Live data from Hacker News

Self directed IRAs under attack in proposed tax bill

advantaira.com

171–180 of 306 posts

Re: Self directed IRAs under attack in proposed tax bill

#171
post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So your argument is: the law is restrictive enough that poor people are going to stay poor, thus you can safely ignore the consequences for them and create additional laws to restrict “rich” people. An extraordinary entitled and comfortable perspective shines through strongly here.

Actually, what I'd like to see are better opportunities for low and middle class people. I'm very clearly middle class, I likely make less than virtually every software developer reading this. I am lucky though in that I live in a low cost of living area, and managed to find a house that allows me to afford to put money into retirement accounts. I also got by reasonably well with college student loan debt. I'm relati…

This entirely fails to explain how 1) this a loophole 2) how this has disparate impact, and the sad punchline of your statement is “pay your fucking fair share” which you say to people who have saved and invested successfully, without regard to those who would hope to do so in the future.

How exactly do you hope to create better opportunities for the low and middle income class? Here’s one idea: open up opportunities for them to invest in qualified accounts, like IRAs, silly.

Re: Self directed IRAs under attack in proposed tax bill

#172
post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Those lobbyists must be doing a terrible job, since the Pension Protection Act of 2006 strengthened the reliability of defined benefit pensions. Pensions were already dead long before 2006, and inevitable future pension failures baked into the system years and decades earlier. And in any event the PPA heavily favored 401(k)'s, the price extracted by Republicans for creating the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.…

> A pension is just an annuity, the corporate equivalent of employer-provided health insurance vs open market health insurance. Annuities, like life insurance, are considered some of the most reliable investments possible, precisely because of relatively strict, century-old reform legislation.

Exactly, but DB pension funds are not regulated by insurance commissioners the way insurance companies that sell annuities are. I wonder why every taxpayer funded pension and private company pension before PPA 2006 would value an annuity at a lower price than an insurance company would…

Since they are the same as annuity, then the employer should just go out and buy people an annuity. Or better yet, give the employer cash and let the employee decide if they want to buy an annuity or not. Insurance companies make single digit profit margins, it is not like having every employer roll their own insurance company was saving anyone any money.

> the corporate equivalent of employer-provided health insurance vs open market health insurance.

It is not quite equivalent since the company is not the one deciding how to do the actuarial calculations, at least not in a way that can be tilted like having their own people on a pension board of trustees would. Most of the health insurance aspects are taken care of by managed care organizations (aka health insurance companies). It would be equivalent if employers offering DB pensions were hiring insurance companies to calculate the cost of their annuities.

But they never would, because annuities are simply very expensive. At the end of the day, compensation for most people in the US was falling or stagnant in real terms for the past few decades (and people were living longer), so offering them properly priced annuities would have made any business untenable, hence businesses jettisoning them in favor of DC plans.

Re: Self directed IRAs under attack in proposed tax bill

#173
post #154
post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congress is preventing all people from investing in private companies within retirement accounts, not just rich people. Adding the cap is fine but preventing private company investment is asinine.

Preventing all people from investing in private companies or closing a loophole that the law was never intended to allow? Because anyone can continue to invest in private companies. You just can’t get tax free growth from them.

I meant to imply within retirement accounts. But the intention of retirement accounts is to get you to save for retirement through investments. Private companies are arguably the most effective way to grow wealth. Congress is saying they don't want you doing this they only want you to have access to stocks and bonds because private investments do to well.

Re: Self directed IRAs under attack in proposed tax bill

#174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the killer, indeed. Checkbook IRAs are amazing retirement tools if you're interested in using some of your retirement money in high-risk, high-reward investments. My retirement fund benefited enormously from the Q3 2020 crypto market gains, which would not have been possible without my LLC. It's hard to see this as anything other than removing all the peasants from the market so that the big dogs can have it…

This effectively bans you from making a retirement investment in yourself - and takes a great deal of money off the table for innovation. So many companies are seeded with capital of a person putting 401K money into their own company. The retirement fund and the home are really what most people have to use to create businesses. Frankly, this sets the US back 250 years, and bars the middle class from starting business…

The traditional IRA and 401k were introduced in 1974, the Roth IRA in 1997. They were never intended for rich or poor people to speculate in risky one-off investments. How does this rule set the US back 250 years?

