Legislation to Increase iBond limit to $30,000/year

[cyber888]

Just saw that there's an initiative in the Senate to raise the iBond purchasing limit to $30,000 from $10,000

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/senators-fighting-help-buy-more-185434555.html

 

[jazz4cash]

That’s great news but I don’t understand why the increased limit is tied to CPI.

“It would raise the limit to $30,000 in I bonds purchased each year if the average six-month annual Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers exceeds 3.5%. Americans would still be able to purchase up to $5,000 in paper I bonds.”

 

[Car-Guy]

I know this won't come across very well here, but honestly, it's "still" just not enough....

 

[luckydude]

I know this won't come across very well here, but honestly, it's "still" just not enough....

+1

I didn't know anything about iBond until DW brought it to my attention a month ago. Went through all the threads on this forum. I think it's a good place to park some $, but given that we already have a bunch of other stuff to manage, one more account with $10k limit (?) just seems like it's more hassle than it's worth. $30k would be better but not by much.

Maybe the gov't can do something a bit different such as allowing purchase of a larger amount within a certain number of years, so that an individual can purchase one single iBond with a larger amount within an x-year period instead of a bunch of individual $10k iBonds pp/year, that would make it much easier to manage.

 

[Jerry1]

I know this won't come across very well here, but honestly, it's "still" just not enough....

It would be nice, but it would still take a few years for even a couple to get enough for critical mass. I’d probably buy about $500K so with me and DW we’d be looking at 8+ years. A little less if we used the tax return to get the extra $5K. So, I agree, still not enough to make a material difference.

 

[Surewhitey]

I would have done 30+30+30+5, so not chump change for me. Sole proprietor here...

 

[Montecfo]

As a former naysayer on iBonds, this would make a difference.

 

[jollystomper]

I know this won't come across very well here, but honestly, it's "still" just not enough....

There is a feeling, held by more than a few, that raising the limit by a lot without restriction (or removing it) will only help those already "rich", and increase the "inequality gap".

 

[F.I.R.E User]

Might as well raise the interest rate to 20%.

 

[Sunset]

That’s great news but I don’t understand why the increased limit is tied to CPI.

“It would raise the limit to $30,000 in I bonds purchased each year if the average six-month annual Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers exceeds 3.5%. Americans would still be able to purchase up to $5,000 in paper I bonds.”

Weird isn't it. It's like the gov't doesn't want folks to save too much $$ in normal times.

 

[Montecfo]

There is a feeling, held by more than a few, that raising the limit by a lot without restriction (or removing it) will only help those already "rich", and increase the "inequality gap".

Inequality is expected. Poverty is what should be the true enemy.

But I am not sure how ibonds could be a villain in your mind any more than any other investment. Most investments are not restricted. People who do not buy iBonds presumably would buy those, resulting in the same issue you identify as a problem.

I do not see that.

 

[jollystomper]

Inequality is expected. Poverty is what should be the true enemy.

But I am not sure how ibonds could be a villain in your mind any more than any other investment. Most investments are not restricted. People who do not buy iBonds presumably would buy those, resulting in the same issue you identify as a problem.

I do not see that.

They are not a "villain in my mind". You did not read my post carefully. It is not about *me*. I am making a statement about the reality of how *some people* feel, not how I feel .

I personally love I-Bonds and wish the limit would be higher. But some people - those who believe income inequality is the issue, which include a notable number of legislators - feel that only those who already have the money to put more into I-Bonds would benefit from it. The fact that they are already investing to the limit and could put more in is interpreted as "rich". This is analogous to the "tax cuts only help the well off" thinking.

That, in my view, is why the proposed legislation raises the limit relatively slightly, and only under certain conditions. It is a shame how complex legislation has to be, but to say any more would be putting bacon in the grill .

 

[jim584672]

The verbiage of the proposal...

https://www.warner.senate.gov/publi.../A044291C79FD6288056572014D55032B.i-bonds.pdf

 

[jldavid47]

I predict this never passes.

 

[Gumby]

MODERATOR NOTE: Most legislative proposals never do become law (~5%), which is why the moderators discourage discussions until a bill has been reported out of committee and has more than a snowball's chance in hell of being relevant to any of us. We can revive this discussion when and if that ever occurs.