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

bigtree

(85,915 posts)
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 06:38 AM Apr 2013

How Obama wants to prevent future Mitt Romneys from sheltering massive amounts of wealth

Talking Points Memo ?@TPM 14m

How Obama wants to prevent future Mitt Romneys from sheltering massive amounts of wealth from taxation http://bit.ly/12NF3bG

____ President Obama’s budget calls for preventing wealthy people — such as, cough, Mitt Romney — from deferring taxation on vast sums of money by circumventing laws that limit the amount of money people are allowed to contribute to individual retirement accounts.

Per the budget, “Individual Retirement Accounts and other tax-preferred savings vehicles are intended to help middle class families save for retirement. But 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.”

But how would they close this loophole?

One way experts believe financial managers avoid the current annual contribution limit to IRAs is by using IRAs to participate in investments and assigning those investment interests a nominal value vastly below fair market.

Obama wouldn’t curb this practice directly. Instead his budget calls for an overall cap of about $3 million on the net balance across all of an individuals’ tax-preferred accounts. Only have one IRA? It can hold $3 million. Have three? Their holdings must sum to $3 million or less.


read more: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/04/how-obama-wants-to-prevent-future-mitt-romneys-from-sheltering-massive-amounts-of-wealth-from-taxati.php
22 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
How Obama wants to prevent future Mitt Romneys from sheltering massive amounts of wealth (Original Post) bigtree Apr 2013 OP
Well, that's nice and all, MadHound Apr 2013 #1
Close one loop hole for show, no problem... Larry Ogg Apr 2013 #10
We should tax wealth - and if you don't report it, you don't own it! reformist2 Apr 2013 #2
Three million sounds like a lot of money customerserviceguy Apr 2013 #3
blah blah blah blah blah bowens43 Apr 2013 #4
no one got 'tossed' anywhere bigtree Apr 2013 #6
Yup, and Keystone and the Trans-Pacific are headed our way next, woo me with science Apr 2013 #8
And we thank him for that bone. zeemike Apr 2013 #5
he won't get any cuts in SS or Medicare out of this Senate bigtree Apr 2013 #7
Well he would get all the GOP votes zeemike Apr 2013 #12
15 Democrats bigtree Apr 2013 #15
The GOPs benefactors are Wall Street. zeemike Apr 2013 #16
it's that damn constitution bigtree Apr 2013 #18
And the house is controlled by who? zeemike Apr 2013 #19
no, you will not see Boehner craft a bill that the Senate will pass bigtree Apr 2013 #21
Well I am worn out with it too. zeemike Apr 2013 #22
From what I understand about the banking industry, all they have to do is Baitball Blogger Apr 2013 #9
I wonder if a more effective way to block future hoarding of income, is to repeal tax cuts? midnight Apr 2013 #11
Why not go after current Romneys? caseymoz Apr 2013 #13
There are ProSense Apr 2013 #14
I do wonder if the political aim of this document might get lost bigtree Apr 2013 #17
The wealth they will amass by privatizing Social Security. n/t Orsino Apr 2013 #20
 

MadHound

(34,179 posts)
1. Well, that's nice and all,
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 06:42 AM
Apr 2013

But frankly I can already see a number of ways that the rich will get around this. Yes, it is the closing of a loophole, but instead of bringing in extra revenue, it will simply cost the rich a bit extra in accountant fees, that's it. And it certainly isn't worth the cost of what is in the rest of budget, namely the Chained CPI.

Larry Ogg

(1,474 posts)
10. Close one loop hole for show, no problem...
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:46 AM
Apr 2013

And like magic (aka political science), six more will take its place.

Don't take your eye's off the invisible hand, or you might miss the Good Ol' Switcheroo .

But you are right, the accountants will find other ways so rich people won't have to pay.

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
3. Three million sounds like a lot of money
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 07:22 AM
Apr 2013

But I remember when unemployment comp started to be taxed in 1978. The adjusted gross income cutoff for a married couple to have UC taxed was a then seemingly large amount of $25,000, and for a single person, it was $20,000. Then a few years later TEFRA bounced those numbers down to $18K and $12K, respectively, and of course, the thresholds were later eliminated entirely. Once we've established the principle that a tax-deferred retirement account is not really fully that, then we've started down the slippery slope.

That money is always taxed eventually, when any unused portion goes to heirs, and not just for estate tax. Three million sounds like a lot, but changes in the law and inflation will eventually eat away at it. I would imagine that if we do nothing about Social Security in the next few years, at some point the way out will be to have a person choose either a tax-deferred account or SS, that it's some kind of a double-dip to have both. And there will be lines of people waiting to turn in their IRAs and 401K's for a Social Security check. I hope I'm dead before that happens.

 

bowens43

(16,064 posts)
4. blah blah blah blah blah
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:14 AM
Apr 2013

more obamapoligist bullshit. who cares? he has already tossed the poor, the middle class and the elderly under the proverbial bus.

This presidency has been a disaster and Obama seems to be doing all he can to make it worse

bigtree

(85,915 posts)
6. no one got 'tossed' anywhere
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:39 AM
Apr 2013

No one, including Obama, believes these proposals will see the light of day. I'll agree that he's got a foolish political strategy, but I don't see where he had any reason to believe his combination of cuts and tax loophole reductions would EVER be accepted by this Congress.

You can make a pretty righteous argument that the cpi nonsense is just one jackass, kick in the shin proposal - but, there's NOTHING to make me believe that this proposal will do anything more than provide fodder for over-the-top political swipes like yours. Hope that tact actually works to kill this cpi nonsense once and for all. I personally think it just feeds existing cynicism or just warps into the rest of the personal attacks which serve, for some, as debate and argument.

