Skip to comments.With Budget Proposal Obama Tells Us What Is A ‘Reasonable’ Amount To Have In Retirement Accounts
Posted on 04/06/2013 12:51:50 PM PDT by smoothsailing
With his budget proposal, President Obama has told us what he believes is a “reasonable” amount to have in a retirement account. $3 million is the number he chose.
According to a White House statement, the Obama administration believes the current rules allow some wealthy individuals “to accumulate many millions of dollars in these accounts, substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving.”
“The budget would limit an individuals total balance across tax-preferred accounts to an amount sufficient to finance an annuity of not more than $205,000 per year in retirement, or about $3 million in 2013,” the statement said. “This proposal would raise $9 billion over 10 years.”
Brian Graff, executive director and chief executive officer of the American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries, told Bloomberg News his group intends to “vigorously oppose” the proposal. (Read More)
Progressives have had their eyes on Americans’ retirement accounts for quite some time. I guess Obama sees this as a good place to start. Or maybe it’s just a major jab at Mitt Romney.
President Obamas budget, to be released next week, will limit how much wealthy individuals like Mitt Romney can keep in IRAs and other retirement accounts. …
Romney, Obamas 2012 opponent, had an IRA several to many times that amount, leading to questions about how the former Massachusetts governor was able to squirrel away so much money in that sort of retirement account. (Read More)
Where does that moronic imbecile have the right to tell free citizens what they can or cannot have in their retirement accounts?
Is this a comedy act?
Money can walk — trying to finagle money out of the rich is a pointless exercise (remember the AMT?). Money can use money to figure a way around ANY and ALL attempts to take it.
The poor schmuck in the middle always gets it when progressives look to kill the Goose...
First, as to “$205,000 per year in retirement, or about $3 million in 2013,.
Where does he get those rates of return?
the statement said. This proposal would raise $9 billion over 10 years.
$9B in $50T unfunded liability isn’t near enough. What’s plan B?
Since Social Security is the largest public retirement account, folks will clamor to take from the haves to give to the have nots.
All the sacrifice I’ve made to live like no one else so that I could live like no one else, is for naught? Thanks a lot, America.
But I'm just guessing at the answer.
You’re right on the mark. Sounds good to the flatliners.
All the sacrifice Ive made to live like no one else so that I could live like no one else, is for naught?
Are you Dave Ramsey??
Seriously, we have gone completely around the bend here. This is like the old Midas commercial: Pay me now or pay me later except today it would be pay me now and pay me foreever.
Well, according to my accounts, our President does NOT have me in his sights (yet).
Aside from the ludicrous “savings”, I’m pretty sure there are yearly contribution limits of around $15k. What am I missing?
“Where does that moronic imbecile have the right to tell free citizens what they can or cannot have in their retirement accounts?”
He will write a RULE for the IRS to follow and it will happen. He dictates by writing RULES.
and , perhaps like Obama and his brilliant economists, these low-information voters have no clue to what happens to those ‘millions and millions” sitting in some greedy, evil rich person’s account.....
IT IS INVESTED IN CAPITALISM TO CREATE JOBS YOU MORONS!
Documentation File on the negative impact of the Obamanation Counterculture on America.
Social security is not a retirement account, it is welfare just like food stamps et al, and is subject to the whim of the DC politicians.
Many people believe that Social Security is an earned right. That is, they think that because they have paid Social Security taxes, they are entitled to receive Social Security benefits. The government encourages that belief by referring to Social Security taxes as contributions, as in the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. However, in the 1960 case of Fleming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that workers have no legally binding contractual rights to their Social Security benefits, and that those benefits can be cut or even eliminated at any time.
Nestor sued, claiming that because he had paid Social Security taxes, he had a right to Social Security benefits.
The Supreme Court disagreed, saying To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of accrued property rights would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever changing conditions which it demands. The Court went on to say, It is apparent that the non-contractual interest of an employee covered by the [Social Security] Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments.
The Courts decision was not surprising. In an earlier case, Helvering v. Davis (1937), the Court had ruled that Social Security was not a contributory insurance program, saying, The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way.
In other words, Social Security is not an insurance program at all. It is simply a payroll tax on one side and a welfare program on the other. Your Social Security benefits are always subject to the whim of 535 politicians in Washington.
As with everything liberal (er, now “progressive”), the person who controls the meaning of words and phrases gets to control the outcome of the debate. In this case, just what is meant by “reasonable”?
Many public sector union retirees who are on defined benefit plans have the equivalent of savings well in excess of $3 million.
Based on how many vacations they take, and their lavish lifestyle, a $3 million retirement account would not last very long for the Obama household.
So, what is “reasonable”? The fact is that people cannot save enough or invest wisely enough especially given the level of inflation that the rampant money-printing is going to eventually trigger. This is just more expropriation of other-people’s money to fund a government that has grown way too big for its britches, and its enumerated powers.
I can understand the voters falling for this ***hole’s BS once but falling for it twice was pure lunacy. I can understand why the commie libs don’t think the people living in the country can be trusted with firearms. Over half of the people living here are moronic lunatics and the DemocRATS know that. No people in their right minds would have elected this lying shyster.
Well, he’s a brilliant economist.
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.