Politics

[phgreek]

Whay is that too much? If teachers in Canada are well compensated, it tells me that Canada has its priorities right. They value education and believe the role of the teacher is important. The compensation of most teachers in the United States shows that we don't have our priorities right. I hear people point out all the time that our rankings in test scores in science and math are falling behind other countries, but that is to be expected if we will not make a more serious investment in our teachers. I wish our teachers were compensated as well as yours are.

here is why that won't happen...

So put together a string of logic that justifies 100K/year teachers...

One that the average person can comprehend...but understand that by definition at least HALF the voting block is dumber than that guy...and worried about getting his....and why teachers are doomed until they are free to show their value in an open market.

 

[DSully1995]

Why is that too much? If teachers in Canada are well compensated, it tells me that Canada has its priorities right. They value education and believe the role of the teacher is important. The compensation of most teachers in the United States shows that we don't have our priorities right. I hear people point out all the time that our rankings in test scores in science and math are falling behind other countries, but that is to be expected if we will not make a more serious investment in our teachers. I wish our teachers were compensated as well as yours are.

Touche, but our classes now are crowded because teachers are expensive, Canada isnt a prime example for education. Finland on the other hand, is. Master degrees small classes, teachers are renowned, thats a goal to shoot towards.

 

[Walter White]

Teachers do get too much in canada nearly 100k for the experienced, with the amount of free time availbale, the per hour is insane

I think teachers should be getting paid much higher, but I also think they should be more easily fired for under performance which granted, is hard to evaluate.

Admittedly, I am not an expert in this subject, but I would love to see great people attracted to the teaching profession and the bad teachers weeded out. Not sure the best way to get this done.

 

[GoIrish41]

The reason this is bad is because it allows said individuals and or entities to accumulate insane ammounts of power and influence that goes hand and hand with accumulating that much wealth. This in turn allows these individuals and or entities to distort and manipulate not only markets in their favor but the political process and social institutions as well and it becomes a self reinforcing feedback loop. This is critical and something that nobody seems to want to talk about. Can all you Econ folks please start placing such pronouncements into some sort of social and historic context? Thanks.

I completley agree with this. 67% percent of all super PAC donations during the last elections cycle came from just 209 donors. Does anyone actually believe that those 209 people didn't expect something in return?

 

[GoIrish41]

here is why that won't happen...

So put together a string of logic that justifies 100K/year teachers...

One that the average person can comprehend...but understand that by definition at least HALF the voting block is dumber than that guy...and worried about getting his....and why teachers are doomed until they are free to show their value in an open market.

If we continue to skimp on our investment in education, we will continue to get what we pay for. I agree that that is a heavy lift, but by the time this country realizes that by offering little more than a living wage to teachers, we are discouraging many of the best and brightest from choosing this profession that is absolutely essential to the future of this nation.

 

[Buster Bluth]

You can pay teachers however much you want. I just was a complete voucher system for any school that is even mediocre, or worse.

 

[Bluto]

ah so wielding undue Power and influence are the problems...

so the solution is to attack the mechanism(s) of wealth accumulation you assume enables that activity...

This is perfect logic for bringing down organized crime...and it has worked well.

Not sure that logic works for dealing with an entire system that contains likely more honest folks than dishonest.

Seems to me OWS had some inkling of what you identify was the problem, and miraculously, while unorganized, and unable to clearly articulate it...they had a real sense of it. Its when leaders used the movement to vilify rich folks in general we run headlong into stupidity of today's rhetoric.

It's not much of an assumption really. Does anyone honestly think that if George W Bush had been born into a working class family in say Waco, TX that he would have become President? I personally do not. If you look at the events leading up to the 2008 financial meltdown it is pretty clear that large financial institutions had a huge amount of undue influence over regulatory policy.

Anyhow, I'm not pointing this criticism at say the average millionaire. People should not however, be able to accumulate tens of billions in personal wealth and pass that down generationally in my opinion. Not only does that begin to concentrate power as I stated before but it also allows for the creatation of a defacto nuevo royalty of sorts that is completely detached from the rest of society. Same goes for all these screw ball foundations these billionaires set up to champion their pet causes.

