House Republicans are considering a plan to sharply reduce the amount of income American workers can save in tax-deferred retirement accounts as part of a broad effort to rewrite the tax code, according to lobbyists, tax consultants and congressional Democrats.

It is unclear if Republicans will ultimately include a cap on contributions in the tax bill that they are expected to release in the coming weeks. Such a move would almost certainly prompt a vocal backlash from middle-class workers who save heavily in such retirement accounts and from the asset management industry.

The proposals under discussion would potentially cap the annual amount workers can set aside to as low as $2,400 for 401(k) accounts, several lobbyists and consultants said on Friday. Workers may currently put up to $18,000 a year in 401(k) accounts without paying taxes upfront on that money; that figure rises to $24,000 for workers over 50. When workers retire and begin to draw income from those accounts, they pay taxes on the benefits.

Sorry cuts only for the top 1% tax increase for the rest of us

Trumptards dont care they just hate persons of color. Take all their money and laugh at them

What they've neglected to mention is the other half of the equation - distributions would be tax-free in the same way that Roth IRAs work. And this limit would not apply to employer contributions. So you're getting $2,400 personal contributions pre-tax, plus employer contributions pre-tax, both tax-free on withdrawl. Which is a great deal if you'll have substantial money in your account when you start to draw it down. The downside at the Federal level is that it trades off a little more near-term tax revenue from people who make large personal 401k contributions (which are relatively few) against losing substantial tax revenue later.

The rest of the story... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What they've neglected to mention is the other
> half of the equation - distributions would be
> tax-free in the same way that Roth IRAs work. And
> this limit would not apply to employer
> contributions. So you're getting $2,400 personal
> contributions pre-tax, plus employer contributions
> pre-tax, both tax-free on withdrawl. Which is a
> great deal if you'll have substantial money in
> your account when you start to draw it down. The
> downside at the Federal level is that it trades
> off a little more near-term tax revenue from
> people who make large personal 401k contributions
> (which are relatively few) against losing
> substantial tax revenue later.

Problem with Roth is its taxed upfront - that hurts the compounding value of the money over time. Hurts the little guy in a big way.

Cut incentives for people to save for retirement - only the GOP would see this as a solution to be able to cut taxes on the wealthy like Trump and his family.

hair ball Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The rest of the story... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What they've neglected to mention is the other
> > half of the equation - distributions would be
> > tax-free in the same way that Roth IRAs work.
> And
> > this limit would not apply to employer
> > contributions. So you're getting $2,400
> personal
> > contributions pre-tax, plus employer
> contributions
> > pre-tax, both tax-free on withdrawl. Which is
> a
> > great deal if you'll have substantial money in
> > your account when you start to draw it down.
> The
> > downside at the Federal level is that it trades
> > off a little more near-term tax revenue from
> > people who make large personal 401k
> contributions
> > (which are relatively few) against losing
> > substantial tax revenue later.
>
> Problem with Roth is its taxed upfront - that
> hurts the compounding value of the money over
> time. Hurts the little guy in a big way.


Nope, it doesn't. I've already run through the numbers and schooled one talking point parrot here when this first was discussed. Generally, you'll virtually always under any realistic scenario come out ahead with no taxes on the back end. Which is why most all IRAs now are done as Roth vs traditional. In simple terms, that's because what's happening is that with taxes on the back-end you're effectively compounding the taxes due as well. It is to the government's long-term disadvantage in terms of future revenue if that's a concern.

So why cut peoples options to save for retirement - why decrease these important incentives to make people secure in the future. This isnt a handout to unemployed freeloaders - these are incentives to hard working people to NOT be a burden to society in the future.

Why does the GOP want to take this from us?

401k is just a Ponzi scheme anyway. Very stupid way to save for retirement. Sure, my company has one and contributes 14% of my salary to it but I don't put a cent in it. I buy land and real estate. I'll be retired by 35 from my day job and will live off my passive income.

BTW, if you have a 401k and it's not a Roth, you're a stupid old fuck.

This will hurt older workers - the ones that want/need to put away more money today for a looming retirement. A limit of 2400 dollars is absurdly low for someone 50 years or older. I put away almost 20k a year. I dont want to be a burden on my kids or society.

I just do not see why you would do this to working people trying to make honest responsible plans for the future.

whyso Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So why cut peoples options to save for retirement
> - why decrease these important incentives to make
> people secure in the future. This isnt a handout
> to unemployed freeloaders - these are incentives
> to hard working people to NOT be a burden to
> society in the future.
>
> Why does the GOP want to take this from us?


It doesn't. First, the vast majority of people don't contribute more than that themselves to their 401ks to begin with. Again, employer contributions would not be affected. Second, note the "as low as" wording in the article which is intended to slant this in the worst possible way. Which likely won't be the case. Third, even in that case it is that low, other than in some unlikely cases, it still is to your advantage to receive the money tax free on distribution.

You could rewrite the same article in a more objective way as "Republicans offer Roth 401k option to match tax advantages of Roth IRAs." But that's not how they want the story to be read and why they've conveniently completely left out any mention of tax-free distributions.

Yes, I know... Trump bad... blah blah blah...

The average annual 401K contribution in 2016 (last year available) was $1856. And only 12% contribute the maximum percent allowed in their plans. And that's the percentage allowable, not the dollar amount allowable. There are about 50 million people participating (or withdrawing money from) a 401K/403B in the US. The average amount is only $60K for those over the age of 50.

So, this isn't going to hurt most working class people or most middle class people. However, it is going to hurt upper middle class people to a larger degree.

Most wont' be hurt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The average annual 401K contribution in 2016 (last
> year available) was $1856. And only 12%
> contribute the maximum percent allowed in their
> plans. And that's the percentage allowable, not
> the dollar amount allowable. There are about 50
> million people participating (or withdrawing money
> from) a 401K/403B in the US. The average amount
> is only $60K for those over the age of 50.
>
> So, this isn't going to hurt most working class
> people or most middle class people. However, it
> is going to hurt upper middle class people to a
> larger degree.

So you are not answering the question - why do it at all? Why? Do you think you can live on a retirement of $1856 per year? That is complete bullshit

nnnneeees Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> So you are not answering the question - why do it
> at all? Why? Do you think you can live on a
> retirement of $1856 per year? That is complete
> bullshit


I wasn't trying to answer any specific question. My post doesn't revolve around you or any other thing written here. This was my first post in this thread and don't even know what question you think I was trying to answer. I just posted some facts to put all this in perspective. You seem irrationally angry.

Most wont' be hurt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The average annual 401K contribution in 2016 (last
> year available) was $1856. And only 12%
> contribute the maximum percent allowed in their
> plans. And that's the percentage allowable, not
> the dollar amount allowable. There are about 50
> million people participating (or withdrawing money
> from) a 401K/403B in the US. The average amount
> is only $60K for those over the age of 50.
>
> So, this isn't going to hurt most working class
> people or most middle class people. However, it
> is going to hurt upper middle class people to a
> larger degree.


