Posted on 02/21/2020 7:48:27 AM PST by Kaslin
WASHINGTON - “Like grave robbers opening King Tut’s tomb, Congress can’t wait to get its hands on America’s retirement account assets,” the Wall Street Journal warned taxpayers last year.
The warning was contained in an article written by Philip DeMuth, author of “The Overtaxed Investor: Slash Your Tax Bill and Be a Tax Alpha Dog.”
He was writing about the House-passed Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act, known by its less than honest acronym, “SECURE.”
If you have laid aside investment funds for your kids to inherit to help them out after you’ve passed away, there will be precious little left for them once the IRS gets its hands on your hard-earned money.
That’s because the Secure Act President Trump signed into law earlier this month “changes the way beneficiaries will receive money from inherited retirement accounts.”
This is because the new rules, according to Market Watch, “say beneficiaries of qualified retirement accounts, such as individual retirement accounts (IRAs) and 401(k) plans, need to withdraw all of the money out of those accounts within 10 years, instead of over their life expectancy as was previously allowed.”
“There are no required minimum distributions within that time frame, but the account balance must be zero after the 10th year,” the financial website tells us.
“Stretching the withdrawal over the beneficiary’s life expectancy — the so-called stretch IRA provision — meant paying less in taxes, whereas the new rule threatens to result in higher tax bills, especially if the inheritor is in [his or her] peak earning years,” Marketwatch says.
Parents set aside earnings over their working years to help them through their retirement, health care and deal with their elderly needs, while their investments can grow to the point where they’re able to leave an inheritance for their kids.
“A parent could die with the knowledge that, whatever vicissitudes their children might experience in life, they won’t have to worry about retirement,” the opinion piece points out. Or if one or more of their children suffer from some illness or disability, they will have enough income to care for their needs.
But “Congress wants to kill this,” DeMuth’s piece points out. “The Secure Act gives nonspouse beneficiaries 10 years to pull out all the money in an IRA. The effect would be to make more of an IRA subject to higher taxes sooner, as [tax] distributions are made in supersize chunks.”
“As much as one-third more of an inherited IRA would get gobbled up by taxes than under current rules. When the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act expires in 2025, taxes will rise across the board,” DeMuth writes.
Now that the president has signed the new tax system into law, the stage will be set for a brutal tax system in the next decade.
The Secure Act “would be an estate-planning catastrophe for people with significant IRAs,” DeMuth continues in his blistering piece for the Journal. “It would take sensible planning done up until now and stand it on its head. In the past, an IRA owner might have established a trust if his intended beneficiaries were young.
Under the Secure Act, IRAs will no longer be subject to annual required minimum distributions, so an IRA of $1 million placed in a trust for the benefit of an 8-year-old could conceivably receive nothing for nine years.”
“Then at year 10, by law, the IRA would have to pay out everything. Now the young beneficiary turns 18, and suddenly he gets a windfall. With a decade of additional compound growth, the original IRA could have grown to $2 million or more. All is delivered in one year, so most of it is taxed in the highest brackets.”
The dismal result, DeMuth writes, is that this would “shoehorn the distributions into higher brackets, accelerate the collection of tax revenue, and eliminate the ‘problem’ of the inherited IRA. Best of all, politicians would get to accomplish all this without voting to raise taxes.”
Bkmk.
Isn’t this what was called a death tax? Also how do they determine if the money put in to these accounts was pre-tax or not? This is almost as bad as the Social Security System. If it is not one its another that the politicians want your money.
We have 2 checking accounts with POD’s attached for SS CHECKS, HIS NAVY PENSION, WE PAY BILLS OUT OF and 2 small by the less most $120 K trust funds. None of it adds up to a lot, and both of us are drawing our small IRA’s now. How does it affect trust funds? Funds are in Annuities, till 1 of us dies.
I read the little article and I’m still looking for the positives.
Written by a democrap, sponsored and promoted by the insurance association. What could be wrong with it for the consumer?
Fluff and stuff and then a big hammer at the end. The RMD was not enough to get their hands on the money fast enough.
We are still a banana republic. One where there is no long term fixed set of taxation and laws for financial planning. We change tax policy ever 10 years whether we need to or not. It is lousy.
Our grandkids are our beneficiaries and we have instructions/hints in our wills advising them to transfer them into their own IRAs to get around any of the existing death taxes - and let them know that the IRS will demand some distributions earlier than if they had their own IRAs - looks like we will have to do some research and revamp...other accounts and cash from sale of our condo should help them with college if they so desire if they can keep the IRA status of the main portion of our estate safer for longer.
It almost sounds like the IRA owners should pull their funds out of there IRAs prior to death, take the tax hit at their lower rate as non-earners...THEN pass the funds on to their kids.
Commentators have been warning about this for a couple of decades.
At the end of the Bush43 administration, a CA Dem congresscritter openly said Congress was “going to have to tap” IRAs/401(k)s as a new source of revenue.
The positives were that more people can get involved in savings, at least according to the article. My guess is President trump needed the spending bill, and will look to regain the House to repeal the SECURE Act. Sometimes you have to take the long way around. Because it sure doesn’t sound like legislation that President Trump would support.
Seriously, just pull the money out in chunks as we go thru our “final” years...not all at once... and give to the kids using the IRS allowed “gift” exclusions. IRS gifting exclusions aren’t just for your kids, I don’t believe. They can go to sons-in-laws, daughters-in-laws, grandkids...
(I’m not a tax advisor nor did I spend the night at a Holiday Inn Express, so check with your own advisor!)
Getting people motivated to take care for themselves is scant praise for something that is so disruptive to financial planning for the few who do it or are able to do it.
That it may be repealed is a hopeful thought but doubtful. Consider what happens when ALL of these various tax cuts, including the corporate rate change, terminate in 2025 as I am given to understand they will. There are bigger fish to fry than the “secure” act in the one term that remains.
For a lot of people, it is not lack of motivation, but rather a lack of resources to employ someone who does understand how to grow your money, if they are not lucky enough to grasp it on their own. The vast majority of Americans are totally unprepared for retirement, while another large portion are underfunded for their own retirement, let alone passing on wealth to family members.
Bookmark
And that is because nobody is taught anything about it anymore and not taught why they should know it. It has also become over complicated.
Save for cars, college and homes. Invest for the future. Both use different methods.
What a shame we are teaching children so little in screwl. I quiz the kids here about what they have learned at screwl when the come here for work. It is very very little of any consequence but they all know a whole lot about some kind of sports. Wonderful.
I’ve told several they should just quit screwl and take up a trade. That would really be true if the trades have not become so technical.
I have no argument with you there. Like I said I think President Trump signed this into law because it was bundled into the budget, and that if he should get a Republican House back and keep a republican Senate, he will ask them to end it. If not then I guess he messed up, from the overall sound of it act.
I imagine the amounts and other circumstances would make a difference in how to bets handle it...I’m gonna get with “my guy” (longtime personal friend who is in the business) and see what changes we need to make.
Best suggestion yet...got to look out for the kIds.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.