Article

2013-04-06 Home Front: Politix

Obama budget to take aim at wealthy IRAs

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2013-04-06 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11124 views ] Top

#1 Obama budget to take aim at IRAs

...and of course HE will be determining the definition of "wealthy"

Posted by Mikey Hunt 2013-04-06 01:11|| 2013-04-06 01:11|| Front Page Top

#2 We may all soon become Gov't bond holders, but who could have seen it coming? Gold and Silver next.

Additional here.

With the Treasury needing this year to see another $1 trillion in debt to finance the anticipated federal budget deficit, and the Federal Reserve about to discontinue its 2009 program of buying Treasury bonds for the Feds asset portfolio, the Obama administration is scrambling to find ways to sell government debt without having to raise interest rates.

I heard a term used on teevee last night that was even more troubling, it was "multi-generational Social Security recipients".

Posted by Besoeker 2013-04-06 04:16|| 2013-04-06 04:16|| Front Page Top

#3 Cyprus, parts two through ten.

This attempt is nothing more than the Coastal Aristocrats and their public sector clerisy footsoldiers trying to solve the debt problem without having their own material finances and/or anxiety levels affected.

AKA, stealing from the productive private sector to fix a problem they created.

Posted by no mo uro 2013-04-06 04:59|| 2013-04-06 04:59|| Front Page Top

#4 it was "multi-generational Social Security recipients".

It's early in the morning Besoeker, and I'm clearly not thinking very well yet. What on earth is that intended to mean?

Posted by trailing wife 2013-04-06 05:10|| 2013-04-06 05:10|| Front Page Top

#5 Well TW, if your poor old dad were still alive at 93 and you are 62 or older... I suppose both you could potentially be deemed "multi-generational Social Security recipients".

The good news is, we're living longer. The bad news is, the government's Social Security "Insurance" Ponzi scheme [which you've paid into to for 40-50 years or longer] has been plundered and bankrupted.

By the way, no mention at all was made in the broadcast I viewed of "multi-generational" welfare recipients, which appear to be a very large part of the current problem. Of course the broadcast journalist was a vivacious young brunette, obviously schooled not to look scornfully upon, or make deriding comments about societal parasites. Old people who should already be dirt napping are fair game however.

Evil thieving bastards the lot !

Posted by Besoeker 2013-04-06 07:54|| 2013-04-06 07:54|| Front Page Top

#6 "Coastal Aristocrats".... I am steeling that one. Thanks, no mo uro.

Posted by Besoeker 2013-04-06 07:56|| 2013-04-06 07:56|| Front Page Top

#7 Not mine, Besoeker.

VDH coined it.

Got to PJM and read his latest. Truly awesome even for him.

Posted by no mo uro 2013-04-06 08:45|| 2013-04-06 08:45|| Front Page Top

#8 "multi-generational Social Security recipients"

Given the exploding number of Social Security Disability recipients (almost tripled in the past 10 years or less) I am quite sure we have families of 4 generations ALL on some kind of Social Security.

Posted by Glenmore 2013-04-06 09:12|| 2013-04-06 09:12|| Front Page Top

#9 If the government forces 401(k)s & IRAs to be 'invested' in government-debt-backed annuities, then stock prices for all - including union pensions etc. - will collapse as $1 trillion worth of investment demand for stock from IRAs is diverted.
The government borrowing WILL be paid, whether explicitly (unlikely) or hidden somewhere, and the payment WILL come from those who have the money, either income or savings. Savings is just an illusion, an attempt to take society's current surplus productivity and put it aside as a claim against society's future productivity. If there's no surplus productivity at one end or the other of the exchange, the exchange cannot take place.

Posted by Glenmore 2013-04-06 09:20|| 2013-04-06 09:20|| Front Page Top

#10 I've always thought that a reasonable way to pump more money into SS would be to make ALL people pay into it.

All those Federal, State and Local employees should have there SS contributions calculated retroactively and then that amount removed from whatever pension system they're in. Going forward they continue to pony up like the rest of us.

Should even help with the unfunded pension liability of the states and cities as the amount would be deducted from their liability...at least after the bill was paid to SSA ;^)

Posted by AlanC 2013-04-06 09:28|| 2013-04-06 09:28|| Front Page Top

#11 The government borrowing WILL be paid, whether explicitly (unlikely) or hidden somewhere, and the payment WILL come from those who have the money, either income or savings.

Behold the Cyprus Effect. Roosevelt and Stalin must be smiling.

