Billionaires and Roth IRAs: the case for tax reform

#151
#151
TheDeeble said:
True, but you know how this will probably end up in 20 or so years.......

Govt- "You don't really NEED your social security money" or "You can afford to pay more". "You've got a 401k/IRA/Savings/ect."
Click to expand...
My retirement plan includes receiving $0 in SS. I think it'll either be completely eaten by MC premiums or means tested away from us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, Orangeburst, SpaceCoastVol and 1 other person
#152
#152
NEO said:
They went by the exact same laws you can utilize.

Even if you make more than 150k you can still legally contribute to a Roth via a Backdoor.

The point is legally. It was added by law and every advisor worth a grain of salt would tell their client to utilize it if possible.

Don’t blame smart people for being smart.
Click to expand...
So, just because something is legal means it’s good?
 
#159
#159
Impossible Girl said:
So, just because something is legal means it’s good?
Click to expand...
In this particular case, the law is just because the govt doesn't have a right to take more from you just because you were more successful or got lucky on your investments. Plus, that would be changing the rules in the middle of the game over one (or a handful) isolated incident..
 
#160
#160
Impossible Girl said:
So, your opposed to honest discussion?
Click to expand...
Not at all. Are you the arbiter of honest discussion?

Moral standards aren't equally shared in a large, diverse society. So, if taxes are a moral issue the issue grew exponentially complex and varied. Laws or "the law" are supposed to apply to all equally independent of any one person's moral preconceptions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volinbham and NorthDallas40
#161
#161
hog88 said:
What would you like to discuss?
Click to expand...
Should “tax free retirement accounts” have a reasonable cap on them or should these accounts also be used as tax dodges for wealth beyond a reasonable retirement amount. The back door ROTH was bad legislation IMO and will likely open the door to average folks who put their $5,000-$7,000 in annually having their legit retirement savings taxed down the road. It’s too easy for folks who’ve saved little to nothing to want Uncle Joe to remove tax free status from folks with $2 million and higher accounts.
 
#162
#162
walkenvol said:
Should “tax free retirement accounts” have a reasonable cap on them or should these accounts also be used as tax dodges for wealth beyond a reasonable retirement amount. The back door ROTH was bad legislation IMO and will likely open the door to average folks who put their $5,000-$7,000 in annually having their legit retirement savings taxed down the road. It’s too easy for folks who’ve saved little to nothing to want Uncle Joe to remove tax free status from folks with $2 million and higher accounts.
Click to expand...
Why should they have a cap? What evidence do we have besides the unicorn Thiel account that this is even an issue? Hell we can’t get most Americans to save for retirement and we want to blow up 0.000000000001% of tax accounts as some kind of systemic problem? I’m a solid no, if you have the means to utilize legal tax avoidance by all means use them to the maximum extent possible.
 
#163
#163
walkenvol said:
Should “tax free retirement accounts” have a reasonable cap on them or should these accounts also be used as tax dodges for wealth beyond a reasonable retirement amount. The back door ROTH was bad legislation IMO and will likely open the door to average folks who put their $5,000-$7,000 in annually having their legit retirement savings taxed down the road. It’s too easy for folks who’ve saved little to nothing to want Uncle Joe to remove tax free status from folks with $2 million and higher accounts.
Click to expand...
Define "reasonable"

Now imagine the govt defining it and see how close you are

No there should not be a cap just because a few were very successful
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#165
#165
walkenvol said:
Should “tax free retirement accounts” have a reasonable cap on them or should these accounts also be used as tax dodges for wealth beyond a reasonable retirement amount. The back door ROTH was bad legislation IMO and will likely open the door to average folks who put their $5,000-$7,000 in annually having their legit retirement savings taxed down the road. It’s too easy for folks who’ve saved little to nothing to want Uncle Joe to remove tax free status from folks with $2 million and higher accounts.
Click to expand...
Define 'reasonable'.
 
#166
#166
McDad said:
Not at all. Are you the arbiter of honest discussion?

Moral standards aren't equally shared in a large, diverse society. So, if taxes are a moral issue the issue grew exponentially complex and varied. Laws or "the law" are supposed to apply to all equally independent of any one person's moral preconceptions.
Click to expand...
One, I never said taxes were a moral issue, so not sure where you are getting that.

Laws can be changed. Laws can be unjust. Laws can allow people to take advantage of the system.
 
#170
#170
NEO said:
Means they did nothing wrong.

Means they had the same options everyone else had including you.
Click to expand...
Slavery was legal once as well. And so, in the eyes of the law beating your slaves wasn’t wrong. Again, just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s right. I’m not saying lock up billionaires. If you don’t the system is being lobbied and manipulated for the benefit of the uber elite, you’re kidding yourself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: walkenvol
#171
#171
Impossible Girl said:
Slavery was legal once as well. And so, in the eyes of the law beating your slaves wasn’t wrong. Again, just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s right. I’m not saying lock up billionaires. If you don’t the system is being lobbied and manipulated for the benefit of the uber elite, you’re kidding yourself.
Click to expand...
It’s your contention that it’s immoral/bad/wrong even though it’s legal. Most everyone whom has responded has said they disagree. So plead your case. However for every Thiel you produce how many 10’s of thousands can be shown that don’t prioritize savings so why disincentivize them further? The rich are always going to have more investment options than the not rich. But the Thiel example is a unicorn even in those circles.
 
#172
#172
NorthDallas40 said:
Oh I don’t think it was loaded based on your question. Or if it was it was no different than your own. Good vs bad is more of a morality question that a legality question is it not?
Click to expand...
They can have moral connotations, but don’t necessitate it. The movie was good. Moral statement? This vitamin is good for you. Moral statement? The multi trillion dollar deficit is bad for the country. Moral statement?

As I said. Loaded question.
 
#173
#173
Impossible Girl said:
They can have moral connotations, but don’t necessitate it. The movie was good. Moral statement? This vitamin is good for you. Moral statement? The multi trillion dollar deficit is bad for the country. Moral statement?

As I said. Loaded question.
Click to expand...
And as I said his question was no more loaded than the one you posted that he replied to.

To most of us this just screams of more rich envy and another wealth redistribution grab. So it’s gonna take more than “it’s immoral” to sell us. From where I’m sitting it’s immoral to come in after the fact and make a money grab on the fortunate ones. Are we going to give equivalent tax breaks on the many more unfortunate ones who lost big on tax advantaged investment accounts. Because the result should have parity for both cases.
 
#174
#174
NorthDallas40 said:
And as I said his question was no more loaded than the one you posted that he replied to.

To most of us this just screams of more rich envy and another wealth redistribution grab. So it’s gonna take more than “it’s immoral” to sell us. From where I’m sitting it’s immoral to come in after the fact and make a money grab on the fortunate ones. Are we going to give equivalent tax breaks on the many more unfortunate ones who lost big on tax advantaged investment accounts. Because the result should have parity for both cases.
Click to expand...
How many billionaires do you know? We are talking about a select elite group that has manipulated the economy to their advantage. Good to know they have you to defend them.
 
#175
#175
NorthDallas40 said:
if you have the means to utilize legal tax avoidance by all means use them to the maximum extent possible.
Click to expand...
I agree completely. The issue is should it be legal to have a tax free account above a certain level? I have a considerable amount in ROTH’s and other retirement accounts and my retirement plans don’t include the tax man grabbing a portion. If a reasonable generous cap would keep him away then I’m willing to discuss it
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top