begin to be taxed. The new limits would go to $50,000 for individuals and $100,000 for couples, up from today's $25,000 and $32,000 thresholds.
So a "retired" individual can withdraw and continue to work with a $50,000 a year salary?
Posted on 8/10/19 at 9:20 pm to LSURussian
Wtf are you talking about?
Posted on 8/10/19 at 9:26 pm to Janky
What is confusing you?
Posted on 8/11/19 at 1:57 am to LSURussian
It sounds like my taxes are going up. The only thing that would benefit me is not losing social security money due to having a decent 401k balance.
It seems like they trying their best to help out the poor planners. The current way is not that bad.
It seems like they trying their best to help out the poor planners. The current way is not that bad.
Posted on 8/11/19 at 2:30 am to LSURussian
Under current rules inherited IRA can be withdrawn using 5 year method or over beneficiary's lifetime as using life expectancy method. Secure Act proposal would eliminate the ability to distribute over beneficiary's entire lifetime.
Now who's the dumbass?
Here's a Forbes article better explaining the impact on non spouse beneficiary inherited IRAs. Secure Act Stretch IRA Impact
Now who's the dumbass?
Here's a Forbes article better explaining the impact on non spouse beneficiary inherited IRAs. Secure Act Stretch IRA Impact
Posted on 8/11/19 at 2:36 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
The best change would be raising the requirement for quarters to 80 from 40.
This would solve a great deal of the funding problems.
This would solve a great deal of the funding problems.
Posted on 8/11/19 at 5:26 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
It seems like this makes SS even less solvent by expanding the benefit. Skeptical that the $400k tax will generate enough revenue.
I like the group 401k idea.
What would be even better would be to create a structure where all US individuals can invest tax free. Basically just expand Roth and individual IRAs limits and provide a way for companies to match contributions.
Companies that sell these 401K plans make a lot of money ripping people off on 401K plans with high fees. I don’t doubt that there is a lobbying interest there.
I like the group 401k idea.
What would be even better would be to create a structure where all US individuals can invest tax free. Basically just expand Roth and individual IRAs limits and provide a way for companies to match contributions.
Companies that sell these 401K plans make a lot of money ripping people off on 401K plans with high fees. I don’t doubt that there is a lobbying interest there.
Posted on 8/11/19 at 6:33 am to LSURussian
We have been using lifetime stretches on non-spousal IRA’s for as long as I can remember. Hell, you can even do lifetime stretches on NQ annuities.
Posted on 8/11/19 at 7:02 am to Janky
quote:
We have been using lifetime stretches on non-spousal IRA’s for as long as I can remember. Hell, you can even do lifetime stretches on NQ annuities.
Shhhhh. He likes to feel as if he’s important.
Posted on 8/11/19 at 9:58 am to CivilTiger83
quote:
It seems like this makes SS even less solvent by expanding the benefit. Skeptical that the $400k tax will generate enough revenue.
That was my take away too
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News