Great news! White House finds new ways to soak the wealthy

posted at 1:01 pm on April 6, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

We’ve already had some chatter about President Obama’s new “blow your mind” budget proposal. As Erika pointed out, there’s still plenty of taxy goodness in it, but more details are beginning to emerge. The Hill has latched on to one of the really insulting ones which, unlike in Obamacare, we may actually read and find out about before we vote on it.

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 proposal would save around $9 billion over a decade, a senior administration official said, while also bringing more fairness to the tax code.

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.”

I don’t know about you, but I think this is simply fabulous. It’s got almost everything you could want in an example of liberal tax theory. You see, some people will be able to stash away as much cash toward retirement as they can manage, assuming they somehow still have a job. But not everyone. So how do you draw that line in the sand as to who gets to plan for their golden years and how much you really need for retirement? Don’t worry your pretty little head about it, sweetheart. Uncle Sam will make the call for you!

But what is the theory behind even trying a stunt like this in the first place? Apparently, the government will “save” money by not letting certain unpopular individuals defer or avoid taxes on income in retirement savings. How much? Go back and read the first quoted paragraph above. We’re talking about nine billion dollars over ten years. That’s $900M each year toward paying our bills… or less than the amount we’ll probably spend to save the lesser prairie chicken next year.

Bonus goodness: The budget will include more national taxes on tobacco. And we all know how well that works out.

The cigarette tax, the official said, would fund the universal pre-kindergarden education program Obama proposed in the State of the Union. A White House official on Friday declined to give details on the rate or extent of the new cigarette tax ahead of the official budget release.

Well played again, Mayans.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Dumb and dumber and no one is paying attention to their pronouncements anyway.

rob verdi on April 6, 2013 at 1:04 PM

bayam! Come out and play…

Del Dolemonte on April 6, 2013 at 1:06 PM

He is out of control.

Earth to Obama – it’s not your money idiot.

gophergirl on April 6, 2013 at 1:11 PM

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.

Oh and this statement just makes my blood boil.

gophergirl on April 6, 2013 at 1:12 PM

much wealthy individuals – like Mitt Romney

Or the Koch Bros.? Don’t forget them.

He lost the election already, guys, you can give it a rest for 30 seconds.

mudskipper on April 6, 2013 at 1:13 PM

This model of Affirmative Action is the epitome of Bolshevism.

I’m simply beside myself, that America’s death throes would be the result of a suicide.

OhEssYouCowboys on April 6, 2013 at 1:13 PM

He is out of control.

gophergirl on April 6, 2013 at 1:11 PM

That is the best possible option.

cozmo on April 6, 2013 at 1:14 PM

Oh and this statement just makes my blood boil.

gophergirl on April 6, 2013 at 1:12 PM

gg, I’m diggin’ the boiling blood. You could hard-boil an egg in mine.

OhEssYouCowboys on April 6, 2013 at 1:15 PM

bayam! Come out and play…

Del Dolemonte on April 6, 2013 at 1:06 PM

DD, thanks for the laugh.

OhEssYouCowboys on April 6, 2013 at 1:15 PM

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.”

And? Why is your definition of “reasonable” better than the person(s) that earned that money?

How about gutting your immoral, profligate, and corrupt spending instead?

These people are sick, greedy, and emotionally-challenged. As each day passes I find it more difficult to respect any Democrat voter.

Oh and let’s not forget: It wasn’t all that long ago when “rich” was considered an income of $1,000,000 per year. Now it’s at $250,000. You Leftists think your Cult Leaders won’t lower that bar again? They don’t index these types of policies to inflation, either. Freaks.

visions on April 6, 2013 at 1:17 PM

Wonder when bho will cut to the chase and just ‘take’ the ira’s/401k’s? Afterall, all those trillions just setting there making people rich needs to pay for ‘santa bho’s’ give away to those ‘less’ fortunate?
L

letget on April 6, 2013 at 1:17 PM

A few operative questions:

- What happens to the retirement plans that have more than $3 million in it right now? Does that money just get seized by The Leviathan?
- If that $900 million/year in new taxes comes solely from those no longer able to contribute to their own retirement, what’s going to happen to the market with the loss of $2.5 billion in incoming money?
- If a “high-end” private retiree takes his maximum $205,000/year (which is less than what the average high-end California/New York public employee gets from his pension) from his maxed-out $3 million plan and then kicks the bucket on his 70th birthday, who gets the roughly $1.75 million left in the plan?