Because, as I explained above, it brings in some at least on-paper near-term tax revenue to help offset proposed tax cuts. Long-term it is to your advantage and the government takes a hit on future tax revenues.

The rest of the story... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most wont' be hurt Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The average annual 401K contribution in 2016
> (last
> > year available) was $1856. And only 12%
> > contribute the maximum percent allowed in their
> > plans. And that's the percentage allowable,
> not
> > the dollar amount allowable. There are about
> 50
> > million people participating (or withdrawing
> money
> > from) a 401K/403B in the US. The average
> amount
> > is only $60K for those over the age of 50.
> >
> > So, this isn't going to hurt most working class
> > people or most middle class people. However,
> it
> > is going to hurt upper middle class people to a
> > larger degree.
>
>
> Because, as I explained above, it brings in some
> at least on-paper near-term tax revenue to help
> offset proposed tax cuts. Long-term it is to your
> advantage and the government takes a hit on future
> tax revenues.


Oops... was intending to respond to the other post asking why not yours.

nnnneeees Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> So you are not answering the question - why do it
> at all? Why? Do you think you can live on a
> retirement of $1856 per year? That is complete
> bullshit


And you're not living on $1,856 per year. You're obviously completely lost.

Here is a calculator for everyone http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/retirement/401-k-retirement-calculator.aspx

Plug in 1800 per year and see what you will have to live on in retirement. I call it the Alpo Retirement Plan. You sit in the park with a can of open Alpo dog food and a spoon in it. You hope people pity and give you handouts. End of the day you eat the Alpo cause thats all you can afford.

GOP wants your income, your retirement, your soaring healthcare costs - they want to take it all from you.

The rest of the story... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most wont' be hurt Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The average annual 401K contribution in 2016
> (last
> > year available) was $1856. And only 12%
> > contribute the maximum percent allowed in their
> > plans. And that's the percentage allowable,
> not
> > the dollar amount allowable. There are about
> 50
> > million people participating (or withdrawing
> money
> > from) a 401K/403B in the US. The average
> amount
> > is only $60K for those over the age of 50.
> >
> > So, this isn't going to hurt most working class
> > people or most middle class people. However,
> it
> > is going to hurt upper middle class people to a
> > larger degree.
>
>
> Because, as I explained above, it brings in some
> at least on-paper near-term tax revenue to help
> offset proposed tax cuts. Long-term it is to your
> advantage and the government takes a hit on future
> tax revenues.


I didn't ask you a question so don't get the 'because....' and my post doesn't have anything to do with your response. I know why it is being done and the short term hit vs long term benefit. However, your long term benefit doesn't consider the opportunity costs of having to pay taxes up front on a high income (most probably).

Raise taxes on some to lower taxes on others is the simple explanation. What Trump hasnt explained is why they are increasing the Deficit 1.5 TRILLION Dollars over 10 years.

Used to be GOP was the party of saying they would reduce the deficit. What happened?

I already know this Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The rest of the story... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Most wont' be hurt Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The average annual 401K contribution in 2016
> > (last
> > > year available) was $1856. And only 12%
> > > contribute the maximum percent allowed in
> their
> > > plans. And that's the percentage allowable,
> > not
> > > the dollar amount allowable. There are about
> > 50
> > > million people participating (or withdrawing
> > money
> > > from) a 401K/403B in the US. The average
> > amount
> > > is only $60K for those over the age of 50.
> > >
> > > So, this isn't going to hurt most working
> class
> > > people or most middle class people. However,
> > it
> > > is going to hurt upper middle class people to
> a
> > > larger degree.
> >
> >
> > Because, as I explained above, it brings in
> some
> > at least on-paper near-term tax revenue to help
> > offset proposed tax cuts. Long-term it is to
> your
> > advantage and the government takes a hit on
> future
> > tax revenues.
>
>
> I didn't ask you a question so don't get the
> 'because....' and my post doesn't have anything to
> do with your response. I know why it is being
> done and the short term hit vs long term benefit.
> However, your long term benefit doesn't consider
> the opportunity costs of having to pay taxes up
> front on a high income (most probably).


It absolutely does. You asked why. That's why. There is no other reason why.

The "opportunity cost" (which you're using improperly) still in most all cases is less than the tax cost on the back end.

We should be INCREASING deductions for saving for retirement and medical expenses - those are the most important elements of personal financial responsibility. What the actual fuck are the Republicans thinking???

Bilbo Moneyshovel Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> House Republicans are considering a plan to
> sharply reduce the amount of income American
> workers can save in tax-deferred retirement
> accounts as part of a broad effort to rewrite the
> tax code, according to lobbyists, tax consultants
> and congressional Democrats.
>
> It is unclear if Republicans will ultimately
> include a cap on contributions in the tax bill
> that they are expected to release in the coming
> weeks. Such a move would almost certainly prompt a
> vocal backlash from middle-class workers who save
> heavily in such retirement accounts and from the
> asset management industry.
>
> The proposals under discussion would potentially
> cap the annual amount workers can set aside to as
> low as $2,400 for 401(k) accounts, several
> lobbyists and consultants said on Friday. Workers
> may currently put up to $18,000 a year in 401(k)
> accounts without paying taxes upfront on that
> money; that figure rises to $24,000 for workers
> over 50. When workers retire and begin to draw
> income from those accounts, they pay taxes on the
> benefits.
>
> Sorry cuts only for the top 1% tax increase for
> the rest of us

The tax bill is in the formative stages which means that there are hundreds of these ideas being passed around. Libtards would not be familiar with this because they are totally devoid of fresh ideas. They reserve their ideas for attack politics.

what the f Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We should be INCREASING deductions for saving for
> retirement and medical expenses - those are the
> most important elements of personal financial
> responsibility. What the actual fuck are the
> Republicans thinking???


If you'd pull your head out of your partisan ass for a moment you'd understand that it's to your advantage.

Think of it this way...

In one case you're contributing $N pre-tax + $N employer contribution x some rate of return and paying tax on 100% of the end value.

In the "Roth 401k" case as proposed, you're contributing $2,400 pre-tax + $N employer contribution + whatever extra you choose to contribute - N% tax x some rate of return and paying $0 tax on the end value.

i.e., The only "loss" to the end value is on a relatively smaller percentage of the money in. But you're getting the entire end value of all of the rest of the $2,400 contribution + employer contribution x compounded value out tax free. The only way that ever works out to your disadvantage is if the compounded value of that smaller N% lost to taxes is greater than the tax on the total end value of all of the rest. Which basically will be never.

