Obama knows best

Obama knows best (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Yachtie -> Obama knows best (4/6/2013 12:52:01 PM)
On what basis does Obama hold that ~3 million is sufficient to fund retirement? President Obama's budget, to be released next week, will limit how much wealthy individuals – like Mitt Romney – can keep in IRAs and other retirement accounts. The senior administration official said that wealthy taxpayers can currently “accumulate many millions of dollars in these accounts, substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving.” Under the plan, a taxpayer’s tax-preferred retirement account, like an IRA, could not finance more than $205,000 per year of retirement – or right around $3 million this year. Who's ass was that figure pulled out of? What makes that ass correct? [8\|] I'm sure, in time, he'll find an ass that says even lower is best.[&o]

MstSebastian -> RE: Obama knows best (4/6/2013 12:58:00 PM)
Facepalm Yay! Just what we need, MORE GOVERNMENT! After all, the government always knows best! [/sarcasm]

subrob1967 -> RE: Obama knows best (4/6/2013 1:10:54 PM)
Dontcha know President Obama and Vice President Biden are all seeing, and all knowing... How dare you question our fabulous leaders[:@] You don't need to collect wealth, or enjoy retirement, cmon even our elected officials know retirement is a pipe dream, and most work in Congress until they drop dead in some prostitute's boudoir!

tazzygirl -> RE: Obama knows best (4/6/2013 1:17:19 PM)
~FR The proposal would save around $9 billion over a decade, a senior administration official said, while also bringing more fairness to the tax code. Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/292071-obama-budget-to-target-wealthy-iras#ixzz2PiTdtvIj

Yachtie -> RE: Obama knows best (4/6/2013 2:39:51 PM)
Ya know Tazzy, it would be one thing to state about curbing levels . But that's not quite how it's being portrayed. "to fund reasonable* levels of retirement saving"* smacks of Big Brother. "We'll tell you what you need. We're from the government."[8D]

tj444 -> RE: Obama knows best (4/6/2013 2:54:15 PM)
thats only part of one of his changes.. I just read this.. the Prez has invented a new consumer price index.. ya know, cuz the inflation rate needs to be lower.. [8\|] President Barack Obama’s proposal to change the way the government measures inflation could lead to fewer people qualifying for college grants and anti-poverty programs, reduced benefits for seniors and veterans, and higher taxes for low-income families. If adopted across the government, the new inflation measure would have far-reaching effects because so many programs are adjusted each year based on year-to-year changes in consumer prices. Social Security recipients would get smaller benefit increases each year. The federal poverty level would rise by smaller amounts, meaning more people would technically rise out of poverty with only small increases in income. Taxes would go up because of smaller adjustments to income tax brackets, the standard deduction and the personal exemption amount. Called the Chained Consumer Price Index, the new measure would show a lower level of inflation than the more widely used Consumer Price Index. http://www.macombdaily.com/article/20130405/NEWS04/130409696/obama-plan-hits-seniors-and-low-income-taxpayers

tazzygirl -> RE: Obama knows best (4/6/2013 3:48:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie Ya know Tazzy, it would be one thing to state about curbing levels . But that's not quite how it's being portrayed. "to fund reasonable* levels of retirement saving"* smacks of Big Brother. "We'll tell you what you need. We're from the government."[8D] In IRA and other retirement accounts. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204468004577168972507188592.html Remember?

Owner59 -> RE: Obama knows best (4/6/2013 4:37:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie Ya know Tazzy, it would be one thing to state about curbing levels . But that's not quite how it's being portrayed. "to fund reasonable* levels of retirement saving"* smacks of Big Brother. "We'll tell you what you need. We're from the government."[8D] The great recession party(the gop, for the 2 Y/Os) hardly has any credibility when it comes to finance,the economy,the safety net,the role of gubment,etc...... Sweet Jesus,if the normal Americans had let shrub and the con-men "privatize" our social security funds into wall street speculations.....we would have lost a few more trillion in retirement savings....

graceadieu -> RE: Obama knows best (4/6/2013 4:41:31 PM)
IRAs are essentially special tax breaks that the government gives, in order to help middle- and working-class people save more so they don't need assistance in their old age. Now, it seems, the government wants to reduce the benefit for people who are rich enough to not really need any help saving for retirement, in order to raise revenue. Where is the problem with this? Is cutting government aid to balance the budget only a good thing when it's aid that helps poor people? Gotta love that Republican attitude - "Cutting retirement aid to the wealthy?! Outrageous!!! We should be cutting housing assistance for homeless people instead!!"

