Billionaires and Roth IRAs: the case for tax reform

#176
#176
Impossible Girl said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why are you getting so salty? What I am defending is fairness in application of the IRA rules for both outcome possibilities? Why did you feel the need to go hyperbolic in replying to that?
 
#177
#177
walkenvol said:
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
Click to expand...
I think we are discussing it. I’d like to see proof that this is a systematic problem before we “fix” anything. Again we struggle to just get people to use IRAs as is so why this added bureaucracy? Is this really a problem?
 
#180
#180
NorthDallas40 said:
I think we are discussing it. I’d like to see proof that this is a systematic problem before we “fix” anything. Again we struggle to just get people to use IRAs as is so why this added bureaucracy? Is this really a problem?
Click to expand...
I don’t know that it’s a systematic problem. What concerns me is our government is spending way beyond their means and I don’t know if the Fed will be able to continue these manipulated crazy low interest rates if inflation starts getting out of hand. If rates go up, then the tax man is going to start looking everywhere for more and there’s a lot of money in IRA’s , 401K’s and ROTH’s. These reports of billion dollar ROTH’s strike me as shots across the bow against the responsible folks who saved for their retirement. If there’s a way to set some reasonable limits to keep them away from the masses then we might do well to consider them?

Good discussion!
 
#181
#181
walkenvol said:
I don’t know that it’s a systematic problem. What concerns me is our government is spending way beyond their means and I don’t know if the Fed will be able to continue these manipulated crazy low interest rates if inflation starts getting out of hand. If rates go up, then the tax man is going to start looking everywhere for more and there’s a lot of money in IRA’s , 401K’s and ROTH’s. These reports of billion dollar ROTH’s strike me as shots across the bow against the responsible folks who saved for their retirement. If there’s a way to set some reasonable limits to keep them away from the masses then we might do well to consider them?

Good discussion!
Click to expand...
I’d submit that we need to cut spending then, not penalize a small number of people who worked within the rules and realized an extraordinary outcome.

Punishing law abiding citizens who did it right and got very lucky while they cannot control their spending habits seems… immoral? 😎
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#182
#182
walkenvol said:
I don’t know that it’s a systematic problem. What concerns me is our government is spending way beyond their means and I don’t know if the Fed will be able to continue these manipulated crazy low interest rates if inflation starts getting out of hand. If rates go up, then the tax man is going to start looking everywhere for more and there’s a lot of money in IRA’s , 401K’s and ROTH’s. These reports of billion dollar ROTH’s strike me as shots across the bow against the responsible folks who saved for their retirement. If there’s a way to set some reasonable limits to keep them away from the masses then we might do well to consider them?

Good discussion!
Click to expand...

Maybe get the 61% to chip in. Or even better, cut spending.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#184
#184
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...

Ask yourself this. If you or whoever manages your Roth and were lucky/incredibly good managed to flip your Roth portfolio into $2, $5 million dollars should you be taxed on that gain even though you played by the rules?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#185
#185
I think that 2 issues are being confused. The back door Roth is really a very small account for most of the ultra wealthy. They are limited on how much they can fund every year… just a few thousand dollars. A bit more for a 401k, but both are immaterial for those with 7 figure incomes.

The other issue is about punishing those very few individuals that have had the most success growing their Roth to substantial amounts. Why should those at the extreme upper limit of investing success be penalized?

Changing the rules is simply pandering to the jealous and envious element. The additional tax revenue that would be generated by taking the Roth returns of the most successful investors wouldn’t have much effect on total taxes collected.

Taxes are supposed to be in place to generate revenue to run the government’s business. Not to punish some and to address social inequality by taking away wealth from the wealthiest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and hog88
#186
#186
Impossible Girl said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is true. You never used "moral". You used "good". I inferred "moral'. Didn't seem that big a leap. If something is "good", is it not moral? Does there exist a moral "bad"? Unjust laws exists and should be ignored or changed. What you're proposing is the tax law discussed is "good" for some and not for others. Your line of delineation is the amount of money one amassed. Your "good" seems capricious to me. Your line is 1B. Someone else's line is 10M. They also feel it is good. Whose good is gooder? At one point, some thought laws against Jews was good. Are we to say laws unfavorable to Jews are unjust while laws unfavorable to Billionaires are just?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#187
#187
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...
What isn't right about someone in charge of their own wealth? What is right about confiscation of theirs because some feel enough is enough?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#188
#188
McDad said:
That is true. You never used "moral". You used "good". I inferred "moral'. Didn't seem that big a leap. If something is "good", is it not moral? Does there exist a moral "bad"? Unjust laws exists and should be ignored or changed. What you're proposing is the tax law discussed is "good" for some and not for others. Your line of delineation is the amount of money one amassed. Your "good" seems capricious to me. Your line is 1B. Someone else's line is 10M. They also feel it is good. Whose good is gooder? At one point, some thought laws against Jews was good. Are we to say laws unfavorable to Jews are unjust while laws unfavorable to Billionaires are just?
Click to expand...
Good and bad are both subsets of morality or ethics. Just or unjust should be the measure for laws. For me personally I see it as unjust for needlessly penalizing a very small subset of people who were incredibly lucky. This all screams of wealth envy and redistribution
 