When it comes to your money you idiots need to put the dumb politics crap aside. But you're dumbshits and can't so...

If you want to whine about something that you find some way to blame Trump for, then what you should be criticizing is that it's a near-term cash grab to make things look better now that will cost the government a lot more in the future.

The rest of the story... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what the f Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > We should be INCREASING deductions for saving
> for
> > retirement and medical expenses - those are the
> > most important elements of personal financial
> > responsibility. What the actual fuck are the
> > Republicans thinking???
>
>
> If you'd pull your head out of your partisan ass
> for a moment you'd understand that it's to your
> advantage.
>
> Think of it this way...
>
> In one case you're contributing $N pre-tax + $N
> employer contribution x some rate of return and
> paying tax on 100% of the end value.
>
> In the "Roth 401k" case as proposed, you're
> contributing $2,400 pre-tax + $N employer
> contribution + whatever extra you choose to
> contribute - N% tax x some rate of return and
> paying $0 tax on the end value.
>
> i.e., The only "loss" to the end value is on a
> relatively smaller percentage of the money in.
> But you're getting the entire end value of
> all of the rest of the $2,400 contribution +
> employer contribution x compounded value out
> tax free. The only way that ever works out
> to your disadvantage is if the compounded value of
> that smaller N% lost to taxes is greater than the
> tax on the total end value of all of the
> rest. Which basically will be never.
>
> When it comes to your money you idiots need to put
> the dumb politics crap aside. But you're
> dumbshits and can't so...
>
> If you want to whine about something that you find
> some way to blame Trump for, then what you should
> be criticizing is that it's a near-term cash grab
> to make things look better now that will cost the
> government a lot more in the future.

Despite your condescending you pretty much fail at the question - why give up the option to do either? GOP should be expanding options to save for retirement not find ways to limit them. Talk about partisan

While you girls are arguing, the real reason for this is to get short term revenue to offset cuts in business taxes. In a resolution funding this is the opposite of what you want to do because down the line revenues from retirement savings will shrink as boomers and people with Roth retirement retire and die off potentially increasing need for revenue around the critical 10 year mark which could increase the deficit. Increase in deficit over ten years would allow Dems to filibuster the bill.

Finally notwithstanding yield or amount put away, the bill effects the people that need a reduction in taxes today, this year - that is the majority of the middle class.

This thread is funny. What idiots.

talk about partisan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The rest of the story... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > what the f Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > We should be INCREASING deductions for saving
> > for
> > > retirement and medical expenses - those are
> the
> > > most important elements of personal financial
> > > responsibility. What the actual fuck are the
> > > Republicans thinking???
> >
> >
> > If you'd pull your head out of your partisan
> ass
> > for a moment you'd understand that it's to your
> > advantage.
> >
> > Think of it this way...
> >
> > In one case you're contributing $N pre-tax + $N
> > employer contribution x some rate of return and
> > paying tax on 100% of the end value.
> >
> > In the "Roth 401k" case as proposed, you're
> > contributing $2,400 pre-tax + $N employer
> > contribution + whatever extra you choose to
> > contribute - N% tax x some rate of return and
> > paying $0 tax on the end value.
> >
> > i.e., The only "loss" to the end value is on a
> > relatively smaller percentage of the money in.
> > But you're getting the entire end value
> of
> > all of the rest of the $2,400 contribution +
> > employer contribution x compounded value out
> > tax free. The only way that ever works
> out
> > to your disadvantage is if the compounded value
> of
> > that smaller N% lost to taxes is greater than
> the
> > tax on the total end value of all of the
> > rest. Which basically will be never.
> >
> > When it comes to your money you idiots need to
> put
> > the dumb politics crap aside. But you're
> > dumbshits and can't so...
> >
> > If you want to whine about something that you
> find
> > some way to blame Trump for, then what you
> should
> > be criticizing is that it's a near-term cash
> grab
> > to make things look better now that will cost
> the
> > government a lot more in the future.
>
> Despite your condescending you pretty much fail at
> the question - why give up the option to do
> either? GOP should be expanding options to save
> for retirement not find ways to limit them. Talk
> about partisan


As the other poster noted above it's just one of many various proposals within the context of tax reform. They very likely may have multiple options just as you can, somewhat stupidly, continue to fund a traditional IRA or do a Roth IRA now. As I explained in response to the misleading half-story in the OP and the posts saying that they're somehow taking something from you, it's almost certainly to your advantage if they do this. Given your earlier posts re living on $1856 per year, etc., it's clear that you have no clue so...

GOP is fucking this up like everything else. Borrowing today from peter to pay paul. Using an accounting trick to get more revenue in the short term but lower income in later years. All to cut taxes for corporations sitting on mountains of cash and greater returns than ever. Screw the individual line the pockets of the rich.

As an aside the name calling in a discussion usually indicates low character and weak arguments. Just saying.

jvnvn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GOP is fucking this up like everything else.
> Borrowing today from peter to pay paul. Using an
> accounting trick to get more revenue in the short
> term but lower income in later years. All to cut
> taxes for corporations sitting on mountains of
> cash and greater returns than ever. Screw the
> individual line the pockets of the rich.
>
> As an aside the name calling in a discussion
> usually indicates low character and weak
> arguments. Just saying.


Ahhh... there ya go. Glad to see that you finally picked up on what I said that you should be whining about instead of misleadingly leaving out half of the story as in the OP and claiming that this would 'hurt your compounding.'

Now you're on the same side as Wall Street which doesn't like it because it means an incrementally lower percentage would be dumped into its funds to continue the building the house of cards. They don't really care that it's a better deal for you on the back end. Enjoy your new Goldman Sachs-sponsored talking points! lol

I am so lost in this thread

Hgkbh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am so lost in this thread


There's a lot of tax/accounting/financial jargon being tossed around this thread, but essentially what is happening is, is disagreement between those for, and against said tax reform proposals. Party A argues that the proposed reforms will force the Average Joe to pay more in taxes if they want to contribute more to retirement, savings, etc.

Party B counters that said reforms, while coming at a cost for the Average Joe in the short term will pay them back in dividends later down the road. I cannot give my 0.02 cents as I have not read the entirety of the bill, but this is one of the most informative, and intelligent threads I have seen in quite some time.

