It's Good To Be The King

[VTA]

President Barack Obama’s 2014 budget puts a $3 million cap on tax-advantaged retirement accounts to crack down on “wealthy individuals” using these investment vehicles to earn “substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement savings.”

But an analysis by Forbes finds that a 20-year old saving for retirement would need to amass a $9.97 million portfolio to fund just a $60,000 lifestyle by age 65. What’s more, writes David John Marotta of Forbes, $3 million today represents just $500,000 in 1970s dollars.

Kathleen Pender of the San Francisco Chronicle also notes that Obama’s plan would not apply to himself:
The limit would not apply to Obama’s own pension, which is worth at least $5 million, because it is not in a tax-advantaged account, according to Brian Graff, executive director of the American Society of Pension Professionals & Actuaries. Obama’s pension, which guarantees him a Cabinet-level salary for life indexed to inflation, is a “non-qualified deferred compensation plan, similar to what corporate executives get,” he says.

“No legislation should inhibit individuals from taking care of their own retirement,” says Marotta. “Government officials know very little about retirement planning. They haven’t even had the foresight to keep Social Security solvent.”

Link

 

[ThaBigP]

It's why I've always been suspicious of "pre-tax" contributions, that there would eventually be strings attached (not to mention gambling that tax rates would not skyrocket by the time I draw-down). Hell, after-tax savings aren't even safe these days.

If "Obama Corzine" is your real name...

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

more breitbart. you guys are AWESOME!!!

 

[VTA]

Is it factually inaccurate?

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Deus ex machina!

 

[jeebus]

I would like to point out that you would probably need 1.5 million to conservatively take home $60,000 a year after tax income. But on the other hand you can spend $60,000 in principal every year for 25 years, if you earn nothing (and you will earn something, especially at the beginning.

 

[jeebus]

Also, 10 mil doesn't make sense. Say you needed 2 mil today and say there was 4% inflation (3% historically, 2% recent decades), then the amount of money you needed would double every 17 years or be 4 mil in 17 years. Not sure how they got to 10 mil 3 years later

 

[jeebus]

If anyone wants to now exactly how much money they need for retirement it is absurdly easy. Go to a mortgage calculator, in loan term enter how many years you plan on living after work, at interest rate enter how much you conservatively think you can earn in AFTER TAX income, in loan amount put how much money you think you will have and press enter. The payment amount will be the exact amount you can spend every month for the length of whatever loan term you entered. At that point you will be completely broke.

So after you find out how much you need to provide the income you want, you have to adjust that for inflation that will happen between now and retirement. Also, your income won't be inflation protect for 25+ years of retirement, so it would basically get cut in half over that period.

 

[JBond]

Is it factually inaccurate?

Ignore him. He is a special kind of slow. His mom makes him wear a helmet to protect the last few firing neurons.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Is it factually inaccurate?

Read jeebus' post think about it and see if you cannot figure it out.

I especially liked the part where jeebs breaks it down and then the ideologically-clueless-republican tells you to ignore me. Hell, jeebs even went so far as to show how to check it yourself. You can lead a horse to water, I guess.

 

[VTA]

Also, 10 mil doesn't make sense. Say you needed 2 mil today and say there was 4% inflation (3% historically, 2% recent decades), then the amount of money you needed would double every 17 years or be 4 mil in 17 years. Not sure how they got to 10 mil 3 years later

Read jeebus' post think about it and see if you cannot figure it out.

I especially liked the part where jeebs breaks it down and then the ideologically-clueless-republican tells you to ignore me. Hell, jeebs even went so far as to show how to check it yourself. You can lead a horse to water, I guess.

The model is a 20 year old with a 4-5% inflation rate. That's 45 years.
So correct me if I'm incorrect; by your calculation of doubling every 17 years that's 8 million by 54 and it's too early for math, so let's average out the remainder over the next 11 years to retirement later.

And that assessment is Forbes, not Breitbart.
And is it inaccurate to say that Obama is exempt from this legislation?

 

[jeebus]

The model is a 20 year old with a 4-5% inflation rate. That's 45 years.
So correct me if I'm incorrect; by your calculation of doubling every 17 years that's 8 million by 54 and it's too early for math, so let's average out the remainder over the next 11 years to retirement later.

Good point. That makes more sense. Still, 4-5% inflation is pretty high, but I guess you have to be high now that we have started all this uncharted monetary territory.

 

[JBond]

Read jeebus' post think about it and see if you cannot figure it out.

I especially liked the part where jeebs breaks it down and then the ideologically-clueless-republican tells you to ignore me. Hell, jeebs even went so far as to show how to check it yourself. You can lead a horse to water, I guess.

Wow...it speaks, and still says nothing.

You cry like a little bitch in multiple threads regarding sources, you cry about alleged allegiances to political parties (while at the same time exhibiting your own asinine bias) and yet you still can not come up with a coherent thought of your own. Pathetic, but not unexpected.

 

[Iamtdg]

Screw that nonsense of how much money I will "need" for retirement. I will say how much I need. I don't need the fucking govt telling me what I need or don't need.

 

[jeebus]

Screw that nonsense of how much money I will "need" for retirement. I will say how much I need. I don't need the fucking govt telling me what I need or don't need.

Uhh, you missed the point. The government isn't telling you what you need, rather it is threatening to change how it collects taxes from retirement savings. And they will tax your savings even if it is much less than you need, whatever you decide that amount is.

 

[Iamtdg]

Uhh, you missed the point. The government isn't telling you what you need, rather it is threatening to change how it collects taxes from retirement savings. And they will tax your savings even if it is much less than you need, whatever you decide that amount is.

President Barack Obama’s 2014 budget puts a $3 million cap on tax-advantaged retirement accounts to crack down on “wealthy individuals” using these investment vehicles to earn “substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement savings.”

 

[peplaw06]

Uhh, you missed the point. The government isn't telling you what you need, rather it is threatening to change how it collects taxes from retirement savings. And they will tax your savings even if it is much less than you need, whatever you decide that amount is.

The government is telling us what we need or don't need to try to villify the high earners and the people who are good at saving money.

Government says, "no one needs more than $X in retirement savings. We're going to tax anything over $X." Joe public says, "yeah I'm never gonna see that much money in my retirement account. Those damn savers don't need that much... bastards. Tax away government."

 

[ScipioCowboy]

lolforbeslol

 

[Iamtdg]

The government is telling us what we need or don't need to try to villify the high earners and the people who are good at saving money.

Government says, "no one needs more than $X in retirement savings. We're going to tax anything over $X." Joe public says, "yeah I'm never gonna see that much money in my retirement account. Those damn savers don't need that much... bastards. Tax away government."

It's just a continuation of the socialist shit we have let happen in the past. Give them an inch...

 

[jeebus]

President Barack Obama’s 2014 budget puts a $3 million cap on tax-advantaged retirement accounts to crack down on “wealthy individuals” using these investment vehicles to earn “substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement savings.”

Okay, I guess you choice of wording is acceptable, I have decided to allow it.