MstSebastian -> RE: Obama knows best (4/6/2013 5:11:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: graceadieu IRAs are essentially special tax breaks that the government gives, in order to help middle- and working-class people save more so they don't need assistance in their old age. Now, it seems, the government wants to reduce the benefit for people who are rich enough to not really need any help saving for retirement, in order to raise revenue. Where is the problem with this? Is cutting government aid to balance the budget only a good thing when it's aid that helps poor people? Gotta love that Republican attitude - "Cutting retirement aid to the wealthy?! Outrageous!!! We should be cutting housing assistance for homeless people instead!!" The problem, and I only speak for myself here, is that the notion of reducing benefits in order to raise revenue is really nothing more than a fancy way to say "the government thinks it deserves even more of your money." It's like the Democrats in DC keep saying, we don't have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem. Yeah...sure, we do. [8\|]

tazzygirl -> RE: Obama knows best (4/6/2013 5:35:00 PM)
There is no way around it... services will have to take a cut in order to get our fiscal house in order. How much of a cut is what is being argued. Shoving it all off on the middle class and the poor isnt going to work.

TheHeretic -> RE: Obama knows best (4/6/2013 5:50:38 PM)
Capping tax breaks on retirement saving? Sure. It will backfire in the long run, as people put post-tax money into their retirement funds, and don't pay as much when they pull it back out, but sure. Go ahead. Putting that bit in, about how government is best to determine what is reasonable? That's just Obama's inner Marxist dictator peeking out.

DomKen -> RE: Obama knows best (4/6/2013 6:01:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MstSebastian quote: ORIGINAL: graceadieu IRAs are essentially special tax breaks that the government gives, in order to help middle- and working-class people save more so they don't need assistance in their old age. Now, it seems, the government wants to reduce the benefit for people who are rich enough to not really need any help saving for retirement, in order to raise revenue. Where is the problem with this? Is cutting government aid to balance the budget only a good thing when it's aid that helps poor people? Gotta love that Republican attitude - "Cutting retirement aid to the wealthy?! Outrageous!!! We should be cutting housing assistance for homeless people instead!!" The problem, and I only speak for myself here, is that the notion of reducing benefits in order to raise revenue is really nothing more than a fancy way to say "the government thinks it deserves even more of your money." It's like the Democrats in DC keep saying, we don't have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem. Yeah...sure, we do. [8\|] Take a look at the numbers. It is impossible to cut spending enough to balance the budget. The problem is almost entirely that revenue is too low due to decades of tax cuts.

MstSebastian -> RE: Obama knows best (4/6/2013 6:29:17 PM)
I won't argue that services will have to be cut in order to balance the budget. I won't argue that a lot of those services affect the poor and middle class. However, I think it probably best to bow out here, since I can easily see this turning in to a philosophical argument about the role and nature of government, which is not what I think the OP intended. Suffice it to say, I don't believe the government should be in the business of providing a lot of services they do...but, that is my ardant Libertarian coming out. [:D]

Lucylastic -> RE: Obama knows best (4/6/2013 7:06:58 PM)
grins...this is Bills take on Libertarians http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/06/bill-maher-libertarianism-paul-ryan-rand-paul-video_n_3028244.html

