31–40 of 306 posts
They should remove the ability to invest self-directed IRAs into options. This socializes the risk (i.e. someone with little or no supplementary retirement income is going to be a burden on the rest of us) while privatizing the gains.
Presumably meant to address high net worth individuals completely dodging taxation on huge gains by using their IRAs for investments like exercising early-stage stock options.[1] I kind of wish they'd go with just capping the gains, but would I still say that if I wasn't planning to use mine to "fund" high-return cryptocurrency arbitrages? 1) https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahhansen/2021/06/24/peter-th...
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/whats-r...
The income has already been taxed. The economics are identical to other qualified retirement plans. This is simply more about restricting freedoms and making excuses for targeting Peter Thiel personally.
>Under these provisions, you would no longer be allowed to invest your IRA into private placements and single-member LLCs, regardless of your level of income or wealth. Huh. So under current law, you can take your IRA money and "invest" it in a single-member LLC? Wild. Does that let you circumvent the proscription against living in properties you own through your IRA? Since in that case, the "owner" would be the LLC,…
Huh. Under current tax laws you can literally dodge paying taxes using a totally unintended loophole in something called 401k. Wild.
(see page 10, part 3 for Retirement Account provisions) https://waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/democrats.waysandmeans....
https://www.irafinancialgroup.com/learn-more/podcast/self-di...
Hey everyone: stop talking about your compliant tax strategies! It’s been nice to want to help people but now, obviously, too many people know of some and their representatives are changing the laws. It’s back to the way it’s always been: if you can afford good lawyers then you get to know of obscure tax codes. Lets leave it that way.
The modern 401(k) practices emerged from one of these then-obscure tax codes, which I view as an unabashedly good outcome.
Possibly. I can't complain personally, The shift from defined benefit to defined contribution retirement savings has probably been generally positive for those with the ability/discipline to take full advantage of 401(k)/IRA. The flipside is that relatively few people (mostly public sector) in the US now get a more or less automatic defined retirement payout from a pension.
Of course, the shift isn't just tax code changes. Traditional pensions also largely encoded long-term employment with a single organization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this really an issue for low- to middle-income earners, or is that just a scare tactic?
Most low to middle income earners struggle to hit their 5k or so maximum of a regular IRA versus operate a self-directed or have the additional funds to make it worth it.
Entrepreneurs can put up to 58k a year into a Solo 401k
Almost all of the advantages of them accrue to the top decile of income earners. Why should we have exceptions in the tax code just to help richer people amass more money?