The rest of the story... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jvnvn Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > GOP is fucking this up like everything else.
> > Borrowing today from peter to pay paul. Using
> an
> > accounting trick to get more revenue in the
> short
> > term but lower income in later years. All to
> cut
> > taxes for corporations sitting on mountains of
> > cash and greater returns than ever. Screw the
> > individual line the pockets of the rich.
> >
> > As an aside the name calling in a discussion
> > usually indicates low character and weak
> > arguments. Just saying.
>
>
> Ahhh... there ya go. Glad to see that you finally
> picked up on what I said that you should be
> whining about instead of misleadingly leaving out
> half of the story as in the OP and claiming that
> this would 'hurt your compounding.'
>
> Now you're on the same side as Wall Street which
> doesn't like it because it means an incrementally
> lower percentage would be dumped into its funds to
> continue the building the house of cards. They
> don't really care that it's a better deal for you
> on the back end. Enjoy your new Goldman
> Sachs-sponsored talking points! lol

Not sure who you are talking to but In my personal case I can put away more today if I get a tax break today. I would rather be taxed on the retirement income later and put more away today given the yield is a wash. For me, I need write-offs now not later. Ive voted Republican and I am disgusted they are playing this game and increasing the deficit - spend like there is no tomorrow. Thought that was the Dems game but no more.

Bilbo Moneyshovel Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> House Republicans are considering a plan to
> sharply reduce the amount of income American
> workers can save in tax-deferred retirement
> accounts as part of a broad effort to rewrite the
> tax code, according to lobbyists, tax consultants
> and congressional Democrats.
>
> It is unclear if Republicans will ultimately
> include a cap on contributions in the tax bill
> that they are expected to release in the coming
> weeks. Such a move would almost certainly prompt a
> vocal backlash from middle-class workers who save
> heavily in such retirement accounts and from the
> asset management industry.
>
> The proposals under discussion would potentially
> cap the annual amount workers can set aside to as
> low as $2,400 for 401(k) accounts, several
> lobbyists and consultants said on Friday. Workers
> may currently put up to $18,000 a year in 401(k)
> accounts without paying taxes upfront on that
> money; that figure rises to $24,000 for workers
> over 50. When workers retire and begin to draw
> income from those accounts, they pay taxes on the
> benefits.
>
> Sorry cuts only for the top 1% tax increase for
> the rest of us

When you add in the elimination of state & local taxes it will be more like a 10% tax increase for me. That's what republicans do - redistribute middle class assets to the rich. Never mind the rich are already taxed at historical low rates already. The top tax bracket used to be 90%.

It always cracks me up reading about idiots complaining about successful people in America. Do you want to know how much in income taxes I paid last year? $0.00

It's America. STFU and get off your ass.

What they Do Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> When you add in the elimination of state & local
> taxes it will be more like a 10% tax increase for
> me. That's what republicans do - redistribute
> middle class assets to the rich. Never mind the
> rich are already taxed at historical low rates
> already. The top tax bracket used to be 90%.


Lie. Under Reagan, the top rate was 28%. Now it is 39.6%. Why did you lie?

Whether you are better off contributing pretax dollars to a 401k or after tax dollars to a Roth depends on your financial situation when you make the contributions and when you withdraw the funds. Since you cannot know for certain what your financial situation will be when you need to take money out, it may be wiser to do both. Contribute to your 401k an amount that lets you maximize your employer match. Then contribute to your Roth.

Liar! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What they Do Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > When you add in the elimination of state &
> local
> > taxes it will be more like a 10% tax increase
> for
> > me. That's what republicans do - redistribute
> > middle class assets to the rich. Never mind
> the
> > rich are already taxed at historical low rates
> > already. The top tax bracket used to be 90%.
>
>
> Lie. Under Reagan, the top rate was 28%. Now it
> is 39.6%. Why did you lie?

I said nothing about Reagan stupid. Here's a fact to chew on.

Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.

When Reagan took office the top tax rate was 70% - when he left it was 28%
His tax cuts did nothing to stimulate the economy. The increase government spending did. Remember he doubled the nation debt during his presidency.

Supply Sider Tard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> blah, blah, I'm a fucking liar, blah


You: Remember, the rich are already taxed at historically low rates already.

Me: Lie. Under Reagan, the tax rate was 28%. Now it is 39.6%.

You: Vooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooomit non sequitur nonsense.

You lied. Got called out. Babbled a lame reply. Now stfu and go take a shower. We're done here.

Gop truther Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The rest of the story... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > jvnvn Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > GOP is fucking this up like everything else.
> > > Borrowing today from peter to pay paul.
> Using
> > an
> > > accounting trick to get more revenue in the
> > short
> > > term but lower income in later years. All to
> > cut
> > > taxes for corporations sitting on mountains
> of
> > > cash and greater returns than ever. Screw
> the
> > > individual line the pockets of the rich.
> > >
> > > As an aside the name calling in a discussion
> > > usually indicates low character and weak
> > > arguments. Just saying.
> >
> >
> > Ahhh... there ya go. Glad to see that you
> finally
> > picked up on what I said that you should be
> > whining about instead of misleadingly leaving
> out
> > half of the story as in the OP and claiming
> that
> > this would 'hurt your compounding.'
> >
> > Now you're on the same side as Wall Street
> which
> > doesn't like it because it means an
> incrementally
> > lower percentage would be dumped into its funds
> to
> > continue the building the house of cards. They
> > don't really care that it's a better deal for
> you
> > on the back end. Enjoy your new Goldman
> > Sachs-sponsored talking points! lol
>
> Not sure who you are talking to but In my personal
> case I can put away more today if I get a tax
> break today. I would rather be taxed on the
> retirement income later and put more away today
> given the yield is a wash. For me, I need
> write-offs now not later. Ive voted Republican
> and I am disgusted they are playing this game and
> increasing the deficit - spend like there is no
> tomorrow. Thought that was the Dems game but no
> more.


Sorry, as much as you might want to convince yourself because of your political views (or just make a dumb post claiming so for the same purpose) it very likely doesn't work to your advantage. You've not actually run the numbers. Regardless what tax you believe that you are offsetting, there are very few scenarios where you're better off putting money into an account that is taxed vs one that is tax free at distribution. Even if you do fall into one of those few, it's still not the case for +90% of people.

And even in those cases it still may not be the best approach since mostly what you're doing is converting money that's unrestricted and otherwise would be taxed at the long-term capital gains rate into money that's restricted with penalties and taxed at your highest marginal tax rate. Which for people with a substantial balance now would be on the order of 28% on the full appreciated value. That's a big chunk and hard to offset by whatever savings on the front end. Despite how they are sold and many think of them, 401ks are SAVINGS accounts not necessarily the best INVESTMENT approach.

^ I just hear the guy saying he needs the deductions now - why are you being such a dick about it? You dont know his situation - maybe he is renting at the moment and doesnt have mortgage interest to deduct from income. Ill say Fuck You in advance since you seem like the type of person than cannot respond in a civil way to anyone with a different situation or point of view so seriously Fuck you.

My employer matches 100% of my contribution up to 3% of my income then 50% up to 6% of my annual income - how could a Roth match that kind of perk? Im not talking about long term yield. Im talking about I put in ~9k a year and my employer give me and they give me 7k matching. How could I ever match that in a ROTH?