So far, during this President's term, SS and Medicare have been strengthened and enhanced a couple of times. It's been pointed out in several posts here, so I'm not trying to start a long series of links and posts. I'll just say that, you can't show me ONE instance where the president has 'tossed' the 'poor, the middle class and the elderly' under ANYWHERE, outside of this foolish, but doa, budget document.

So, I'm not buying it, bowens . . . not in this thread or the last one you posted your diatribes in.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
8. Yup, and Keystone and the Trans-Pacific are headed our way next,
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:43 AM
Apr 2013

along with plenty more education deform for added misery and corporate sops.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
5. And we thank him for that bone.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:19 AM
Apr 2013

But face it, the rich hire people to circumvent any law that could be passed by congress...things are designed that way.

Meanwhile he will get the money from SS and Medicare and taxing poor people more...and start the movement of these programs to private concerns....and give another kick to Wall Street.

Something is wrong with this picture...unless of course you are on the receiving end of all that money flowing up to the top...then it may be wrong but it sure is heaven.

bigtree

(85,915 posts)
7. he won't get any cuts in SS or Medicare out of this Senate
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:42 AM
Apr 2013

. . . and I don't think he had any reason to expect that he would.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
12. Well he would get all the GOP votes
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:56 AM
Apr 2013

Sp how many Dem's would they need to buy or blackmail or threaten?
Or how about compromising and instead of chained CPI create individual retirement accounts...from some of the SS tax we pay (just a little at first but it can be changed upward once established and no one will notice)...nice little present to Wall Street.

It is the same as that old saying...Would you fuck me for ten bucks?
Hell no....how about a million...well maybe...well now that we have established that you are a whore we are just negotiating on price.

Once they have established that SS is a problem then we are just negotiating how much to cut.

bigtree

(85,915 posts)
15. 15 Democrats
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 09:57 AM
Apr 2013

. . . and then you still need republicans to agree to cut their own benefactors' throats.

I still maintain this is little more than a political document; a confounded one at that. I've said it before . . . this is some rookie shit from the WH. But, I don't see a chance in hell that this Congress will ever see 'chained cpi' come before them for a vote.

Obama's not the first Democrat to propose cutting SS. It's just frustrating to see him waste his time trying to appeal to such a wrong-headed argument about the deficit that includes SS. I can accept that he's sincere about the politics; just sincerely wrong.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
16. The GOPs benefactors are Wall Street.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 10:05 AM
Apr 2013

And there at least 15 democrats who are with them.
Besides, do they need 60 votes for everything?...or can Harry Reid put it up for a strait vote?
And would he?...my guess is yes he would if told to by Wall Street.

bigtree

(85,915 posts)
18. it's that damn constitution
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 10:15 AM
Apr 2013

. . . which says ALL money matters MUST originate in the House; except by unanimous consent (60 votes).

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
19. And the house is controlled by who?
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 10:27 AM
Apr 2013

Like Bonner would not bring it to a vote?...or come up with a "compromise" bill that the senate would pass?

Sorry I have lost my faith...but I just can't continue to believe when we have been fooled so many times in so many ways and are triangulated into doing what Wall Street wants.

bigtree

(85,915 posts)
21. no, you will not see Boehner craft a bill that the Senate will pass
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 10:34 AM
Apr 2013

. . . and I challenge you to find anyone reputable who says they will.

But, I'm worn out with the compromisin' with republicans. I could do with a good brawl.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
22. Well I am worn out with it too.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 10:53 AM
Apr 2013

And a brawl would be nice....if the Wall Street crowd don't put on the brass knuckles.

But I hope you are right...but I don't count on it...but even so Obama has put it out there and that is the same thing as admitting that SS IS the problem...and that is the first step.

Baitball Blogger

(46,570 posts)
9. From what I understand about the banking industry, all they have to do is
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:46 AM
Apr 2013

take a yacht ride with their clients until they're three miles from the continental U.S.A. and they can sign anything they want.

caseymoz

(5,763 posts)
13. Why not go after current Romneys?
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 09:14 AM
Apr 2013

What's with this resolution to stop procrastinating in the future?

I'm not advocating militarism here, but I'll point out we invaded Grenada and Panama for doing far less to our economy, to the world economy, than what the Cayman Islands are doing.

I'm impressed by the inaction here.

bigtree

(85,915 posts)
17. I do wonder if the political aim of this document might get lost
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 10:12 AM
Apr 2013

. . . mainly because republicans don't give a wit about any of the incentives or concessions the President included.

Like you say, ProSense, there are many good elements to this budget. there are also many politically unrealistic things in there, so, we have to consider it, I think, as more of a political statement. As your title suggests, they want to put the focus on republican insistence on protecting their wealthy tax loopholes and their willingness in their budgets to have middle and working class taxpayers pick up the tab.

Also, by spelling out a 'cut' in 'entitlements, the President hopes he has put the spotlight on the republican stage where he expects they will finally be forced to spell out their own idea of cuts and make clear what they will defend and protect; mainly their own taxpayer-derived wealth.

Problem is, republicans have shown zero sincerity in this debate. They responded once to a firm stance by the WH during the last fiscal showdown. No weakness or daylight to support and their posturing lost oxygen. The President's proposal gave them some oxygen. Maybe not enough to overcome their own vacuous concern for SS and Medicare - outside of the type of reflexive bashing like the RNC did today over the President's SS proposal -but enough to sustain their delusions until, perhaps, the next election.

That's what I think this budget document represents, and I think the challenge to own the definition of it will consume the pending campaigns over the next several months. I think the WH has a long and hard slog to turn this into a debate over 'inequality;' much like the hard slog during the last election.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»How Obama wants to preven...