Huston55
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
This is another article in the recent NYT series on retirement.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/b...rs-opposition.html?ref=retirementspecial&_r=0
I'm not normally troubled by this kind of news but, this article troubles me greatly. It seems to be a (another?) signal that it might become more and more difficult to become FI and to FIRE. Here are some excerpts:
-----------------
IN his 2014 budget, President Obama proposed limiting how much money a person could put into a retirement account on a tax-deferred basis. The limit would be the amount needed to buy an annuity that pays a retiree the maximum allowed under a defined benefit plan. That is now $205,000 a year, which would translate to a balance limit of $3.4 million for someone who is 62, according to the administration. The formula would factor in not just defined-contribution plans, like 401(k) and individual retirement accounts, but also defined-benefit plans, or pensions.
But the number potentially affected grew considerably when the institute looked at the fine print of the White House budget proposal, popularly known as the Green Book. There the Treasury Department said the amount needed to buy that annuity worth $205,000 a year at 62 would be calculated at the end of each year and apply to everyone’s contributions for the next year, regardless of age.
At current rates of 4 percent, which are historically low, a 31-year-old with $1 million in his retirement accounts would bump against the cap to buy that annuity. However, if the assumed rates (used to calculate the future value of an account today) were 6 percent, then a 33-year-old with $500,000 in her retirement accounts would hit the cap, meaning no more tax-deferred savings that year. In an extreme case, a rate of 8 percent would mean a 25-year-old with $131,806 in a retirement account would hit the cap, though not many 25-year-olds have that kind of nest egg.
----------------
I'd like to read others' views. Mine is that this motivates the wrong behavior and, based on how little revenue it would actually raise, seems to be punitive.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/b...rs-opposition.html?ref=retirementspecial&_r=0
I'm not normally troubled by this kind of news but, this article troubles me greatly. It seems to be a (another?) signal that it might become more and more difficult to become FI and to FIRE. Here are some excerpts:
-----------------
IN his 2014 budget, President Obama proposed limiting how much money a person could put into a retirement account on a tax-deferred basis. The limit would be the amount needed to buy an annuity that pays a retiree the maximum allowed under a defined benefit plan. That is now $205,000 a year, which would translate to a balance limit of $3.4 million for someone who is 62, according to the administration. The formula would factor in not just defined-contribution plans, like 401(k) and individual retirement accounts, but also defined-benefit plans, or pensions.
But the number potentially affected grew considerably when the institute looked at the fine print of the White House budget proposal, popularly known as the Green Book. There the Treasury Department said the amount needed to buy that annuity worth $205,000 a year at 62 would be calculated at the end of each year and apply to everyone’s contributions for the next year, regardless of age.
At current rates of 4 percent, which are historically low, a 31-year-old with $1 million in his retirement accounts would bump against the cap to buy that annuity. However, if the assumed rates (used to calculate the future value of an account today) were 6 percent, then a 33-year-old with $500,000 in her retirement accounts would hit the cap, meaning no more tax-deferred savings that year. In an extreme case, a rate of 8 percent would mean a 25-year-old with $131,806 in a retirement account would hit the cap, though not many 25-year-olds have that kind of nest egg.
----------------
I'd like to read others' views. Mine is that this motivates the wrong behavior and, based on how little revenue it would actually raise, seems to be punitive.