DesideriScuri -> RE: Obama knows best (4/6/2013 7:44:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: MstSebastian quote: ORIGINAL: graceadieu IRAs are essentially special tax breaks that the government gives, in order to help middle- and working-class people save more so they don't need assistance in their old age. Now, it seems, the government wants to reduce the benefit for people who are rich enough to not really need any help saving for retirement, in order to raise revenue. Where is the problem with this? Is cutting government aid to balance the budget only a good thing when it's aid that helps poor people? Gotta love that Republican attitude - "Cutting retirement aid to the wealthy?! Outrageous!!! We should be cutting housing assistance for homeless people instead!!" The problem, and I only speak for myself here, is that the notion of reducing benefits in order to raise revenue is really nothing more than a fancy way to say "the government thinks it deserves even more of your money." It's like the Democrats in DC keep saying, we don't have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem. Yeah...sure, we do. [8\|] Take a look at the numbers. It is impossible to cut spending enough to balance the budget. The problem is almost entirely that revenue is too low due to decades of tax cuts. Yet tax revenues are near all-time highs, and the only years higher, came in the last decade. Where does all-time high revenue mean not enough revenue because of tax cuts?

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Obama knows best (4/7/2013 1:18:59 PM)
~FR~ The Gubment originally started the tax deferred on IRA's and I doubt anyone complained then. So they are capping it at a huge amount that only the extremely wealthy will be effected. Don't see an issue there since it is one more tax break that the extremely wealthy do not need. It was put in place to entice those with little to no retirement savings, to start saving. If that limitation had been there originally, no one would even be mentioning it. It makes sense. It is only an issue to those that have an issue with Obama. Just one more thing to distract, deflect and demonize.

Yachtie -> RE: Obama knows best (4/7/2013 1:39:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf ~FR~ If that limitation had been there originally, no one would even be mentioning it. It makes sense. It is only an issue to those that have an issue with Obama. Just one more thing to distract, deflect and demonize. But it wasn't stated as a cap for taxation purposes. The senior administration said it's about reasonable levels of retirement saving. Why say that if social engineering were not at its root? Why does the government hate even the wealthy so much? In case you haven't noticed it yet Orion, if it wasn't a problem then, The Gubment originally started the tax deferred on IRA's and I doubt anyone complained then, why is it now? Perhaps because the government is in financial straights and wants to bail itself out on the backs, and you'll approve this, of the wealthy? Does this give you any indication of the problems we're all in? The Portuguese government is considering a plan to pay public workers and pensioners one month of their salary in treasury bills rather than cash after a high court ruled out wage cuts, a person familiar with the situation said Sunday.

MrRodgers -> RE: Obama knows best (4/7/2013 1:52:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie Ya know Tazzy, it would be one thing to state about curbing levels . But that's not quite how it's being portrayed. "to fund reasonable* levels of retirement saving"* smacks of Big Brother. "We'll tell you what you need. We're from the government."[8D] Ok let's get through the partisan rant. The govt. is reducing retirement tax incentives that's all. Those tax breaks are only now going to be capped at $3 million PER YEAR which is still a large prayer for 98% of taxpayers. I still need that $3 million PER YEAR...for sure but Ok Obama I'll spend the rest...maybe create 1 job.

MrRodgers -> RE: Obama knows best (4/7/2013 2:00:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf ~FR~ If that limitation had been there originally, no one would even be mentioning it. It makes sense. It is only an issue to those that have an issue with Obama. Just one more thing to distract, deflect and demonize. But it wasn't stated as a cap for taxation purposes. The senior administration said it's about reasonable levels of retirement saving. Why say that if social engineering were not at its root? Why does the government hate even the wealthy so much? In case you haven't noticed it yet Orion, if it wasn't a problem then, The Gubment originally started the tax deferred on IRA's and I doubt anyone complained then, why is it now? Perhaps because the government is in financial straights and wants to bail itself out on the backs, and you'll approve this, of the wealthy? Does this give you any indication of the problems we're all in? The Portuguese government is considering a plan to pay public workers and pensioners one month of their salary in treasury bills rather than cash after a high court ruled out wage cuts, a person familiar with the situation said Sunday. Trust me Yachtie, if $3 million PER year isn't enough for your tax subsidized retirement savings, then I detect a sense of entitlement. I am sure there is a large school of thought out there mostly conservative and I am thinking maybe I am with them...we should not be using the tax code to favor retirement savings at all. How's that, we'll cap it at ZERO.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875