Steve Eggleston on April 6, 2013 at 1:18 PM

Oh and let’s not forget: It wasn’t all that long ago when “rich” was considered an income of $1,000,000 per year. Now it’s at $250,000. You Leftists think your Cult Leaders won’t lower that bar again? They don’t index these types of policies to inflation, either. Freaks.

visions on April 6, 2013 at 1:17 PM

It’s $205,000 now.

Steve Eggleston on April 6, 2013 at 1:18 PM

The very fact that this man draws breath is utterly and disgustingly pornographic.

Can someone convince him to play 3×18 daily at Congressional for the next three years?

I’m sure that by now we realize that a golfing president is the least damaging prospect.

turfmann on April 6, 2013 at 1:19 PM

What if the rich take huge losses in future years that offset the good years? Would they be allowed to make catchup payments?

If you’re going to stick it to these people, wealth, not income, should be the determining factor.

blammm on April 6, 2013 at 1:19 PM

This just in. BHO proposes those darn rich kids with their overfunded piggy banks. I mean really. What kid needs more than $12.45 in a piggy bank. It’s clearly a tax dodge.

Minnfidel on April 6, 2013 at 1:20 PM

But calling Democrats “Tax And Spend” is slander, don’t forget.

Socratease on April 6, 2013 at 1:20 PM

It’s not the wealthy that have perpetrated our current malaise, it is the government.

Shut them the **** down, take away their money, make them unemployed, lament their suffering.

turfmann on April 6, 2013 at 1:21 PM

Wonder when bho will cut to the chase and just ‘take’ the ira’s/401k’s? Afterall, all those trillions just setting there making people rich needs to pay for ‘santa bho’s’ give away to those ‘less’ fortunate?
L

letget on April 6, 2013 at 1:17 PM

Don’t think for a second that those Democrats (and Lefty Republicans) aren’t rubbing their hands together, salivating over all that “idle” money just “sitting on the sidelines.”

visions on April 6, 2013 at 1:22 PM

But it’s worse than that. The stated rationale for the $3M cap is that $3M will pay $205k in interest every year.

You’d have to get 6.7% to make $205k on $3M. No one can get 6.7% anywhere. Our 30-year Treasuries are yielding under two percent. It’s absurd.

Does he not know that going interest rates, factoring in inflation, are nearly NEGATIVE? Can he not do simple math?

Lawyer Mom on April 6, 2013 at 1:24 PM

He is just getting started. We are all going to be Cypriots.

jukin3 on April 6, 2013 at 1:25 PM

Obama and his moocher goons are going to come after our 401k’s, IRA’s and private pensions before he leaves office. Just wait…

http://youtu.be/N6FIw_XTBKg

jawkneemusic on April 6, 2013 at 1:27 PM

When are we going to tax government employees on jet use on vacations and million dollar hotel bills?

IlikedAUH2O on April 6, 2013 at 1:28 PM

He is a marxist nut job and so are the jerks that voted for him

HAGGS99 on April 6, 2013 at 1:29 PM

IlikedAUH2O on April 6, 2013 at 1:28 PM

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha…deep breath…hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Repeat the rest of the day.

We work for them don’cha know.

cozmo on April 6, 2013 at 1:31 PM

Can he not do simple math?

Lawyer Mom on April 6, 2013 at 1:24 PM

No, he can’t. He’s a friggin brain-dead, 84 IQ idiot who likely couldn’t even break 900 on his SATs. He showed this to the world with absolutely retarded “profit AND earnings ratios” and “reduce premiums by 3000%!!”

The Indonesian is just mind-blowingly DUMB.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 6, 2013 at 1:32 PM

He is out of control.

Earth to Obama – it’s not your money idiot.

gophergirl on April 6, 2013 at 1:11 PM

Wrong, wrong, wrong!

In the mind and worldview of the Progressive EVERYTHING flows from the Federal Government.

Defense of the country, the government provides.

Transportation and highways, the government pays for that and administers it.

Protecting the environment, yep you owe that to the likes of EPA and OSHA.

Healthcare, yes the Government provides all that.

Profits, yes, the federal government even allows you to have some of that to provide for your family.

So please don’t act like you built that all by yourself.

You drove on a road provided by the government.

You drove in a car that was made safer by…….the government.

Bombs and mortars don’t rain down on you so the government does that for you.

And you’re healthy because a government funded study or research led to a drug that makes you feel better.


You didn’t build that, and it’s not yours.

Get over that whole you have rights thing.

The government lets YOU have rights. They and EVERYTHING else flows down to you peoples.

THIS is what Americans voted for.

Yummy.

PappyD61 on April 6, 2013 at 1:33 PM

I read this today. I don’t know if true or not, but from what I have found it seems true? This sure is what has/is happening now in the US!

