bada bing
Full time employment: Posting here.
For me it will be 75.
Does anyone know the reasoning behind the change?
Prelude to pushing FRA out to 70 ?
Nah, too much forethought.
For me it will be 75.
Does anyone know the reasoning behind the change?
Every actuarial table I've seen recently shows we Americans are dieing sooner, not later.Forbes says longevity too as well as the risk cost of retirement - a play I guess on higher inflation.
The new rule never applied to folks who turned 72 in 2022, so how do you figure you got screwed? Because they didn’t come up with the rule change in 2021?Those of us that had to start the year before the rules changed, just got screwed. No way to delay.
I have to assume they’ll correct the 1959 discrepancy before it actually hits, hopefully long before for planning purposes.I'm another 1959 baby. But I'm not going to worry about it until 2032.
I have to assume they’ll correct the 1959 discrepancy before it actually hits, hopefully long before for planning purposes.
Unfortunately our local tax expert friend here on this forum Cathy, also quoting Kitces on the topic, believes that any correction will clarify that it’s 73 for us 1959 babies - so basically no difference. At least we get 1 more year.I have to assume they’ll correct the 1959 discrepancy before it actually hits, hopefully long before for planning purposes.
How much $ do you think you got screwed? Eventually you or your heirs are going to pay all of the deferred tax. You could have delayed it 1 to 3 years, but it would (probably) grow more and cause more taxes. Or you could have converted some to a Roth in place of the RMD. Would you have done that? This would protect any additional gains from being taxed, but so would step up basis if you never used the distributed funds.Those of us that had to start the year before the rules changed, just got screwed. No way to delay.