Live data from Hacker News

Self directed IRAs under attack in proposed tax bill

advantaira.com

81–90 of 306 posts

Re: Self directed IRAs under attack in proposed tax bill

#81

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.

I’ve never understood why we tax income rather than wealth. Taxes pay for a stable society (army, police force, etc), which has more value for the wealthy.

Taxing tends to remove incentive to do something by increasing the cost. We want people to be productive (get paid an income)

Taxing wealth rather than capital gains and income seems far better, once you set aside the enforcement part of the conversation.

Once you bring that part in, you’re basically arguing we should o what’s easy, not what’s right.

Re: Self directed IRAs under attack in proposed tax bill

#82

Just so people are aware, high income individuals can’t use IRAs. This is a direct action against middle to low income individuals. https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/new-income-ranges-for-ira-eligi...

Not true.

>The backdoor Roth IRA conversion is a technique where investors who earn too much to contribute directly to a Roth IRA make after-tax contributions to a traditional IRA and then convert the contributed amount, and perhaps other money in the account, to a Roth IRA.

https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2021/09/22/what-to-do-if-congre...

Re: Self directed IRAs under attack in proposed tax bill

#83

Just so people are aware, high income individuals can’t use IRAs. This is a direct action against middle to low income individuals. https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/new-income-ranges-for-ira-eligi...

Then why do Warren Buffet and Peter Thiel have billions in them?

Re: Self directed IRAs under attack in proposed tax bill

#84
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I like about Congress - is instead of saying "this provision can allow you to do well for retirement by investing in private companies self directed with an IRA and you might not need social security". Instead they act: "we're not rich, we're mad at the few who are - so instead of teaching you how to do this, we're going to make it illegal"

> we're not rich Yes they are.

A few are... of course. Most senators could be above average - but they aren't Romney, Thiel, Powell rich. This is jealousy wrapped in political motive.

Re: Self directed IRAs under attack in proposed tax bill

#85
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've already won then. Why complain?

Because he feels that it's wrong that he made a lot of money doing something that other middle income earners could reasonably do, but now the ladder is getting pulled up behind him? This is no skin off the back of the wealthy. They'll find another trick and life will go on. For those of them that actually care about "normal" Americans being able to do the same thing they did, it feels a little wrong that it requires…

> This is no skin off the back of the wealthy

it is overly simplistic in USA - real people lose their "wealthy" status every day. You think a "wealthy" restaurant or bar owner is having a good day in 2021?

this class-baiting comes from the previous century, and IMO detracts from real problems right now

Re: Self directed IRAs under attack in proposed tax bill

#86
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've already won then. Why complain?

What's wrong with winning? Why not let people keep winning?

Because Bitcoin is a negative-sum enterprise. For the average speculator, total number of dollars out will be less than the total number of dollars in. That's exactly the opposite of what we want people to be doing with tax-advantaged retirement accounts.

Re: Self directed IRAs under attack in proposed tax bill

#87

Just so people are aware, high income individuals can’t use IRAs. This is a direct action against middle to low income individuals. https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/new-income-ranges-for-ira-eligi...

More complicated: they can contribute to IRA and pay taxes on it, and then they can convert to Roth IRA and have tax free appreciation of the assets, and tax-free withdrawals.

IANAL, IANA tax lawyer, TINALA

Re: Self directed IRAs under attack in proposed tax bill

#88
post #73

I'd recommend reading the proposed provisions themselves directly from the Ways & Means Committee instead of the main article urging action: https://www.advantaira.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/WM-Tax... Highlights: 1. You can't add new contributions to tax-advantaged accounts if their total value exceeds $10 million and you make over $400K for single filers, amounts indexed to inflation. 2. There are required minim…

The killer is the "The bill also prevents investing in an entity in which the IRA owner is an officer." which is generally how the checkbook IRA is structured (IRA owner is the Manager of the single member LLC that is wholly owned by the IRA).

Sec. 138314. Prohibition of Investment of IRA Assets in Entities in Which the Owner Has a Substantial Interest.

To prevent self-dealing, under current law prohibited transaction rules, an IRA owner cannot invest his or her IRA assets in a corporation, partnership, trust, or estate in which he or she has a 50 percent or greater interest. However, an IRA owner can invest IRA assets in a business in which he or she owns, for example, one-third of the business while also acting as the CEO. The bill adjusts the 50 percent threshold to 10 percent for investments that are not tradable on an established securities market, regardless of whether the IRA owner has a direct or indirect interest. The bill also prevents investing in an entity in which the IRA owner is an officer. Further, the bill modifies the rule to be an IRA requirement, rather than a prohibited transaction rule (i.e., in order to be an IRA, it must meet this requirement). This section generally takes effect for tax years beginning after December 31, 2021, but there is a 2-year transition period for IRAs already holding these investments

Re: Self directed IRAs under attack in proposed tax bill

#89

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.

401(k)'s started to became popular in the 1970s because they allowed management to increase their tax-advantaged compensation relative to labor, whereas defined-benefit plans had stricter and more effective rules regarding management/labor compensation disparities.

Then during the 1980s as corporate accounting schemes became more sophisticated preference for 401(k)'s and other defined-contribution plans exploded because of how liabilities are calculated.

In every conceivable measure pensions are theoretically better for workers and society as a whole. I say theoretically because that's predicated on employers and pension funds (if employer managed) obeying good (translation: dead simple) accounting practices rather than spending all their time and effort figuring out how to subvert them in order to cook their balance sheets to increase their yearly bonuses. Many corporate merger waves since the 1980s have been driven by schemes to drain pension funds (cost "synergies"), and of course states are notorious for failing to fully fund pensions on a YtoY basis (states, unlike corporations, aren't actually required to fully fund pensions[1]).

All of these downsides to pensions can be easily remedied. But corporate interests have succeeded in selling the narrative that pensions are unreliable and inequitable, while 401(k)'s are more reliable and equitable. In fact pensions are categorically more equitable, and any less reliability (which is a dubious claim, notwithstanding the many high profile pension failures over the years--nobody reports on someone's 401(k) fund vanishing during a recession) is a consequence of lobbyists phenomenal success in killing legislation and enforcement efforts responsive to corporate financial accounting schemes. Overall reliability of private retirement systems has fallen over the past 40 years, but the decline for pensions was more precipitous simply because they were so damned good before CFO offices became profit centers.

Life insurance markets were once dens of fraud and outright thievery, the mortgage backed securities and CDOs of the late 19th and early 20th century. Relatively simple reforms restored the market to nearly unassailable reliability. Though, I suspect the necessary legislation only succeeded after life insurance stopped being the center of growth and profit for financial markets. Legislation regarding private retirement plans likely will only ever make substantial reform once corporations have finished exploiting all opportunities for subverting employee income disparity and asset protections, finally shifting their attention elsewhere.

[1] "Fully fund" does not mean paying in the entirety of a worker's expected retirement disbursements. Rather, it means ensuring that each and every year you pay the full fractional share of expected liabilities. Basically the same thing an individual is expected to do when managing their 401(k) contributions.

Re: Self directed IRAs under attack in proposed tax bill

#90

Just so people are aware, high income individuals can’t use IRAs. This is a direct action against middle to low income individuals. https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/new-income-ranges-for-ira-eligi...

They can't contribute to a Roth IRA, but they can contribute to a Traditional IRA, just without a deduction.

https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employ...

Post reply on HN