A PROPHETIC 1944 SPEECH

Norman Mattoon Thomas (November 20, 1884 – December 19, 1968), and some

of us are old enough to remember him running for President, was a leading

American socialist, pacifist, and six-time presidential candidate for the

Socialist Party of America .

Norman Thomas said this in a 1944 speech:

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the

name of “liberalism,” they will adopt every fragment of the socialist

program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without

knowing how it happened.” He went on to say: “I no longer need to run as

a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party

has adopted our platform.”
L

letget on April 6, 2013 at 1:33 PM

I would go for this 401 tax and even BS ideas like the Buffet tax if they could give some common stock in an account to everyone who attained age 21.

The proviso would be not to sell it for at least ten years but they could trade it. Then they could sell 10% a year, tops. Or get a subsidy and/or transfer from Social Security to buy more for their golden years.

I think Ameritrade, Etrade and Scottrade would be with me.

IlikedAUH2O on April 6, 2013 at 1:35 PM

This model of Affirmative Action is the epitome of Bolshevism.

I’m simply beside myself, that America’s death throes would be the result of a suicide.

OhEssYouCowboys on April 6, 2013 at 1:13 PM

“There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism – by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.”
~Ayn Rand

yubley on April 6, 2013 at 1:35 PM

<em

The Govt has not right to determine how much or how little for individuals. Those bastards work for we the people, and Obama is our employee

HAGGS99 on April 6, 2013 at 1:35 PM

…while WH lives the lives of the .0001%rs.

Plus, this is just phase I in looting the retirement funds dry. Argentina is nothing compared to Obama/Pelosi.

Plus here is the charlan’s one dilemma

If the Obama administration appeals Korman’s ruling, it could re-ignite a simmering cultural battle over women’s reproductive health — never far from the surface in American politics — sidetracking the president just as he’s trying to keep Congress and the public focused on gun control, immigration and resolving the nation’s budget woes.

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2013 at 1:37 PM

Dumb and dumber and no one is paying attention to their pronouncements anyway.

rob verdi on April 6, 2013 at 1:04 PM

…at your own risk

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2013 at 1:37 PM

HAGGS99 on April 6, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Silly girl.

All your bases money belong to us.

Sincerely,

Federal Overlords.

cozmo on April 6, 2013 at 1:38 PM

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.”

Well this is really Marxist of him.
Politicians will have to be exempt, then. Most retire with much more than 3 mill.

At some point, like Obama said, you’ve made enough money.
And maybe at some point you’ve driven enough SUV’s, and eaten enough food, bought enough clothes and lived in enough houses, and owned enough guns, and had enough kids, and spent enough money and on and on.

JellyToast on April 6, 2013 at 1:38 PM

I’m simply beside myself, that America’s death throes would be the result of a suicide.

OhEssYouCowboys on April 6, 2013 at 1:13 PM

Rome lasted longer. The barbarians are inside.

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2013 at 1:39 PM

But it’s worse than that. The stated rationale for the $3M cap is that $3M will pay $205k in interest every year.

You’d have to get 6.7% to make $205k on $3M. No one can get 6.7% anywhere. Our 30-year Treasuries are yielding under two percent. It’s absurd.

Does he not know that going interest rates, factoring in inflation, are nearly NEGATIVE? Can he not do simple math?

Lawyer Mom on April 6, 2013 at 1:24 PM

The rationale is that you only deserve to live 14 years and change in retirement (which is how long $3 million at 0.0% interest at a fixed withdrawal of $205,000 lasts).

Steve Eggleston on April 6, 2013 at 1:43 PM

When are we going to tax government employees on jet use on vacations and million dollar hotel bills?

IlikedAUH2O on April 6, 2013 at 1:28 PM

They are always exempt.

‘Pitchfork’ their overlords on election day. Otherwise they will utterly destroy you, which they should.

Relatively free people always deserve the fools they vote for.

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2013 at 1:44 PM

PappyD61 on April 6, 2013 at 1:33 PM

Actually, in the Progressive worldview, there is no such thing as “defense”.

Steve Eggleston on April 6, 2013 at 1:45 PM

Of course he can do the math.