Re: Self directed IRAs under attack in proposed tax bill

#175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just flat wrong. The income contributed to a Roth IRA is post-tax. It is a retirement account that is economically equivalent to a 401k. The only differences are 1) timing on when the gains are taxed and 2) whether you can self-direct it or not. Saying “not intended to allow” is simply nonsense that covers for the abusive 401k system that fleeces individuals at the benefit of the finance industry.

The "income" in this case is the gains on the stock purchased as part of the Roth IRA, not the income contributed. Nobody cares about Thiel spending a few post-tax dollars on some wierdly cheap stock. The issue is that this stock grew to be worth US$5B within the Roth.

That’s also incorrect. If he could have done this in a 401k he would have Exactly the Same amount of money.

Re: Self directed IRAs under attack in proposed tax bill

#176
post #53
post #19

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...

I'm actually pretty fiscally conservative but I think it's ridiculous that someone abused the intent of a Roth IRA by accumulating $5 billion into it. The whole purpose of IRAs is to encourage regular people to save for retirement. It was not meant to provide billionaires tax loopholes to avoid paying millions or even billions of dollars in taxes. It's kind of like playing a game with someone. 99% of the people are f…

Making a lucky investment is “abusing the intent”?

Re: Self directed IRAs under attack in proposed tax bill

#177
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The modern 401(k) practices emerged from one of these then-obscure tax codes, which I view as an unabashedly good outcome.

Nah, the 401(k) system is a mechanism of wealth extraction for white collar government-adjacent workers. It's a form of repression. I'd rather be building something than dealing with tax, but I'm very much incentivized to do the latter (though your situation may differ).

Repression is criminalisation of Solidarity Strikes, entrenching corporate power.

Everything else is a waste of time, plastic straw ban of lawmaking.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_action

Re: Self directed IRAs under attack in proposed tax bill

#178
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've already won then. Why complain?

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

The purpose of tax advantaged retirement accounts is to reduce the number of destitute people in retirement. It achieves this goal by providing a tax incentive on regular investment for people who would not otherwise invest.

If you won the lottery on crypto then you aren't going to be destitute in retirement. Pay the capital gains and enjoy your wealth.

Similarly, if you are a high earner and can afford to take advantage of things like the megabackdoor then you aren't going to be destitute in retirement. Pay the capital gains and enjoy your wealth.

Re: Self directed IRAs under attack in proposed tax bill

#179
post #150
post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This just isn't true. The bill also prevents you from investing in any private company of which you are a member, AKA a startup you work at. It also prevents you from any deals requiring you to be an accredited investor which means any Reg D which is how almost all early stage tech companies raise money.

Does it restrict you from doing those things, or only restrict you from doing it in a tax-free/tax-advantaged way?

It restricts you from doing them within retirement accounts. But the purpose of retirement accounts is to effectively save for retirement. Congress is basically saying we want you not to need us but we don't actually want you doing well with your investments.

Re: Self directed IRAs under attack in proposed tax bill

#180
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 transactio…

This is the killer, indeed. Checkbook IRAs are amazing retirement tools if you're interested in using some of your retirement money in high-risk, high-reward investments. My retirement fund benefited enormously from the Q3 2020 crypto market gains, which would not have been possible without my LLC. It's hard to see this as anything other than removing all the peasants from the market so that the big dogs can have it…

> removing all the peasants from the market so that the big dogs can have it to themselves.

Bingo! Wall St wants a monopoly on ALL your retirement funds. Your typical employer 401k plan offers only mutual funds run by Wall St. No investing in alternate assets such as real estate or crypto. The big boys get their cut AND make sure you are not crowding the field in lucrative investments.

Post reply on HN