As for corporations I feel they should be severely limited in their ability to participate in the political process vis a vis donations and or lobbying. Too bad a few memebers of the Supreme Court seem to think otherwise.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Yep, the average beginning salary for a teacher is roughly $30,000 per year. Republican governors have made sure that teachers that stay in the profession will still be making that after 10, 20, 30 years. Teachers will be unable to buy a home and support a family, let alone retire. Teaching will become a second income for the family, because no one will be able to live on a teacher's salary if they intend to have children and raise a family.

After you deduct $3000 for contributions to retirement programs, $5000 for health insurance, and $8,000 - $12,000 for various taxes, the beginning teacher gets to take home less than $20,000 per year.

Employees, who work full-time at fast food restaurants, will be earning more than teachers. If teachers were really out for themselves they sure wouldn't enter the teaching profession. Also, spare me the **** about teachers having summers off. They are required to continue getting graduate credit (at their own expense) and most teachers attend classes in the summer to keep their teaching credentials up-to-date.

I guess we are longing for the days when only single women could teach. Of course, someone in the community will have to provide room and board for the teachers, since they won't be able to afford a home and pay utilities.

Obviously, I'm a teacher. Those who think teachers are getting rich should look around. At best, teachers live in middle class neighborhoods, and then only if they have two incomes. They certainly aren't living there on a single teacher's salary. They are the most underpaid people with Master's degrees plus in the country.

Obviously, all they care about is keeping the lavish lifestyle that $30,000 per year provides.

My beef is with teachers unions, not teachers specifically. Can't paint "teachers" with that big of a brush.

1) That national average for salary is misleading. Starting salaries can range anywhere from $30,000 to $55,000 depending on geographics. Small rural towns in PA might start at $32k but I guarantee you that the wealthy suburbs of Philly (Central Bucks, Methacton, Lower Merion) start teachers between $50k and $55k. Not to mention the sweet benefits and pension supplied by the taxpayers. That's what's really bankrupting many schools. It isn't the salaries, but the benefits and pensions that aren't sustainable long term.

2) I spent three years in education and left, with the unions being one of the main reasons. They protect the worst teachers (as long as they pay dues) and don't give a damn about the kids. Unions' leaders job is to gain more members = more money = contributions to political campaigns (let's be real...they're for Democrats). Union leaders don't give a rip about these kids. Most teachers do.

3) Teachers absolutely do get summers off, and even though they are required to take courses, they aren't required to do it during summer. Also, some districts PAY for that. Don't give the impression that every teacher foots the bill on their own. Every district is different.

4) The majority of educators are in it for the right reasons and deserve everyone's respect. There are a few who get lazy and complacent after obtaining tenure and the students suffer.

5) Most importantly, no one forces anyone to be a teacher. If you think you're underpaid or you deserve more for your Master's degree plus, take your skills and labor to a school/ district who wants to pay you what you believe you should be paid. When states get to the point where public sector employees make more than private sector employees (see Wisconsin), you're going to have severe budget issues quickly and all hell will break loose.

*** Might be a good time to start a thread on education.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

I think teachers should be getting paid much higher, but I also think they should be more easily fired for under performance which granted, is hard to evaluate.

Admittedly, I am not an expert in this subject, but I would love to see great people attracted to the teaching profession and the bad teachers weeded out. Not sure the best way to get this done.

We could start with actually taking away the pension from the teacher who fed semen to all his students while they were blindfolded. (As of now he'll get $48,000 a year for the rest of his life).

It already took $30k just to fire him. (That is one hell of a union rep).

L.A. teacher suspected of lewd conduct keeps benefits - latimes.com

 

[Bluto]

Here's a thought. We should make it really, really hard to be a teacher then pay them a whole bunch of money that way we could issue a bunch of H-1 visas to have qualified individuals from India teach kids here English and US History using those shoddy textbooks that the Texas School Board is pushing. Wouldn't that be fantastic?

 

[phgreek]

It's not much of an assumption really. Does anyone honestly think that if George W Bush had been born into a working class family in say Waco, TX that he would have become President? I personally do not..