Class Warfare + Stupid Voters = Unlimited Power

PattyJ on April 6, 2013 at 1:47 PM

Wonder when bho will cut to the chase and just ‘take’ the ira’s/401k’s? Afterall, all those trillions just setting there making people rich needs to pay for ‘santa bho’s’ give away to those ‘less’ fortunate?
L

letget on April 6, 2013 at 1:17 PM

That’s exactly why Himself and I cashed in our (extremely underfunded) IRAs the instant we got old enough, took the tax hit, then put the money in a general savings account where we stash all our little windfalls. Hopefully we will get enough notice before the government plunders all savings over what Ogabe and his minions consider a “reasonable” amount for anyone to possess to take the money out.

catsandbooks on April 6, 2013 at 1:50 PM

So we’ve gone from “I think at some point you’ve made enough money” to “I think at some point you’ve saved enough money”? Can the folks who claim to be on our side finally admit we have a Communist in the White House?

Doughboy on April 6, 2013 at 1:54 PM

One more thing – how easy is it to hit Teh SCOAMT’s $3 million limit? If you start putting away an inflation-adjusted (at 3%) $5,000 at age 25, your employer matches that to make it a total of an inflation-adjusted $10,000, and manage to get a 7% annual nominal rate of return, you’ll hit $3 million before you hit 65.

Steve Eggleston on April 6, 2013 at 1:55 PM

So we’ve gone from “I think at some point you’ve made enough money” to “I think at some point you’ve saved enough money”? Can the folks who claim to be on our side finally admit we have a Communist in the White House?

Doughboy on April 6, 2013 at 1:54 PM

Of the Trotskyite flavor (of course, I’ve been saying that about Teh SCOAMT since 2007).

Steve Eggleston on April 6, 2013 at 1:55 PM

catsandbooks on April 6, 2013 at 1:50 PM

Hubby and I did the same several years ago. Take the tax hit when we saw what bho was suggesting and are we glad we did it when we did!
L

letget on April 6, 2013 at 1:57 PM

That’s exactly why Himself and I cashed in our (extremely underfunded) IRAs the instant we got old enough, took the tax hit, then put the money in a general savings account where we stash all our little windfalls. Hopefully we will get enough notice before the government plunders all savings over what Ogabe and his minions consider a “reasonable” amount for anyone to possess to take the money out.

catsandbooks on April 6, 2013 at 1:50 PM

You won’t get the warning, and the cutoff will probably be closer to the $125,000 total for the Cypriots than the $250,000 per account type the FDIC is currently promising.

Steve Eggleston on April 6, 2013 at 1:58 PM

Of course he can do the math.

Class Warfare + Stupid Voters = Unlimited Power

PattyJ on April 6, 2013 at 1:47 PM

I’m stealing that. :-)

Fallon on April 6, 2013 at 1:59 PM

And that money over $3 million will be moved offshore immediately. Jobs and wealth fleeing; next the wealthy themselves. Then you’ll have nothing to tax, liberals!

michaelo on April 6, 2013 at 1:59 PM

Has it been 8 years yet? Crikey this guy needs to go already.

If Hillary follows this guy into the white house, we’re all doomed.

Oxymoron on April 6, 2013 at 2:00 PM

We’re still on the precipice of a recovery, I see.

rogerb on April 6, 2013 at 2:00 PM

With more Democrats created each day – that is those going on welfare, food stamps, unemployment, disability…the Democrats have no fear of not getting more Democrats in power.

There must me a formula that says when X-percent of the population relies on the government for their daily living needs then the government will always be from the Democratic party.

People with jobs and paying taxes dislike higher taxes; people without jobs and getting a welfare-type paycheck from the Government want higher taxes…because they have no fear of paying them.

albill on April 6, 2013 at 2:01 PM

These people are sick, greedy, and emotionally-challenged. As each day passes I find it more difficult to respect any Democrat voter

That’s right, Buffet, Gates, Ellison, Zuckerberg, and the late, great Jobs- all haters of the wealthy and capitalism. A group of sick, twisted Marxists who nave no respect free enterprise!

Tax rates remain near historic lows and the deficit unchecked. You’re not going to hold entitlement spending at a fixed rate over the next 20 years with a graying population. Previous generations of Americans paid far higher taxes to build out this country’s infrastructure. You are NOT a victim.

bayam on April 6, 2013 at 2:03 PM

…Gates…
 
bayam on April 6, 2013 at 2:03 PM

 
DRINK!

rogerb on April 6, 2013 at 2:06 PM

He is preaching to his economically illiterate base, as usual. There are already annual limits on IRA and 401K contributions. Anyway, in what alternate version of America is it anybody’s business how much a person saves for retirement. Can there possibly be anyone with more than two braincells that does not understand that obama (after the primary goal of taking care of obama) is only interested in redistribution to select groups?

rjh on April 6, 2013 at 2:10 PM

The lunatic-left d-cRAT socialist extremists, who, for some time, have had have plans to confiscate the 401(k) savings of all Americans, are salivating over the prospect of also taking all of our other savings. There is no amount of OTHER PEOPLE”S MONEY that will satisfy these out-of-control, insane radicals. OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY is “their” endless offerings to their GOD of BIG GOVERNMENT. The OBOZO regime will out-do the Cyprus atrocity in every way possible.

