Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

applegrove

(118,022 posts)
Sat Apr 6, 2013, 12:06 AM Apr 2013

"Barack Obama's Budget Will Contain A Massive 'Screw You' To Mitt Romney"

Barack Obama's Budget Will Contain A Massive 'Screw You' To Mitt Romney

by Walter Hickey at Business Insider

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-proposes-to-cap-amount-in-iras-2013-4

"SNIP.....................................................

New details about the President's budget proposal — due out April 10 — have emerged from a senior White House official, POLITICO's Ben White reported this morning

....................................

Under current rules, some wealthy individuals are able to accumulate many millions of dollars in these accounts, substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving. The budget would limit an individual’s total balance across tax-preferred accounts to an amount sufficient to finance an annuity of not more than $205,000 per year in retirement, or about $3 million in 2013. This proposal would raise $9 billion over 10 years.

White then said, "You know one person who accumulated a LOT more than $3 million in an IRA? Mitt Romney."

He's referring to the ultra-IRA amassed by the former private equity CEO. Romney has some $100 million squirreled away in the tax-preferred account, a figure that raised a number of eyebrows during the election about how, exactly, Romney was able to get so much money into the account.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-proposes-to-cap-amount-in-iras-2013-4#ixzz2PeX96a6B


...................................................SNIP"

28 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
"Barack Obama's Budget Will Contain A Massive 'Screw You' To Mitt Romney" (Original Post) applegrove Apr 2013 OP
Another one of the loopholes the wealthy have used to hoard money. In Romney's case, that money came freshwest Apr 2013 #1
This bothers me. cvoogt Apr 2013 #2
"pay your fair share in taxes" is the working point there bhikkhu Apr 2013 #11
not exactly cvoogt Apr 2013 #16
While I agree on carried interest Ruby the Liberal Apr 2013 #17
OK cvoogt Apr 2013 #18
We stop collecting FICA at 113,700 Ruby the Liberal Apr 2013 #19
I suppose that could work cvoogt Apr 2013 #25
I am not worried about the gains Ruby the Liberal Apr 2013 #28
Finally! Some GOOD news. And this is only fair. Someone at that level doesn't even need a Honeycombe8 Apr 2013 #3
But since his budget is not going to pass, who cares? OffWithTheirHeads Apr 2013 #4
Funny how positive posts get few responses. Funny that. nt Honeycombe8 Apr 2013 #5
it's really just candy sprinkles covering the CPI turd waddirum Apr 2013 #8
That's exactly right. nt Poll_Blind Apr 2013 #9
the fact that ATRA hfojvt Apr 2013 #13
He won't even feel it. Whereas the massive "screw you" to SS recipients will be devastating. forestpath Apr 2013 #6
Yes. 840high Apr 2013 #7
+10000 woo me with science Apr 2013 #10
The point is not to "screw" anyone. It represents tax savings and fairness. Honeycombe8 Apr 2013 #14
Fairness? What utter bullshit.There is nothing "fair" about this budget. NOTHING. forestpath Apr 2013 #15
+1000000 woo me with science Apr 2013 #21
Changing the loophole mentioned in the OP is fair. Honeycombe8 Apr 2013 #22
Exactly! nt City Lights Apr 2013 #20
wow a whole $9 billion in ten years hfojvt Apr 2013 #12
Every ProSense Apr 2013 #24
Too bad it includes a massive "Screw You" to me as well. dawg Apr 2013 #23
Wait For It - This Will Be Trotted Out As An Appeasement For The SS Transgressions cantbeserious Apr 2013 #26
and an even bigger screw you to the American people...... bowens43 Apr 2013 #27

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
1. Another one of the loopholes the wealthy have used to hoard money. In Romney's case, that money came
Sat Apr 6, 2013, 12:27 AM
Apr 2013
from robbing communities of their manufacturing base and the people of their jobs, healthcare, pensions and reducing those areas to third world.

He is the biggest crook this country has ever produced along with all his pals who supported him doing it. I don't care about jail time. Taking their money is enough punishment since it is all they lived for.

Taxing them is storming their castles to make them pay for their crimes. Let it begin.

cvoogt

(949 posts)
2. This bothers me.
Sat Apr 6, 2013, 12:27 AM
Apr 2013

You should be able to earn a living, pay your fair share in taxes, then do with you money as you wish.

I think $100+ million is exorbitant. But then I think the real underlying causes should be fixed, i.e. closing 'carried interest' loopholes instead of just capping things at $3 million.

Not everyone intends to waste their money on car elevators. Maybe you want to dispense it to local charities or help out members of your family who have medical expenses or who don't have a great retirement plan. I find that the plan encourages a "me me me" mentality at least as much as it appears to try to divert tax savings to the government (where it can be spent on drones etc) because of its apparent assumption that anyone with a huge retirement plan is just in it for selfish reasons. Depending on where you live and how many people you intend to support with it (kids in college, spouse, elderly parents etc), 205k/yr may not be the windfall it first appears to be.

I'd much rather we cut the real meat: 1. military spending, 2. predatory health care insurance, 3. tax breaks for big businesses, 4. I could go on but would get too far off-topic.

bhikkhu

(10,708 posts)
11. "pay your fair share in taxes" is the working point there
Sun Apr 7, 2013, 02:14 AM
Apr 2013

People can save their money however they like and do whatever they want with it, if they pay normal taxes on it as it is earned.