...wait a minute, someone..., can't put my finger on it...

Oh Yea, 2008, its coming back to me...
apparently you CAN come from humble beginnings (and have 0 "credentials") and be president...so yea W was a likeable guy (seems to be the watermark)...

If you look at the events leading up to the 2008 financial meltdown it is pretty clear that large financial institutions had a huge amount of undue influence over regulatory policy.

Agree

Anyhow, I'm not pointing this criticism at say the average millionaire. People should not however, be able to accumulate tens of billions in personal wealth and pass that down generationally in my opinion. Not only does that begin to concentrate power as I stated before but it also allows for the creatation of a defacto nuevo royalty of sorts that is completely detached from the rest of society. Same goes for all these screw ball foundations these billionaires set up to champion their pet causes.

Personally, I don't care if ultra wealthy people isolate themselves. I don't care how detached they are. Money only = power when there are politics/politicians intertwined with the money. Thus, I care when they can manipulate elections/policies...but I assign blame differently. You say rich people (or really rich people I guess), but I didn't give any of them my trust, nor do I have an expectation regarding their behavior...Seems like you think folks need a wealth ceiling...I think we need public executions of dirty politicians (ok not quite...but I'd join in some tar and feather action)

Sooo, lets apply the ceiling logic to another issue of trust... how would we deal with an adulterous wife???? I guess we'd say no one can have a penis > 6 inches to tempt her with...??? Then what happens when she gets caught with the female gardener...You know the point here...all joking aside...the problem is the character of the person who made the commitment...the politicians like an adulterous partner will find another "currency", so to speak...why not deal with the real problem. Its not wealth...its not the desires of unscrupulous wealthy people...its the actions of those who hold the public trust.

Yea its hard to fix that...yea money is a player...but we both know money isn't the problem.

I still believe there are those "generational" wealthy folks who came by it honestly, and don't try and use it in clandestine, subversive, or traitorous ways...so as long as I think they are out there, I will continue to believe limiting/punishing wealth is wrong, and even unconstitutional.

...to me this is a giant case of you get the representation and thus the country you deserve...if the electorate would be vigilant enough to lock down the politicians, and suddenly agencies could do their regulatory jobs free from "influence", then the money starts to distribute itself more tightly tied to merit...and we do not victimize otherwise innocent folks for having too much money...not anyone's job to decide what too much is...JMHO.

As for corporations I feel they should be severely limited in their ability to participate in the political process vis a vis donations and or lobbying. Too bad a few memebers of the Supreme Court seem to think otherwise.

Agree

 

[irishpat183]

This is criminal....Who the hell gets to decide how much YOU need for retirement and what kind of lifestyle you want when you stop working???


And of course it won't apply to politicans


Poor Richard's News - Obama seeks to cap retirement accounts so that no individual saves “more than is needed”

 

[GoIrish41]

This is criminal....Who the hell gets to decide how much YOU need for retirement and what kind of lifestyle you want when you stop working???


And of course it won't apply to politicans


Poor Richard's News - Obama seeks to cap retirement accounts so that no individual saves “more than is needed”

The way I read it is that he is suggesting that we don't continue to give tax breaks to retirement accounts over $3 million. The "more than is needed" phrasing was by the author of this blog, I think.

Also, I don't think that the president's retirement includes tens of millions of dollars in benefits.

 

[phgreek]

The way I read it is that he is suggesting that we don't continue to give tax breaks to retirement accounts over $3 million. The "more than is needed" phrasing was by the author of this blog, I think.

Also, I don't think that the president's retirement includes tens of millions of dollars in benefits.

How much do you think it costs to have a secret service detail 24/7 for life...and all the logistical support behind it...these details are not a one size fits all, but rather developed on a case by case basis...I would suspect because of the "mandate" he acts like he has, and the droning of the mid east...he will need heavy security for 15 years or better AFTER he leaves office...whats that cost?

oh and 3M sounds arbitrary, and is thus, in my mind, discriminatory

 

[Black Irish]

The way I read it is that he is suggesting that we don't continue to give tax breaks to retirement accounts over $3 million. The "more than is needed" phrasing was by the author of this blog, I think.