Also My tax bracket is higher now with my wife's income and my income than it will be after retirement so the deductions help more now. I do understand the benefits of not being taxed upon distrubition under Roth and I understand yields are a wash.

civil discourse Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^ I just hear the guy saying he needs the
> deductions now - why are you being such a dick
> about it? You dont know his situation - maybe he
> is renting at the moment and doesnt have mortgage
> interest to deduct from income. Ill say Fuck You
> in advance since you seem like the type of person
> than cannot respond in a civil way to anyone with
> a different situation or point of view so
> seriously Fuck you.


I'm not being a dick, I'm being straight up and sticking to the facts vs dumb political nonsense. That is civil for this place. The OP left out the entire other side of the story as far as what's being done here which is what I was calling out.

Whether that guy in particular is renting or not or what other deductions he may have doesn't affect the basic math of money in/money out. He can do whatever the fuck he wants as far as I'm concerned and you can assume whatever, but the fact is that it still works out better in most all cases to pay no taxes on the full value on the back end. Run the numbers and you'll see that's the case.

It also has the intangible benefit of being assured that your return won't be affected by possible future increases to tax rates or the rate being higher than you expected. If you'll have a substantial amount of money in your 401k then, since you'll be forced to make mandatory distributions or pay obscene penalties, your future tax rate very likely isn't going to be very low. Especially when added together for a couple and on top of other income that you may have. As a lot of boomers now are starting to find out. It provides more flexibility in how you use that money. If, for example, you need/want to pull a lot of money out in one year, then there's no tax penalty vs potentially bumping yourself up to a much higher percentage if taxed.

salmon cakes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My employer matches 100% of my contribution up to
> 3% of my income then 50% up to 6% of my annual
> income - how could a Roth match that kind of perk?
> Im not talking about long term yield. Im talking
> about I put in ~9k a year and my employer give me
> and they give me 7k matching. How could I ever
> match that in a ROTH?
>
> Also My tax bracket is higher now with my wife's
> income and my income than it will be after
> retirement so the deductions help more now. I do
> understand the benefits of not being taxed upon
> distrubition under Roth and I understand yields
> are a wash.

GOP plan is to tax you on the perk you now enjoy - you will only be able to deduct a much smaller amount than now. For example you currently contribute 16k a year (good for you) - you can deduct that from your taxes each year but will pay taxes when you withdraw. You would be crazy not to take advantage of the free money offered in your employers matching funds but now you wont be able to write off most of what you put away under current set up AND you will be taxed again when you withdraw - double tax.

Roths are good - I have both. Maybe companies will just give you the matching amount in a bonus and you can put it in a roth. Kind of defeats the trick of getting people to put money away as that bonus money tends to get spent on things like food and cars.

What about the matching amount in 401k's - that is an immediate 100% return up to a certain amount. Doubling money takes 5-7 years in investment of conservative nature. Is the GOP plan to tax that money over a small amount like the $2400 quoted. If they dont let you deduct that now will they tax it again later like a standard investment - if so that is a pretty big tax increase from the GOP specifically on matching funds by employers.

salmon cakes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My employer matches 100% of my contribution up to
> 3% of my income then 50% up to 6% of my annual
> income - how could a Roth match that kind of perk?
> Im not talking about long term yield. Im talking
> about I put in ~9k a year and my employer give me
> and they give me 7k matching. How could I ever
> match that in a ROTH?
>
> Also My tax bracket is higher now with my wife's
> income and my income than it will be after
> retirement so the deductions help more now. I do
> understand the benefits of not being taxed upon
> distrubition under Roth and I understand yields
> are a wash.


Because we're not talking about a Roth IRA where there is no employer contribution. We're talking about a specific proposal where you could contribute pre-tax up to $2,400 to your 401k pre-tax. You'd only be putting in post-tax money on whatever amount over that. Your employer's matching contribution remains the same and is not taxed on the front end.

The "yields" are not a wash taking taxes into account because, as I outlined above, you're getting the benefit of your pre-tax $2,400, plus your employer's contribution, plus the accumulated value of ALL of that money that's put in out tax free, while only "paying" tax on the smaller percentage of whatever amount over the $2,400 you put in. In the standard case, you're paying tax on the back end on ALL of that money, including all of yours put in, your employer's contribution, and the full accumulated end value.

Sometimes the pwning is too good Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Supply Sider Tard Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > blah, blah, I'm a fucking liar, blah
>
>
> You: Remember, the rich are already taxed at
> historically low rates already.
>
> Me: Lie. Under Reagan, the tax rate was 28%.
> Now it is 39.6%.
>
> You:
> Vooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
> oomit non sequitur nonsense.
>
> You lied. Got called out. Babbled a lame reply.
> Now stfu and go take a shower. We're done here.

Top tax rates are at historical lows. That's a fact. Stupid morons like you can't think for themselves. Now go jack off to your Reagan poster. History is not just the Reagan years Moron.

Let’s give BILLION DOLLAR companies like Facebook and Apple MILLIONS IN TAX incentives, then let them incorporate in a FOREIGN country that has waaaay less tax than the country that fed and nurtured them.
Tax these companies and let individuals put away $$$$$ tax free!

The rest of the story... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> salmon cakes Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > My employer matches 100% of my contribution up
> to
> > 3% of my income then 50% up to 6% of my annual
> > income - how could a Roth match that kind of
> perk?
> > Im not talking about long term yield. Im
> talking
> > about I put in ~9k a year and my employer give
> me
> > and they give me 7k matching. How could I ever
> > match that in a ROTH?
> >
> > Also My tax bracket is higher now with my
> wife's
> > income and my income than it will be after
> > retirement so the deductions help more now. I
> do
> > understand the benefits of not being taxed upon
> > distrubition under Roth and I understand yields
> > are a wash.
>
>
> Because we're not talking about a Roth IRA where
> there is no employer contribution. We're talking
> about a specific proposal where you could
> contribute pre-tax up to $2,400 to your 401k
> pre-tax. You'd only be putting in post-tax money
> on whatever amount over that. Your employer's
> matching contribution remains the same and is not
> taxed on the front end.
>
> The "yields" are not a wash taking taxes into
> account because, as I outlined above, you're
> getting the benefit of your pre-tax $2,400, plus
> your employer's contribution, plus the accumulated
> value of ALL of that money that's put in out tax
> free, while only "paying" tax on the smaller
> percentage of whatever amount over the $2,400 you
> put in. In the standard case, you're paying tax
> on the back end on ALL of that money, including
> all of yours put in, your employer's contribution,
> and the full accumulated end value.

You are so full of shit - if you are limited to 2400 bucks (currently 18,000 bucks) any 'matching' of pretax would be 2400 as well - significantly lowering the current amounts of pretax matching and contributions. Moreover, you are guessing - the details of how 401k contributions by employers have not been released. Talk about sticking your partisan head up your ass.

