Replies

From the article:

Everything including the sacred mortgage deduction is on the table as lawmakers wrestle with the fiscal cliff, a year-end avalanche of scheduled spending cuts and tax increases. With a combined $10 trillion sitting in IRAs and 401(k) plans, retirement accounts make a juicy target. Some of this money has never been taxed, and under current law never will be.

To maintain this savings incentive the government “spends” $100 billion a year in the form of tax breaks to those who stash money in these kinds of accounts. Now, a new study suggests this tax incentive does little to change saving behavior. Some lawmakers, no doubt, are wondering: Why keep an expensive tax incentive that does not incent?

The portion in bold is just flat wrong. These are tax-deferred accounts, where current contributions are made with pre-tax dollars and are taxed at withdrawal, at the rate for that taxpayer at the time of withdrawal. The money will most certainly be taxed later on, even if it isn't being taxed now.

Moreover, the whole conclusion of the study quoted by this article is directly refuted by the article itself. Let's erroneously assume that the government actually "spends" $100 billion/year (a monumental misconception, to be certain) in deductions for contributions to these types of accounts, which have been around for 30 years or so. The aggregate deductions for retirement accounts obviously hasn't been $100 B/year from their inception to now...in the early years, whatever current revenue may have been forgone by the federal government was no doubt far less than $100 B/year. Yet, there is now a total of $10 trillion dollars held in these accounts today, which is $10 T in capital that would not have existed otherwise.

These accounts, contrary to the article's premise, have accumulated capital far faster and to a far greater extent than if the contributions had been taxed in the year they were made. The very existence of a capital pool in excess of $10 trillion that would not have existed but for the presence of the tax-deferred accounts undercuts the whole premise of the study.

Now, what I would deem to be a clear waste of federal money is any tax dollars thrown at the jacklegs who came to these erroneous conclusions.

The portion in bold is just flat wrong. These are tax-deferred accounts, where current contributions are made with pre-tax dollars and are taxed at withdrawal, at the rate for that taxpayer at the time of withdrawal. The money will most certainly be taxed later on, even if it isn't being taxed now.

There is one category of assets/funds in IRA's or 401(k)'s that meet this description: The ROI in Roth 401(k) or Roth IRA. I believe that's what the article is referring to.

An example: you contribute $5,000 to a Roth IRA this year (that's the maximum, if you are under 50). You will have paid income taxes on that contribution, because only earned income is eligible.

However, if you don't withdraw those funds for 20 years, and you get an average ROI of 7% per year (which isn't unreasonable), that original contribution will grow to nearly $20,000.

On withdrawal from the Roth IRA, you won't pay income taxes on any of it, as long as you don't withdraw it before the year you turn 59-1/2. That means that nearly $15,000 is never subject to income tax. Furthermore, there is no minimum required distribution, so you don't have to withdraw from it at all. Then, you can bequeath your Roth IRA to a spouse, child, grandchild, etc. If it is someone besides your spouse, they will have to start withdrawing from it within 5 years after your death, but the minimum required distribution rules apply and they can spread it over their entire remaining lifetime. And except for your original contributions, it will all be tax-free, aside from any estate tax that may have been assessed.

This article is laying the ground work. Note the trotting out of the old 80/20 rule:

"The Tax Policy Center in Washington has found that about 80% of retirement savings benefits flow to the top 20% of earners".

This is non surprise, because higher earners can afford to save more, and are more likely to understand the concept of saving for retirement tax deferred.

I have a friend with a lucrative union pension. He thinks 401k's are something only rich CEOs get, and that it allows them to save an unlimited amount of money tax free.

The number of people who believe this, along with those who currently have access to 401k's and perhaps even contribute to 401k's but think "The Rich" get bigger and better 401k's is large enough for Obama for get away with confiscating a portion of 401k's.

And make no mistake, he will not go after Federal Government Employee TSPs, since Federal Government Unions are a big contributor to Obama.