Also, I don't think that the president's retirement includes tens of millions of dollars in benefits.

A lifetime Secret Service detail and a taxpayer funded office of his choosing. I'm sure there are others. Throw it all together and, with a relatively young former president, I can see Obama's post-White House life costing tens of millions in retirement perks.

 

[Black Irish]

...wait a minute, someone..., can't put my finger on it...

Oh Yea, 2008, its coming back to me...
apparently you CAN come from humble beginnings (and have 0 "credentials") and be president...so yea W was a likeable guy (seems to be the watermark)...




Agree



Personally, I don't care if ultra wealthy people isolate themselves. I don't care how detached they are. Money only = power when there are politics/politicians intertwined with the money. Thus, I care when they can manipulate elections/policies...but I assign blame differently. You say rich people (or really rich people I guess), but I didn't give any of them my trust, nor do I have an expectation regarding their behavior...Seems like you think folks need a wealth ceiling...I think we need public executions of dirty politicians (ok not quite...but I'd join in some tar and feather action)

Sooo, lets apply the ceiling logic to another issue of trust... how would we deal with an adulterous wife???? I guess we'd say no one can have a penis > 6 inches to tempt her with...??? Then what happens when she gets caught with the female gardener...You know the point here...all joking aside...the problem is the character of the person who made the commitment...the politicians like an adulterous partner will find another "currency", so to speak...why not deal with the real problem. Its not wealth...its not the desires of unscrupulous wealthy people...its the actions of those who hold the public trust.

Yea its hard to fix that...yea money is a player...but we both know money isn't the problem.

I still believe there are those "generational" wealthy folks who came by it honestly, and don't try and use it in clandestine, subversive, or traitorous ways...so as long as I think they are out there, I will continue to believe limiting/punishing wealth is wrong, and even unconstitutional.

...to me this is a giant case of you get the representation and thus the country you deserve...if the electorate would be vigilant enough to lock down the politicians, and suddenly agencies could do their regulatory jobs free from "influence", then the money starts to distribute itself more tightly tied to merit...and we do not victimize otherwise innocent folks for having too much money...not anyone's job to decide what too much is...JMHO.




Agree

Solid post. Reps.

And it's not just the ultra-rich corrupting the process with their outsized influence. How about all of those advocacy groups that politicians trip all over themselves to please in order to get an endorsement? Unions, the AARP, the NRA, etc.

 

[GoIrish41]

How much do you think it costs to have a secret service detail 24/7 for life...and all the logistical support behind it...these details are not a one size fits all, but rather developed on a case by case basis...I would suspect because of the "mandate" he acts like he has, and the droning of the mid east...he will need heavy security for 15 years or better AFTER he leaves office...whats that cost?

oh and 3M sounds arbitrary, and is thus, in my mind, discriminatory

Discriminatory against who? Cutting Social Security and Medicare is discriminatory because it unfairly affects elderly people. Cutting Medicaid and food stamps is discriminatory because it unfairly attacks poor people. Cutting unemployment tax benefits is discriminatory because it unfarily affects unemployed people. This law affects everyone and, in my way of thinking, can't be discriminatory. ... unless you are suggesting it unfairly affects people with more than $3 million, in which case you won't get much sympathy from me. I've heard the GOP say too many times that it is time to get serious about reducing the deficit, but everything that isn't taking food out of the mouths of poor people or the elderly seems to be out of bounds. This seems like a perfectly reasonable proposal.

 

[phgreek]

Discriminatory against who? Like the tax loopholes that only the very rich can exploit? If the law is the same for everyone, how is that discriminatory?

Well, just what I said...3M seems arbitrary...arbitrary is bad and normally a sign of discriminatory behavior...additionally...what behavior is this cap intended to encourage? Is that consistent with any principles supportive of a free, or free market nation???