Trump said this AM "no changes to the 401K". You people waste a lot of time arguing about shit that never had a chance of happening and clearly you have no idea how DC works.

nigga what? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trump said this AM "no changes to the 401K". You
> people waste a lot of time arguing about shit that
> never had a chance of happening and clearly you
> have no idea how DC works.


Yea only Donald Trump is the master of DC politics

nigga what? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trump said this AM "no changes to the 401K". You
> people waste a lot of time arguing about shit that
> never had a chance of happening and clearly you
> have no idea how DC works.


uh oh, how will the GOP hide the huge deficit the tax cuts for the rich will cause without fleecing the middle class? Trump just made his tax reform less likely to pass. The deficit will grow 1.5 TRILLION under the plan. What happened to deficit hawks?

Why dont Republicans release the details of what they have on the tax bill so we can see what they plan to pass with a simple majority in Congress? Dems wont have a say so what are they worried about? Dont we have a right to know how the GOP plans to change the laws? I thought we had that right...

rest of the story is BS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The rest of the story... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > salmon cakes Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > My employer matches 100% of my contribution
> up
> > to
> > > 3% of my income then 50% up to 6% of my
> annual
> > > income - how could a Roth match that kind of
> > perk?
> > > Im not talking about long term yield. Im
> > talking
> > > about I put in ~9k a year and my employer
> give
> > me
> > > and they give me 7k matching. How could I
> ever
> > > match that in a ROTH?
> > >
> > > Also My tax bracket is higher now with my
> > wife's
> > > income and my income than it will be after
> > > retirement so the deductions help more now.
> I
> > do
> > > understand the benefits of not being taxed
> upon
> > > distrubition under Roth and I understand
> yields
> > > are a wash.
> >
> >
> > Because we're not talking about a Roth IRA
> where
> > there is no employer contribution. We're
> talking
> > about a specific proposal where you could
> > contribute pre-tax up to $2,400 to your 401k
> > pre-tax. You'd only be putting in post-tax
> money
> > on whatever amount over that. Your employer's
> > matching contribution remains the same and is
> not
> > taxed on the front end.
> >
> > The "yields" are not a wash taking taxes into
> > account because, as I outlined above, you're
> > getting the benefit of your pre-tax $2,400,
> plus
> > your employer's contribution, plus the
> accumulated
> > value of ALL of that money that's put in out
> tax
> > free, while only "paying" tax on the smaller
> > percentage of whatever amount over the $2,400
> you
> > put in. In the standard case, you're paying
> tax
> > on the back end on ALL of that money, including
> > all of yours put in, your employer's
> contribution,
> > and the full accumulated end value.
>
> You are so full of shit - if you are limited to
> 2400 bucks (currently 18,000 bucks) any 'matching'
> of pretax would be 2400 as well - significantly
> lowering the current amounts of pretax matching
> and contributions. Moreover, you are guessing -
> the details of how 401k contributions by employers
> have not been released. Talk about sticking your
> partisan head up your ass.


Wrong. Apparently you can't read. Your contributions and matching would not be limited to $2,400. The limit would continue to be ~$18k/yr (or whatever).
The limit is on the pre-tax treatment of the amount over $2,400. How your matching works for a given plan would not affected by that and employer contributions would not be subject to the same limit.

I'm not guessing, I'm proving the details of the same proposal which the OP left out of their misleading post which have been discussed more fully elsewhere. What actually may happen or not is a completely separate matter.

Quote

According to The [Wall Street] Journal, a proposal under consideration would cap the annual amount that can be placed in a traditional 401(k) at $2,400 a year. Any contribution afterward would have to go toward a Roth account.

For 2017, the annual cap on traditional 401(k)s is $18,000 for people under 50 and $24,000 over 50. For an IRA, the caps are $5,500 and $6,500 for the respective age groups.

The new cap would not apply to savings already in accounts, and employer contributions to a traditional 401(k) or IRA would not be subject to a cap, according to The Journal.

BUYY Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> nigga what? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Trump said this AM "no changes to the 401K".
> You
> > people waste a lot of time arguing about shit
> that
> > never had a chance of happening and clearly you
> > have no idea how DC works.
>
>
> uh oh, how will the GOP hide the huge deficit the
> tax cuts for the rich will cause without fleecing
> the middle class? Trump just made his tax reform
> less likely to pass. The deficit will grow 1.5
> TRILLION under the plan. What happened to deficit
> hawks?


The GOP has finally said fuck it.

Why should they be the ones to be responsible when the slack ass liberals just come in and give all the savings back to the niggers and illegals?

Having just finished filing a number of extension tax returns I've seen a large number of retired taxpayers with decent incomes who are paying little to no Federal income tax on their retirement distributions. If it wasn't for the alternative minimum tax I had several who would have paid no taxes at all. These were retirement plans that were funded with money that was earned when these taxpayers were in the 28% to 50% tax bracket. They were able to put more money into their retirement accounts tax deferred, and then were able to take it out without having to pay much in Federal income taxes.

Anyone who says everyone would be better off using Roth type retirement plans over traditional retirement plans does not know what they are talking about. It really does depend on the taxpayer's individual tax situation.

tg3kk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Having just finished filing a number of extension
> tax returns I've seen a large number of retired
> taxpayers with decent incomes who are paying
> little to no Federal income tax on their
> retirement distributions. If it wasn't for the
> alternative minimum tax I had several who would
> have paid no taxes at all. These were retirement
> plans that were funded with money that was earned
> when these taxpayers were in the 28% to 50% tax
> bracket. They were able to put more money into
> their retirement accounts tax deferred, and then
> were able to take it out without having to pay
> much in Federal income taxes.
>
> Anyone who says everyone would be better off using
> Roth type retirement plans over traditional
> retirement plans does not know what they are
> talking about. It really does depend on the
> taxpayer's individual tax situation.


If you're receiving a "decent income" from a retirement distribution, then you'll pay taxes on that "decent income."

Once AGAIN, this isn't a generic discussion of Roth vs standard plans - they have merits either way depending on circumstances. This is addressing a specific proposal under which you'd avoid all taxes on the first $2,400/yr + employer contribution + all appreciation in value on distribution by only paying tax up front on your contribution (not your employer's matching) over $2,400 to the limit. There are very few scenarios where that doesn't work out to someone's advantage. If you're doing tax returns, then you should be able to run the numbers to see that's the case. About the only case where it's not, is if you assume someone would be dumping in lots of money over the limit at a very high tax rate with little to no employer matching and assuming little to no return over whatever time frame. In which case they probably really shouldn't be putting their money there to begin with.