The OP is about special retirement accounts that encourage people to put money aside by deferring taxation on it. There is no need to allow these accounts to become tax shelters larger than any realistic need.

cvoogt

(949 posts)
16. not exactly
Sun Apr 7, 2013, 11:36 AM
Apr 2013

Tax-deffered does not equal not paying taxes. The proposed regulations also don't appear to target carried interest specifically, instead they just cap things at $3 million. Also, the definition 'realistic need' can vary greatly and it bothers me that TPBT might tell us what our realistic needs are; they don't know whether we plan to use it to build a car elevator or help out our elderly parents, grand-children's college expenses, etc. $3 million sounds like a lot but if you are using it for those things it can be gone quickly. If you a) earn enough (200k) and put $50,000 aside a year in a SEP-IRA (allowing a max of 25% wage contribution) you can easily reach 3-5 million by retirement age while paying taxes on the remaining 75% in the highest tax bracket, and the 25% that's tax-deferred will get taxes at another rate when you retire, but you'll still be paying taxes on it. The contribution's already capped at 25% of wages as it is. If you're contributing now and playing by the rules and not using carried interest loopholes, I don't see how it's fair to cap this at $3 million so arbitrarily. I think $100 million (like Mitt did) is obscene, but $3 million isn't as much as it seems if one person plans on using this to help their family, not just hoard it for themselves. The plan seems to perpetuate the mindset that everyone is just interested in hoarding it for themselves, when we should be free to save as much as we want (even if only for ourselves, though I think that's selfish) as long as we follow contribution limits and pay our taxes.

Ruby the Liberal

(26,217 posts)
17. While I agree on carried interest
Sun Apr 7, 2013, 11:44 AM
Apr 2013

This isn't about people hording as much cash as they can steal, it is about how much they can defer in paying taxes.

cvoogt

(949 posts)
18. OK
Sun Apr 7, 2013, 12:03 PM
Apr 2013

I guess my point is just that if you're paid a 'reasonable' salary of 200k and following SEP-IRA rules of 25% max contribution, you can easily reach $5 million by retirement age, which exceeds their proposed max. So maybe they need to be changing SEP-IRA rules to cap reasonable salaries... like that will ever happen. I understand the gov't wants its tax money sooner rather than later, but SEP-IRA and other tax-deferred options were approved by the gov't too, so folks saving for retirement now have planned their whole retirement strategy on this basis and should not now get punished for following the rules. I guess technically RMoney followed the rules too, though. My point is not everyone saving over $3 million by retirement age intends to use it for selfish purposes, and limiting the total tax-deferred amount clashes with what is currently allowed via SEP-IRA's.

I think it could wind up costing the gov't tax revenue, as high earners realize the situation and find ways to pay lower salaries and instead pay themselves in other ways (stock, etc). The gov't should be happy some people are declaring their entire salary as wages and paying the top income bracket for it, and in exchange those people get to tax-defer 25% of their wages. It could really come back to bite them.

cvoogt

(949 posts)
25. I suppose that could work
Sun Apr 7, 2013, 09:25 PM
Apr 2013

Actually, I forgot that we already cap SEP-IRA contributions at 50,000 a year. But even with that cap you can reach over $3 million by retirement age depending on your salary. So then maybe lower that cap?

Ruby the Liberal

(26,217 posts)
28. I am not worried about the gains
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 10:10 PM
Apr 2013

My focus is on the tax breaks for current contributions.

Like how Rmoney scammed the system with levered "valueless" equity.

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
3. Finally! Some GOOD news. And this is only fair. Someone at that level doesn't even need a
Sat Apr 6, 2013, 12:29 AM
Apr 2013

retirement account, much less $100 million with tax savings.

 

OffWithTheirHeads

(10,337 posts)
4. But since his budget is not going to pass, who cares?
Sat Apr 6, 2013, 12:58 AM
Apr 2013

More mental masturbation. Like looking at photoshopped pictures of nekkid women that don't exist.
This don't exist either.

waddirum

(976 posts)
8. it's really just candy sprinkles covering the CPI turd
Sun Apr 7, 2013, 01:35 AM
Apr 2013

My dislike of Mitt is not enough to get me to approve of Obama's blunder.

hfojvt

(37,573 posts)
13. the fact that ATRA
Sun Apr 7, 2013, 02:33 AM
Apr 2013

gives Mitt Romney almost $1 million a year in tax CUTS

did not get many responses either.

ATRA (the fiscal cliff "deal&quot cuts the tax rate on dividends from 39.6% down to just 20%. Mitt Romney had $4.9 million in dividend income in 2010. $4.9 million * (.396-.2) = $960,400.

And unlike Obama's proposal, which will never pass, the tax CUT for Romney has been signed into law, by Obama, as a permanent change to the tax code.

Yeah, Obama's really going after Romney.

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
14. The point is not to "screw" anyone. It represents tax savings and fairness.
Sun Apr 7, 2013, 09:42 AM
Apr 2013

Seems like the left likes the idea of "screwing" others as much as Republicans do.

As for fairness, the devastation factor should be taken into account.

But really, one positive thing has nothing whatsoever to do with any negative parts. They are separate and distinct provisions.

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
22. Changing the loophole mentioned in the OP is fair.
Sun Apr 7, 2013, 04:21 PM
Apr 2013

That doesn't mean that other parts aren't unfair to others.

I'm surprised that people see a proposal as all bad or all good. Nothing in life is all good or all bad. But then I was a middle child, and you know what they say about birth order.

hfojvt

(37,573 posts)
12. wow a whole $9 billion in ten years
Sun Apr 7, 2013, 02:25 AM
Apr 2013

why that is almost 1.4% of the $666 billion Obama just gave the top 1% in tax cuts with the fiscal cliff deal.

Yeah, that's really gotta sting when your $666 billion tax cut is reduced to a mere $657. Take THAT, you plutocrats.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»"Barack Obama's Budget Wi...