EDIT:I see you updated your post after I responded, so I'm not just picking one part and ignoring stuff. Your updated post says:

Discriminatory against who? Cutting Social Security and Medicare is discriminatory because it unfairly affects elderly people. Cutting Medicaid and food stamps is discriminatory because it unfairly attacks poor people. Cutting unemployment tax benefits is discriminatory because it unfarily affects unemployed people. This law affects everyone and, in my way of thinking, can't be discriminatory. ... unless you are suggesting it unfairly affects people with more than $3 million, in which case you won't get much sympathy from me. I've heard the GOP say too many times that it is time to get serious about reducing the deficit, but everything that isn't taking food out of the mouths of poor people or the elderly seems to be out of bounds. This seems like a perfectly reasonable proposal.


Cutting benefits to entitlement programs is not even remotely the same thing in my eyes. The government sure as hell should not be encouraging people to bring their families into the entitlement fold...I think we'd agree. Its arguable rather they should be encouraging people to do much of anything, however the idea of encouraging folks to amass wealth so that they may stand w/o the government, and maybe even make it so their family will never need the government certainly has merit and has a hope of being beneficial. It is with that goal in mind these "incentives" exist. You can't simply say because both entitlements and incentives can be reduced to dollars they are equivalent...that logic hurts my head dude.

 

[phgreek]

Solid post. Reps.

And it's not just the ultra-rich corrupting the process with their outsized influence. How about all of those advocacy groups that politicians trip all over themselves to please in order to get an endorsement? Unions, the AARP, the NRA, etc.

...yes agree...the odd thing is I think the advocacy groups are a great idea...its how they are used that is a bad deal. I don't like to see politicians enrich themselves by association with these groups or feather their nest for a career after politics etc. But I think at a basic level these groups serve to help politicians stay out of the echo chamber...they even provide education/information on various issues. But we face influence peddling because politicians are buying whats being sold so-to-speak.

...the curious part...I think Many, many of the advocacy groups evaporate if the government would simply recede to its intended purpose, and DO THAT WELL.

 

[irishpat183]

The way I read it is that he is suggesting that we don't continue to give tax breaks to retirement accounts over $3 million. The "more than is needed" phrasing was by the author of this blog, I think.
Also, I don't think that the president's retirement includes tens of millions of dollars in benefits.

No, Obama actually did say that.

The point is....WHO THE HELL GETS TO TELL ME HOW MUCH I "NEED" FOR RETIREMENT?

I mean, can anyone be dim enough to actually agree with Obama on this issue?

When did it become ok for government to tell me how much money they think is enough for me? Or any citizen for that matter?


It's unreal. Work your *** off all of your life and then be told that you've saved too much. The government ougth to be shaking your damn hand for not having to depend on it for your retirment.

 

[DSully1995]

No, Obama actually did say that.

The point is....WHO THE HELL GETS TO TELL ME HOW MUCH I "NEED" FOR RETIREMENT?

I mean, can anyone be dim enough to actually agree with Obama on this issue?

When did it become ok for government to tell me how much money they think is enough for me? Or any citizen for that matter?


It's unreal. Work your *** off all of your life and then be told that you've saved too much. The government ougth to be shaking your damn hand for not having to depend on it for your retirment.

Devils advocate (proly literally in your eyes), those tax reduced plans are to help struggling families save for retirement so that the gov doesnt need to come same them. And anyone well on their feet would shift these saving into other savngs account, just being taxed at a normal rate.

 

[phgreek]

No, Obama actually did say that.

The point is....WHO THE HELL GETS TO TELL ME HOW MUCH I "NEED" FOR RETIREMENT?

I mean, can anyone be dim enough to actually agree with Obama on this issue?

When did it become ok for government to tell me how much money they think is enough for me? Or any citizen for that matter?


It's unreal. Work your *** off all of your life and then be told that you've saved too much. The government ougth to be shaking your damn hand for not having to depend on it for your retirment.

Absolutely IP...

I hate that the government is in the business of encouraging behaviors with its policies (outside the normal intent of laws), however if we must, let us at least do so in ways that promote freedom and a free market. What behavior EXACTLY, does capping promote. To me its punitive, the chosen number will always be arbitrary, and encourages nothing beneficial.