The rest of the story... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> tg3kk Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Having just finished filing a number of
> extension
> > tax returns I've seen a large number of retired
> > taxpayers with decent incomes who are paying
> > little to no Federal income tax on their
> > retirement distributions. If it wasn't for the
> > alternative minimum tax I had several who would
> > have paid no taxes at all. These were
> retirement
> > plans that were funded with money that was
> earned
> > when these taxpayers were in the 28% to 50% tax
> > bracket. They were able to put more money into
> > their retirement accounts tax deferred, and
> then
> > were able to take it out without having to pay
> > much in Federal income taxes.
> >
> > Anyone who says everyone would be better off
> using
> > Roth type retirement plans over traditional
> > retirement plans does not know what they are
> > talking about. It really does depend on the
> > taxpayer's individual tax situation.
>
>
> If you're receiving a "decent income" from a
> retirement distribution, then you'll pay taxes on
> that "decent income."
>
> Once AGAIN, this isn't a generic discussion of
> Roth vs standard plans - they have merits either
> way depending on circumstances. This is
> addressing a specific proposal under which you'd
> avoid all taxes on the first $2,400/yr + employer
> contribution + all appreciation in value on
> distribution by only paying tax up front on your
> contribution (not your employer's matching) over
> $2,400 to the limit. There are very few scenarios
> where that doesn't work out to someone's
> advantage. If you're doing tax returns, then you
> should be able to run the numbers to see that's
> the case. About the only case where it's not, is
> if you assume someone would be dumping in lots of
> money over the limit at a very high tax rate with
> little to no employer matching and assuming little
> to no return over whatever time frame. In which
> case they probably really shouldn't be putting
> their money there to begin with.

You have no idea the specifics of matching contributions because they never released the new plan and now its DOA. That and you just do not listen. Deferring taxes on 18k-24k as is allowed now then paying taxes later can be a huge advantage. I am tired of your yield comparison BS and Im also tired of your guessing what the tax change might have been.

I am in the top income bracket now with my wife and I earning high incomes. When we retire and live off retirement we will be in a much lower bracket. I can put away a lot more money now by using the deduction now and paying tax later. Roths are fine and I have one of those as well but only after I max out my allowable deduction on a 401k where my employer gives me free money as an incentive.

You seem to be one of those people that just wont listen to anyone so why even share your BS here? Go give advise to people too dim to actually analyze what you are saying...

olde days Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Used to be GOP was the party of saying they would
> reduce the deficit. What happened?

GOP is the party of saying they would reduce the deficit when the Dems are in power. When the repubs are in power it's cut taxes for the rich, increase defense spending, and pretend the tax cuts for the rich stimulates the economy to create a balanced budget. Check Reagan, Bushes, and lately Kansas to see what really happens.

run the numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The rest of the story... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > tg3kk Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Having just finished filing a number of
> > extension
> > > tax returns I've seen a large number of
> retired
> > > taxpayers with decent incomes who are paying
> > > little to no Federal income tax on their
> > > retirement distributions. If it wasn't for
> the
> > > alternative minimum tax I had several who
> would
> > > have paid no taxes at all. These were
> > retirement
> > > plans that were funded with money that was
> > earned
> > > when these taxpayers were in the 28% to 50%
> tax
> > > bracket. They were able to put more money
> into
> > > their retirement accounts tax deferred, and
> > then
> > > were able to take it out without having to
> pay
> > > much in Federal income taxes.
> > >
> > > Anyone who says everyone would be better off
> > using
> > > Roth type retirement plans over traditional
> > > retirement plans does not know what they are
> > > talking about. It really does depend on the
> > > taxpayer's individual tax situation.
> >
> >
> > If you're receiving a "decent income" from a
> > retirement distribution, then you'll pay taxes
> on
> > that "decent income."
> >
> > Once AGAIN, this isn't a generic discussion of
> > Roth vs standard plans - they have merits
> either
> > way depending on circumstances. This is
> > addressing a specific proposal under which
> you'd
> > avoid all taxes on the first $2,400/yr +
> employer
> > contribution + all appreciation in value on
> > distribution by only paying tax up front on
> your
> > contribution (not your employer's matching)
> over
> > $2,400 to the limit. There are very few
> scenarios
> > where that doesn't work out to someone's
> > advantage. If you're doing tax returns, then
> you
> > should be able to run the numbers to see that's
> > the case. About the only case where it's not,
> is
> > if you assume someone would be dumping in lots
> of
> > money over the limit at a very high tax rate
> with
> > little to no employer matching and assuming
> little
> > to no return over whatever time frame. In
> which
> > case they probably really shouldn't be putting
> > their money there to begin with.
>
> You have no idea the specifics of matching
> contributions because they never released the new
> plan and now its DOA. That and you just do not
> listen. Deferring taxes on 18k-24k as is allowed
> now then paying taxes later can be a huge
> advantage. I am tired of your yield comparison BS
> and Im also tired of your guessing what the tax
> change might have been.
>
> I am in the top income bracket now with my wife
> and I earning high incomes. When we retire and
> live off retirement we will be in a much lower
> bracket. I can put away a lot more money now by
> using the deduction now and paying tax later.
> Roths are fine and I have one of those as well but
> only after I max out my allowable deduction on a
> 401k where my employer gives me free money as an
> incentive.
>
> You seem to be one of those people that just wont
> listen to anyone so why even share your BS here?
> Go give advise to people too dim to actually
> analyze what you are saying...


I do have an idea because the proposal was discussed in more detail elsewhere. And, again, the point was that the OP had misleadingly left out the entire other side of the proposal re tax treatment. Even the passing mention in the article cited which they conveniently omitted.

I'm not giving any advice and you seem to be the one who won't listen. I'm just stating the facts of the math. Because YOU want to read YOUR own interests into it and can't see beyond that is on YOU. YOU may be a particular case where it would not be to YOUR advantage. I have not said that it necessarily would be to YOUR advantage. In fact, I noted under what circumstances it might not be.

That said, it would be to the advantage of the large majority of those in 401k plans vs being some take away as it's being played. That's easily demonstrated by the fact that the large majority do not contribute more than $2,400/yr to their account so for all of them it's not even arguable. It's the difference between getting all of their money and their employer's contribution in and out tax free vs taxed. If you can't see that's the better alternative, then you really do have your head up your ass. Without going through a tedious set of assumptions and calculations, it's easy to understand that also extends up from there quite a bit. That's not my opinion, it's simple math.

Whatever comes of this or not, who knows, don't really care. But it very clearly would not be the disaster as it was played up and it would not favor 1%ers as the OP suggested. In fact, just the opposite.

