I would think it most equitable to make this and other changes in such a way that folks don't get penalized for making decisions based on the old rules. So, say, the ability to pass along unlimited IRA holdings and proceeds from them that exist on the date the legislation passes would remain in place, new monies could be passed along under the new, more restrictive rules. Or, at very least, give people a significant window to adjust to the new rules. One person's "money grab" is another's "fair and reasonable adjustment," but making the rules "prospective" rather than affecting dough that has already been committed in a certain way under the old rules has merit, IMO. Nobody truly knows what the "intent" of the government was when the original law was passed, every legislator surely had a slightly different intent. All we can do is look at the law and the implementing rules and try to work with them.
Last edited:
). Our income will still, after taxes, be higher than it has ever been. But if our investments do poorly with our portfolio headed down and we are in the 12% or 10% bracket (or lower), I will very much miss any taxes I voluntarily pre-paid when the grass was greener (and will be very sorry I paid them, I promise). At that point, not only will we be in a lower bracket but, much more important, each buck will have higher utility (i.e. will be way more dear to us) than the dollars I gave the IRS years ago when we were flush. 