 

[Ndaccountant]

This is criminal....Who the hell gets to decide how much YOU need for retirement and what kind of lifestyle you want when you stop working???


And of course it won't apply to politicans


Poor Richard's News - Obama seeks to cap retirement accounts so that no individual saves “more than is needed”

Here is a good summar of what is going on.

Romney’s IRA Obama Target for Revenue With $3 Million Cap - Bloomberg

Personally, it would be really short sighted to implement a cap. As the article mentioned, once small business owners reach the cap, there is limited incentive to keep providing a robust plan for employees, especially considering most people in this country save jack ****.

I don't see what the big deal is with traditional IRA's and 401k's. The government is going to get the money one way or another. Where I do see a problem is with Roth IRA's. In 2010, the income limit for IRA conversions was lifted, thus basically eliminating any income limits on roth IRA's. So what ended up happening was a bunch of investors who could afford taking the one time tax hit converted balances to Roth Balances, thus enabling them to really skirt taxes. I have no idea why Congress signed this into law other than they wanted the tax revenue from the conversions up front to plug defecit holes and artifically lower government borrowing.

My proposal would be to impose a tax on a % of the earnings in Roth IRA's for those with a balance over a figure, like $3m, indexed for inflation. It wouldn't be major, but something like 15% of the taxable value, so 15% of the dividend rate or LT capital gains rate.

I know this really winds up some people, myself included. But, in order to preserve the benefits of these vehicles for the general public, we need something like this. Without it, the incredible short sighted nature of Congress will kill it for everyone.

 

[phgreek]

Here is a good summar of what is going on.

Romney’s IRA Obama Target for Revenue With $3 Million Cap - Bloomberg

Personally, it would be really short sighted to implement a cap. As the article mentioned, once small business owners reach the cap, there is limited incentive to keep providing a robust plan for employees, especially considering most people in this country save jack ****.

I don't see what the big deal is with traditional IRA's and 401k's. The government is going to get the money one way or another. Where I do see a problem is with Roth IRA's. In 2010, the income limit for IRA conversions was lifted, thus basically eliminating any income limits on roth IRA's. So what ended up happening was a bunch of investors who could afford taking the one time tax hit converted balances to Roth Balances, thus enabling them to really skirt taxes. I have no idea why Congress signed this into law other than they wanted the tax revenue from the conversions up front to plug defecit holes and artifically lower government borrowing.

My proposal would be to impose a tax on a % of the earnings in Roth IRA's for those with a balance over a figure, like $3m, indexed for inflation. It wouldn't be major, but something like 15% of the taxable value, so 15% of the dividend rate or LT capital gains rate.

I know this really winds up some people, myself included. But, in order to preserve the benefits of these vehicles for the general public, we need something like this. Without it, the incredible short sighted nature of Congress will kill it for everyone.

The entire point behind Roth IRAs was that you already paid your taxes. Some people actually did the math that included tax risk beyond what would normally be projected with 401Ks, and Chose the Roth route over getting deferred status and a match in a 401k because in the end they projected it a better risk move to know their tax liability in the out years. People who did Roths had a particular approach in mind and have executed it for YEARS. NOW, how many years into this, its OK to simply change the entire structure on people...meh, just kidding, your Roth growth will now be taxed...you have enough because we, the government said so. Yea well I'm here because the government said so... You can't fvck w/ people like that ...

I see the issue of taking one for the team...don't get me wrong...but this is precisely the kind of thing the government does and totally loses people because like I said, it was the government's hand that encouraged these decisions in the first place...not a fan.

 

[Ndaccountant]

The entire point behind Roth IRAs was that you already paid your taxes. Some people actually did the math that included tax risk beyond what would normally be projected with 401Ks, and Chose the Roth route over getting deferred status and a match in a 401k because in the end they projected it a better risk move to know their tax liability in the out years. People who did Roths had a particular approach in mind and have executed it for YEARS. NOW, how many years into this, its OK to simply change the entire structure on people...meh, just kidding, your Roth growth will now be taxed...you have enough because we, the government said so. Yea well I'm here because the government said so... You can't fvck w/ people like that ...