Bad Days a Commin (Again) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> olde days Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Used to be GOP was the party of saying they
> would
> > reduce the deficit. What happened?
>
> GOP is the party of saying they would reduce the
> deficit when the Dems are in power. When the
> repubs are in power it's cut taxes for the rich,
> increase defense spending, and pretend the tax
> cuts for the rich stimulates the economy to create
> a balanced budget. Check Reagan, Bushes, and
> lately Kansas to see what really happens.


correct

PS anyone over 30 yrs saving only 2400 per month will be pumping gas at age 80 yrs. The GOP wants all your money now and they are taking it all, taxes, social medicare your pension - its rich peoples money and they want it all back and you to have zero. 8 people in the world have more than half the people alive 8 people have more than 3 Billion people on this earth and its still not enough.

The current capitalist model distills wealth to an ever shrinking number of people.

save Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> PS anyone over 30 yrs saving only 2400 per month
> will be pumping gas at age 80 yrs. The GOP wants
> all your money now and they are taking it all,
> taxes, social medicare your pension - its rich
> peoples money and they want it all back and you to
> have zero. 8 people in the world have more than
> half the people alive 8 people have more than 3
> Billion people on this earth and its still not
> enough.
>
> The current capitalist model distills wealth to an
> ever shrinking number of people.


Beginning Savings Balance: 0
Monthly deposit amount: 2400
Annual Interest Rate (% ROI): 5
Number Of Years: 50 (to get from 30 to 80)
Tax Rate (Combined State and Fed %): 15
Rate of Inflation (%): 3

Future Value:
Nominal Future Value (Unadjusted): $6,431,451.25
After-Tax Future Value: $5,016,388.34
Future Value After Taxes And Inflation: $1,144,273.69

save Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bad Days a Commin (Again) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > olde days Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > >
> > > Used to be GOP was the party of saying they
> > would
> > > reduce the deficit. What happened?
> >
> > GOP is the party of saying they would reduce
> the
> > deficit when the Dems are in power. When the
> > repubs are in power it's cut taxes for the
> rich,
> > increase defense spending, and pretend the tax
> > cuts for the rich stimulates the economy to
> create
> > a balanced budget. Check Reagan, Bushes, and
> > lately Kansas to see what really happens.
>
>
> correct
>
> PS anyone over 30 yrs saving only 2400 per month
> will be pumping gas at age 80 yrs. The GOP wants
> all your money now and they are taking it all,
> taxes, social medicare your pension - its rich
> peoples money and they want it all back and you to
> have zero. 8 people in the world have more than
> half the people alive 8 people have more than 3
> Billion people on this earth and its still not
> enough.
>
> The current capitalist model distills wealth to an
> ever shrinking number of people.


*obviously meant per year not month apropos the discussion on annual cap of 2400 proposed.

Math is hard for ideologues Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> save Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > PS anyone over 30 yrs saving only 2400 per
> month
> > will be pumping gas at age 80 yrs. The GOP
> wants
> > all your money now and they are taking it all,
> > taxes, social medicare your pension - its rich
> > peoples money and they want it all back and you
> to
> > have zero. 8 people in the world have more
> than
> > half the people alive 8 people have more than 3
> > Billion people on this earth and its still not
> > enough.
> >
> > The current capitalist model distills wealth to
> an
> > ever shrinking number of people.
>
>
> Beginning Savings Balance: 0
> Monthly deposit amount: 2400
> Annual Interest Rate (% ROI): 5
> Number Of Years: 50 (to get from 30 to 80)
> Tax Rate (Combined State and Fed %): 15
> Rate of Inflation (%): 3
>
> Future Value:
> Nominal Future Value (Unadjusted): $6,431,451.25
> After-Tax Future Value: $5,016,388.34
> Future Value After Taxes And
> Inflation: $1,144,273.69


And finally the only actual numbers shown here are based on an obvious error - typical now why dont you run the numbers on what was actually meant your defense of 'people only save less than 2400 per year.' Run the numbers on saving 2400 per YEAR per all the rest of your BS 'nonpartisan' screed. You are a douche of monumental proportions my homie

2400/month with 50% employer match is under 400k at retirement Before taxes and without inflation calculation. Dog food is what you will be eating on this plan.

http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/retirement/401-k-retirement-calculator.aspx

dog food retire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 2400/month with 50% employer match is under 400k
> at retirement Before taxes and without inflation
> calculation. Dog food is what you will be eating
> on this plan.
>
> http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/retirement/401
> -k-retirement-calculator.aspx


Why don't you say WTF you mean then and not move the goal posts to try to make your fuck ups fit. You fucked up the month/year again here too. And you also reduced the $2,400 to $1,900 and reduced the number of years by 15.

Which in any case still isn't applicable to the discussion here since it isn't a hard limit to contributions and matching, only to employee pre-tax contributions.

Dog brain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You fucked up the month/year again here too.


LOL. What a fucking moron.

I've enjoyed and agree with "The rest of the story..."

I also do not think a limit on deductible contributions to a 401(k) will be the end of the world, although it will certainly annoy several percent of taxpayers, probably in higher income categories and presumably who vote. The optics are not good, though, as this pretty accurately can be painted as a short term accounting gimmick to benefit the heirs of multimillionaires and billionaires at the expense of middle class/upper middle class retirement efforts.

Defined contribution retirement plans are the centerpiece of the private-sector retirement system in the United States. More than 94 million Americans are covered by such plan accounts, with assets now in excess of $7 trillion.

source: https://pressroom.vanguard.com/nonindexed/How-America-Saves-2017.pdf

U.S. Census Bureau researchers have used tax data to estimate that 79 percent of Americans work at places that sponsor a 401(k)-style plan. However, just 41 percent of workers at those employers are making contributions to such a plan—more than 20 points lower than previous estimates. That means just 32 percent of American taxpayers made 401(k) deposits annually.

source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-21/two-thirds-of-americans-aren-t-putting-money-in-their-401-k

Based on Vanguard's review of their 401(k) customer holdings, about 10% made the maximum deposit to their 401(k). On the assumption that Vanguard’s data is similar to the rest of the industry, that means only about 3% of American taxpayers are making the maximum 401(k) deposit, although whether they are investing in Roth or standard 401(k) variants is unknown.

source: https://pressroom.vanguard.com/nonindexed/How-America-Saves-2017.pdf

As around 65-70% of 401(k) plans also offer a Roth version,

source: https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/human-capital/articles/annual-defined-contribution-benchmarking-survey.html and https://pressroom.vanguard.com/nonindexed/How-America-Saves-2017.pdf

a republican plan to limit 401(k) deductible amounts would probably absolutely infuriate just 1% of the taxpayer population, at least until all 401(k) programs would also offer Roth variants. Something like 9% of the currently contributing taxpayers are probably in 401(k) plans with no Roth variants at present. Depending on where a planned contribution limit is placed, any limit will probably greatly annoy a percent of this group as well.