- 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
0
Posted on 3/3/21 at 11:12 am to SippyCup
quote:
99.9% of retirement savings are by the average worker.
How does this proposal impact the average worker?
Posted on 3/3/21 at 11:13 am to lsu13lsu
No one read the article
Posted on 3/3/21 at 11:15 am to thelawnwranglers
Making it refundable too? Weird.
Posted on 3/3/21 at 11:20 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:Which is very fair given how things have played out over the past 10 years in other areas(from just gay marriage to government funded gender transitioning for kids).
I no longer give a 'slippery slope fallacy' benefit of the doubt to ANYTHING these people propose.
As it is currently proposed the change isn't bad, but combined with may of their other ideas such as taxes on certain stock transaction, things could quickly become a slippery slope.
Posted on 3/3/21 at 11:20 am to lsu13lsu
quote:
The problem is too many are not using retirement accounts for retirement. They are using them for estate planning tools. I know everyone will go Reeeeeeee! When they read this but it is true.
that's bullshite. this isn't the case for 99% of people
Posted on 3/3/21 at 11:20 am to jimbeam
quote:
No one read the article
I did. They will always make their INITIAL meddling in these sorts of things seem palatable to the vast majority of people. Nobody's articulated a good reason for this meddling.
The thing about government imposed frameworks (financial, or otherwise) is that someone ALWAYS will find a way to use it to an advantage that may not have been initially intended. Chasing their tail attempts to rein such things in seem to always create more issues and only open the door to more medling that seems to affect more people.
Always be skeptical.
This post was edited on 3/3/21 at 11:26 am
Posted on 3/3/21 at 11:23 am to thelawnwranglers
I mean it is hitting high earners more so that if your effective tax bracket is above 26% than you pay more. If your highest tax bracket is below the 26%, you actually gain.
In the end, I am against it because you are punishing someone for being more successful, but basically it is applying the tax bracket rates to retirement income.
Less than 5% of Americans make enough to be above the 26% tax threshold, so, it won’t hurt the middle class right now, but will hurt upper middle class some and upper class definitely. In the end, it could be a slippery slope.
The confusion will be how they tax these later when the person withdraws. The system is being forced into an overly complex method that will definitely cause issues down the line and people likely being taxed twice on their retirement.
In the end, I am against it because you are punishing someone for being more successful, but basically it is applying the tax bracket rates to retirement income.
Less than 5% of Americans make enough to be above the 26% tax threshold, so, it won’t hurt the middle class right now, but will hurt upper middle class some and upper class definitely. In the end, it could be a slippery slope.
The confusion will be how they tax these later when the person withdraws. The system is being forced into an overly complex method that will definitely cause issues down the line and people likely being taxed twice on their retirement.
This post was edited on 3/3/21 at 11:45 am
Posted on 3/3/21 at 11:23 am to Y.A. Tittle
Oh I am skeptical, and you are not wrong, but they could just as easily walk back limits in the current system as well. But as proposed, it helps I would imagine most people in this thread
Posted on 3/3/21 at 11:23 am to Y.A. Tittle
right, just like they said it was only about gays and look at where we are now. they are just getting their foot in the door now to do more damage later.
Posted on 3/3/21 at 11:25 am to lsu13lsu
quote:
I know everyone will go Reeeeeeee! When they read this but it is true.
quote:
~saving for retirement is systemic racism as its drilled into white culture but cultures of color don't learn about them or have the same opportunity for them.
I mean every single word of this when I say it.... frick YOU AND EVERYONE WHO THINKS THE WAY YOU DO
quote:
~its hoarded wealth
~retirement accounts don't exist for the poor
What the frick is this even supposed to mean? You can’t ‘retire’ from being poor, you fricking work your way out of it
Posted on 3/3/21 at 11:28 am to Mr. Hangover
Guy was quoting another poster who was speculating as to motivations here. Ease up. 
Posted on 3/3/21 at 11:31 am to Y.A. Tittle
I WILL NEVER TAKE MY BOOT OFF THE THROATS OF COMMUNISTS!! 
I completely see my mistake here. My bad
I completely see my mistake here. My bad
This post was edited on 3/3/21 at 11:32 am
Posted on 3/3/21 at 11:33 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:The intention (IMO) is to help lower income individuals with their retirement savings and give them an incentive to start using a 401k. It's shocking the amount of individuals who either don't know or don't care about using one, and have little to zero understand of retirement savings. It also gives them more of an incentive to put money in their 401k, because they see a larger benefit now. Lastly, it is a pretty easy way for Biden to visibly "level the playing field" without affecting anyone too much.
Nobody's articulated a good reason for this meddling.
The people who are "hurt" by this will still put money in their IRA/401k. They will just put less money in those retirement vehicles and contribute more to their retirement savings via back door roth, increased HSA contributions, etc. And if the individual is wealthy enough for everything to already be maxed out, then I think their nest egg will be fine regardless.
Now as you mentioned earlier, it can become a slippery slope. I'm just evaluating it as it stands now.
Posted on 3/3/21 at 11:41 am to Rhino5
People with an average I.Q. won't let that happen.
Posted on 3/3/21 at 11:44 am to jimbeam
quote:
Did anyone actually read the article?
Are you really young or just ignoring that once the government opens the door they eventually frick it all up and they don't stop at the initial intrusion.
Posted on 3/3/21 at 11:51 am to RockyMtnTigerWDE
quote:
Are you really young or just ignoring that once the government opens the door they eventually frick it all up and they don't stop at the initial intrusion.
Are you under the impression that we aren't already at that point?
Posted on 3/3/21 at 11:51 am to thelawnwranglers
quote:
Well I max 401k so example they have pretty much $1k increase
Why put it in retirement if tax benefit minimized
It really does feel like they want to discourage savings
Ya think? Baw, do you even Commune-ize?
Posted on 3/3/21 at 11:53 am to mtntiger
quote:
mtntiger
quote:
Ashville
quote:
I am 59. I have been planning under one set of rules for 30+ years. Don't mess with my retirement, damnit.
Who wants to tell him?
Posted on 3/3/21 at 11:55 am to lsu13lsu
quote:
The problem is too many are not using retirement accounts for retirement. They are using them for estate planning tools.
quote:
I know everyone will go Reeeeeeee!
No reeeeee. Please educate me on your facts. I know you have them. Please go on.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News