Roth IRAs: A real 'fiscal Frankenstein'

nhboy

Ubi bene ibi patria
Roth IRA: Time to retire Roth IRAs - latimes.com

"The day after Congress passed the new healthcare law, an opponent called it "a fiscal Frankenstein." In fact, those are fitting words for Roth individual retirement accounts, or IRAs. Roths drive up the federal deficit and cause other pain. They're great for holders but grim for America. It's time to retire them.

Retirement accounts were designed by Congress to spur saving by Americans for their golden years. Let's compare a Roth IRA to other accounts, such as traditional IRAs, 401(k)s or 403(b)s.

In the other accounts, contributions are tax deductible and nest-eggs grow tax-free until money is withdrawn. Payouts can begin at age 59 1/2; they must begin after age 70 1/2 and be taken annually thereafter, and they're fully taxable. The accounts strike a two-way bargain: years of tax deferral and deductions, followed by years of taxpaying withdrawals.

Then, in 1997, Congress created the Roth IRA.

In a Roth, taxes are treated the other way around. There's no tax break on contributions. But from that point on, taxes simply vanish. As long as the account is at least 5 years old, there is no tax on any withdrawals made after age 59 1/2. There's no requirement that you make a minimum withdrawal — after age 70 1/2, or ever.

All of which makes Roths a perfect "fiscal Frankenstein." In return for little more than ordinary upfront taxes, Congress waived untold billions in future Treasury receipts. Then, too, Roths could be a drag on the U.S. economy. Since no withdrawals are required, assets can lie idle indefinitely."


"Gleckman is the editor of TaxVox, a blog published by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington. Here's Gleckman on Roths for the rich: "In the long run, turning billions of dollars from tax-deferred to tax-free savings will be a huge loser for Treasury. My colleagues at Tax Policy Center figure that, through mid-century, allowing unlimited Roth conversions will reduce federal revenues by $100 billion."

Whatever the answer for individuals, there's little doubt that Roths are wrong for America. They're Frankensteins, fated to wreak havoc. It's time to retire Roth IRAs."
 

aps45819

24/7 Single Dad
It's disgusting to think our government allows people to save money and not seize it for their own use.
 

Bobby7153

New Member
Ya!! Same on us for trying to keep more of our money when we retire. I keep forgetting that we are suppose to work our a$$es off so that some in our society can sit on theirs!!!
 

Aerogal

USMC 1983-1995
I was reading the comments. Seems most of them were blasting the article and the author.


I love Al Gore's internet.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
How is the government supposed to enslave you in your old age if you have your own means of support?
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
But it's good to know that that's what's driving up the federal deficit - people saving their own money and not letting the government steal it for taxes. :yay:
 
Roth IRAs are the one kind of IRA that really makes sense, i.e. represents a really good bargain for the beneficiary. Traditional IRAs seem beneficial to many people, but when you think about how they work, they don't really offer a great deal of (net) advantage over saving and investing for retirement outside of an IRA shell (obviously, the advantage or lack there of depends a great deal on the person's particular circumstances - and, that aside, the forced discipline is beneficial to the extent that some wouldn't have the discipline to save to the same degree if such a mechanism wasn't set up that effectively made the saving decisions for them, at least in the immediate term). Some (much, in some cases) of the overall fiscal benefit of traditional IRAs is based on the notion that you'll be paying a lower marginal tax rate when withdrawing the money than you are when making the contributions.

At any rate, the IRA mechanisms - and the limits (actual and effective) they place on investment choices, have an unnatural effect on markets. They funnel capital toward some classes and methods of investments and away from others, and those artificial forces are not without effect. Equity markets are significantly inflated by them, and they contribute meaningfully to the bubbles there in. We should relax the rules with regard to the money that exists within, and benefits from, the IRA shell. If we wish that shell to be to the benefit of saving and investing, at the expense of consuming and spending, then we should have that be the case without having it further exert artificial forces that distort the balances within the savings and investment markets. In other words, in general, government policy shouldn't pick winners and losers by entity class any more than it should pick winners and losers by particular entity.

That said, the last thing we should do is eliminate Roth IRAs while keeping traditional ones.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
You won't get it from Gilligan. He's too busy polishing his own turds.

If you and Clem jsut emailed or PMed your garabage back and forth to each other...the number of people who agree with it all remains exactly the same and bandwidth wastage would be minimized.:howdy:
 
Top