#189
#189
McDad said:
What isn't right about someone in charge of their own wealth? What is right about confiscation of theirs because some feel enough is enough?
Click to expand...
Again, that’s a loaded question. Nothing wrong with being in charge of your wealth. I’m for lower taxes all around. But I would eliminate the loopholes and the shelters.
 
#190
#190
McDad said:
That is true. You never used "moral". You used "good". I inferred "moral'. Didn't seem that big a leap. If something is "good", is it not moral? Does there exist a moral "bad"? Unjust laws exists and should be ignored or changed. What you're proposing is the tax law discussed is "good" for some and not for others. Your line of delineation is the amount of money one amassed. Your "good" seems capricious to me. Your line is 1B. Someone else's line is 10M. They also feel it is good. Whose good is gooder? At one point, some thought laws against Jews was good. Are we to say laws unfavorable to Jews are unjust while laws unfavorable to Billionaires are just?
Click to expand...
I’ve already explained this enough.

I’ll give you an analogy. Let’s say that we make a law that says all cars over $250k don’t have to obey any traffic laws. Is that a good law? No. Has nothing to do with morality. Someone could argue, yes, but any individual could potentially buy a $250k and would enjoy the same thing, so therefore it’s fair. Bull fuggin shat.
 
#193
#193
Impossible Girl said:
Again, that’s a loaded question. Nothing wrong with being in charge of your wealth. I’m for lower taxes all around. But I would eliminate the loopholes and the shelters.
Click to expand...
No it isn’t. What is loaded about asking why not having control over your maximum investment returns or the government deciding after the fact it’s time to take some because you were too good/lucky? That is in no way equivalent to “do you still beat your wife/husband”
 
#196
#196
Unbelievable that slavery laws are being cited to justify changing the tax code so that the government can steal from the wealthiest citizens. The jealousy and envy is ridiculous. Everybody is playing under the same set of rules. Somebody will always be the most successful and I don’t understand why they should be targeted by our government.

I really don’t see why legally accumulating wealth is a problem. They don’t stick it under their mattresses. Their wealth grows the economy and benefits everybody under capitalism.

The uber wealthy spend fortunes on real estate. Those estates employ a lot of average people when they are constructed and maintained. The property taxes fund local governments. Transferring their wealth to the government will result in less productivity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#197
#197
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Unbelievable that slavery laws are being cited to justify changing the tax code so that the government can steal from the wealthiest citizens. The jealousy and envy is ridiculous. Everybody is playing under the same set of rules. Somebody will always be the most successful and I don’t understand why they should be targeted by our government.

I really don’t see why legally accumulating wealth is a problem. They don’t stick it under their mattresses. Their wealth grows the economy and benefits everybody under capitalism.

The uber wealthy spend fortunes on real estate. Those estates employ a lot of average people when they are constructed and maintained. The property taxes fund local governments. Transferring their wealth to the government will result in less productivity.
Click to expand...


It's not targeting to have them pay taxes on investment income as anyone else would.
 
#198
#198
Impossible Girl said:
Eliminate ALL loopholes. Lower taxes and stop the non sensical tax code we now have. The only ones that should have to hire a CPA are corporations.
Click to expand...

CPAs don’t just do taxes. They audit. They work with information systems. They help average people make investment decisions. They analyze financial statements for businesses. They do bookkeeping. They work for governments.
 
#200
#200
Thunder Good-Oil said:
CPAs don’t just do taxes. They audit. They work with information systems. They help average people make investment decisions. They analyze financial statements for businesses. They do bookkeeping. They work for governments.
Click to expand...
I come from a long line of CPAs. It’s called hyperbole. Simply meaning that citizens should never half to pay money to have their taxes filed.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top