Posted by Besoeker 2013-04-06 09:35|| 2013-04-06 09:35|| Front Page Top

#12 Thank you for explaining, Besoeker. Daddy died a few days after his 90th birthday in 2009, when I was 48, but I'd give even odds Mama actually does make it to 120 -- her mother's older brother died at 107. And Mr. Wife's mother wasn't yet 18 when he was born, which is a more normal interval for the baby boom generation, so in time he'll be one part of that multi-generation Social Security recipient thingy, too. Fortunately, Mama worked until she was in her 70s as an occupational therapist before it occurred to anyone to check the records for her actual age and made her retire, and I'm eighteen months short of paid employment to be able to receive SS on my own account, so there will be a savings to the system there to offset my side of the family at least.

Posted by trailing wife 2013-04-06 10:29|| 2013-04-06 10:29|| Front Page Top

#13 Allowing this government to pilfer them to death.

Posted by newc 2013-04-06 14:21|| 2013-04-06 14:21|| Front Page Top

#14 Scaring people into raiding retirement accounts (abd thus being taxes) while making them dependant on Uncle Sam when they do retire.

Posted by Rjschwarz 2013-04-06 16:37|| 2013-04-06 16:37|| Front Page Top

#15 Exodus 20:
1 "And God spoke these words."
2 "I am the Lord your God."
15 "Thou shalt not covet."
17 "Thou shalt not steal."

Romans 6:23
"The wages of sin is death."

"The wages of sin is death."

Posted by Bigfoot Sforza6821 2013-04-06 16:53|| 2013-04-06 16:53|| Front Page Top

#16 The current limits on 401k's is something less than $20-30k per year depending on details. Thirty years of that is $600-900k, with interest is no more than $3-5m. Any 401k with more than that is very strange. It is unlikely that the drafters of the laws that created these things expected these accounts to get much bigger than this.

A new law or rule that caps the tax benefits of roth's/ira's/401k's at a few million dollars is completely within the spirit of the original intent of the law.

And if you are reading this and have been more fortunate than most, then congratulations. Plan to re-enter the income tax system, with only a few of your millions sheltered from capital gains or income tax.

Because nobody, and by that I mean nobody other than you, cares.

Posted by rammer 2013-04-06 18:23|| 2013-04-06 18:23|| Front Page Top

#17 One cannot avoid the troubling issue of slippery slope, since once a principle is bartered to accommodate so apparent good purpose, our own legislative history has shown us the the slope never points any direction but downwade to greater and greater use and regulation. Once 2 million is the cap, why not 1, and then one half, not to mention the erosive effects of the looming inflation? 2 million Obama dollars in 2018 might not be as much as you hope.

"Free healthcare for life if you make a career of it son", then Tricare, then tricare deductables, then the medicare linkage at 65, and now, the SS Medicare deduction like every other citizen. Government promises corrode over time, and never, never, to your benefit. SO on principle, I see this as another wrong in the making.

Posted by NoMoreBS 2013-04-06 18:52|| 2013-04-06 18:52|| Front Page Top

#18 Damn, I promise I thought I spell checked it.

Posted by NoMoreBS 2013-04-06 18:53|| 2013-04-06 18:53|| Front Page Top

#19 touching retirement funds they encouraged you to retain, at ANY level, is a warning siren. Means justifying SSI is not. This is the first shot in confiscation/taxation of 401K holdings. Kick back - twice as hard

Posted by Frank G 2013-04-06 19:14|| 2013-04-06 19:14|| Front Page Top

#20 Frank and NoMor,

You both make good arguments, with which I agree. But never forget that the Congress created these programs and the Congress can change them. I think it was Mark Twain who opined that, "No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session."

So, to protect a tax exemption for capital gains on retirement accounts in the millions of dollars, someone has to make a political argument that makes sense to the MAJORITY of dumbass voters in this country.

And I ain't seen it yet. Get busy or Obama will eat your lunch.

Posted by rammer 2013-04-06 19:30|| 2013-04-06 19:30|| Front Page Top

#21 Obama is too cowardly to do it. It would take Donk control. Look for a pandemic among elderly to erase SSI debts, along with legis pushes to swap $ in 401K for bonds. ( a slower, if not as certain death)

Posted by Frank G 2013-04-06 19:50|| 2013-04-06 19:50|| Front Page Top

23:50 Bright Pebbles
22:45 SteveS
22:36 SteveS
20:35 Barbara
20:10 Thing From Snowy Mountain
19:53 trailing wife
19:51 trailing wife
19:50 Frank G
19:30 rammer
19:28 Bright Pebbles
19:14 Frank G
19:06 Frank G
18:56 swksvolFF
18:53 NoMoreBS
18:52 NoMoreBS
18:31 Rjschwarz
18:28 DarthVader
18:23 rammer
18:02 rammer
17:59 SteveS
17:28 Snusing Whinegum7312
17:09 Pappy
17:01 Pappy
16:57 Frank G