I see the issue of taking one for the team...don't get me wrong...but this is precisely the kind of thing the government does and totally loses people because like I said, it was the government's hand that encouraged these decisions in the first place...not a fan.

I understand why Roths were created and still want them to be so. However, what Roths were intended to be and what they are now are two totally different things.

Read the attached article and ask yourself is this what Roth IRA's were designed to be?

I think a reasonable cap is needed or rules need to be amended where you can only have publicly traded investments.

How A Serial Entrepreneur Built A $95 Million Tax Free Roth IRA - Forbes

 

[phgreek]

I understand why Roths were created and still want them to be so. However, what Roths were intended to be and what they are now are two totally different things.

Read the attached article and ask yourself is this what Roth IRA's were designed to be?

I think a reasonable cap is needed or rules need to be amended where you can only have publicly traded investments.

How A Serial Entrepreneur Built A $95 Million Tax Free Roth IRA - Forbes

Yea...I know you understand...was trying to kinda give a perspective from someone who is about to get screwed here because I listened to the government and formulated a system...wasn't being instructive...was whining.

the article...totally not the intent...agree. Again I don't get overly wound up about big numbers...but somehow I think these guys never paid any taxes at all.

Anyway, somewhere I also think the government needs to address the issue w/o hammering people who've implemented a system over 20 years which stays within the bumpers of the original intent. I did. Want to change it...cool...do it with folks who are on the front end of developing a system so they can respond accordingly. Yup Grandfather...after all that fits in the language of "fair" right?

 

[BobD]

No, Obama actually did say that.

The point is....WHO THE HELL GETS TO TELL ME HOW MUCH I "NEED" FOR RETIREMENT?

I mean, can anyone be dim enough to actually agree with Obama on this issue?

When did it become ok for government to tell me how much money they think is enough for me? Or any citizen for that matter?


It's unreal. Work your *** off all of your life and then be told that you've saved too much. The government ougth to be shaking your damn hand for not having to depend on it for your retirment.

Your failure to understand the plan doesn't make it a bad plan. He's not capping how much someone can save, just limiting the amount that can be protected from taxation.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Yea...I know you understand...was trying to kinda give a perspective from someone who is about to get screwed here because I listened to the government and formulated a system...wasn't being instructive...was whining.

the article...totally not the intent...agree. Again I don't get overly wound up about big numbers...but somehow I think these guys never paid any taxes at all.

Anyway, somewhere I also think the government needs to address the issue w/o hammering people who've implemented a system over 20 years which stays within the bumpers of the original intent. I did. Want to change it...cool...do it with folks who are on the front end of developing a system so they can respond accordingly. Yup Grandfather...after all that fits in the language of "fair" right?

I understand your frustration and truth be told, I doubt this goes too far. Conversions need to be scaled back tho and one simple rule of limiting investment options to public companies would really help curb the abuse.

 

[phgreek]

I understand your frustration and truth be told, I doubt this goes too far. Conversions need to be scaled back tho and one simple rule of limiting investment options to public companies would really help curb the abuse.

....agree. Although isn't there a scenario where a small business owner would use a Roth, much like these guys did, only as a real retirement plan, not to evade taxes. I can agree on public companies going forward like, as of 2015...again I'm sensitive to clobbering people who used these tools as they were intended. Never thought the Conversion thing was cool anyway....not married to it at all...My investment guy has been HOUNDING me to do it with the measleys I have in 401Ks...meh.

 

[Ndaccountant]

....agree. Although isn't there a scenario where a small business owner would use a Roth, much like these guys did, only as a real retirement plan, not to evade taxes. I can agree on public companies going forward like, as of 2015...again I'm sensitive to clobbering people who used these tools as they were intended. Never thought the Conversion thing was cool anyway....not married to it at all...My investment guy has been HOUNDING me to do it with the measleys I have in 401Ks...meh.

I was talking more about what to invest in, not so much who can invest. Small business owners should be able to invest in it. However, in my scenario, they should not be allowed to invest in companies that are not public. This really is the bigger issue and is how guys generate IRA balances close to $100m. Generally speaking, as long you as you are not a controlling owner, you can invest in it.