TeaPartyNation on April 6, 2013 at 2:12 PM

People with jobs and paying taxes dislike higher taxes; people without jobs and getting a welfare-type paycheck from the Government want higher taxes…because they have no fear of paying them.

albill on April 6, 2013 at 2:01 PM

You people are hilarious. No one is trying to arbitrarily raise taxes. But you can’t spend $6 trillion on wars and never pay for it or weather a 25 year period of aging demographics and not raise additional revenue to cover the cost.

bayam on April 6, 2013 at 2:12 PM

By the way, the actual well-moneyed don’t depend on their 401(k) for retirement. It’s the upwardly-mobile wanna-be rich who will get <expletive deleted> by this.

Steve Eggleston on April 6, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Ok – To be fair there are already caps on how much we can all contribute to our 401k’s as part of a tax shelter.

I loathe Obama and his Trotskyite ways but this isn’t a grab so much as another cap (Romney is still free to make his millions).

What’s idiotic about this, however, is the fact that HALF THE money would STILL COME BACK TO THE GOVERNMENT upon the death of the retiree (and spouse) automatically. So the government gets a short term gain of a few billion which it will quickly squander to research coconut laden swallows but loses out on hundreds of billions more because the money won’t be tax sheltered but get tied up in NON-income generating investments (IE UNTAXABLE).

Bring forth the Paklid President…

Skywise on April 6, 2013 at 2:17 PM

You people are hilarious. No one is trying to arbitrarily raise taxes.

bayam on April 6, 2013 at 2:12 PM

You’re right. Jugears and his ilk are going for confiscation now.

SagebrushPuppet on April 6, 2013 at 2:20 PM

You people are hilarious. No one is trying to arbitrarily raise taxes. But you can’t spend $6 trillion on wars and never pay for it or weather a 25 year period of aging demographics and not raise additional revenue to cover the cost.

bayam on April 6, 2013 at 2:12 PM

And you are an unfunny liar. We’d have to be at war another 35 or so years to hit $6 trillion in war spending, and the 1983 Social Security tax hikes were supposed to pay for the aging demographics through 2050 or so.

Steve Eggleston on April 6, 2013 at 2:22 PM

Steve Eggleston on April 6, 2013 at 2:22 PM

Indeed. bayam is an intentional thread derailer. May he suffocate in Obama’s azz.

Facts are not something the intoxicated Obamabots thrive on.

He is a little Axelturd who always obfuscates to distract.

—————

SE, your comments are pure mental satisfaction, every time. Thank you.

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2013 at 2:27 PM

“There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism – by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.”
~Ayn Rand

yubley on April 6, 2013 at 1:35 PM

yubley, a fantastic quote, that I’ve never seen before.

TY

OhEssYouCowboys on April 6, 2013 at 2:27 PM

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.”

And that’s your business, why?

Cleombrotus on April 6, 2013 at 2:27 PM

You people are hilarious. No one is trying to arbitrarily raise taxes.
 
bayam on April 6, 2013 at 2:12 PM

 
Note, readers, the argument he’s prepared to debate. He’s attempting to frame it so he knows how to try and argue against it.

rogerb on April 6, 2013 at 2:30 PM

“There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism – by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.”
~Ayn Rand

yubley on April 6, 2013 at 1:35 PM

She was a great mind, a grand lady, in spite of her ‘fleas’.

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2013 at 2:30 PM

BTW, nice touch trying to throw “war” in there and pretending Obama’s spending never happened:
 
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/09/obamas-deficit-dodge/
 
Again, trying to dishonestly frame the debate. And (again) weak as always.

rogerb on April 6, 2013 at 2:32 PM

Like the rest of his budgets this one is DOA, but he is not hiding who he really is anymore. I doubt there will be many democrats other than those in ultra liberal district s that would even come close to endorsing this theft but the republicans should put it to a vote and hammer all those who do in the midterm elections.

Ellis on April 6, 2013 at 2:32 PM

So not only will there a be limit on how much you can deposit (pre-tax) into your IRA, but now there’s a limit on how much you can have in the account?

I wonder…..what happens if you go over the limit? Can you say “Cyprus”?

At some point, you’ve saved enough money.

BobMbx on April 6, 2013 at 2:33 PM

Note to Byam, spending on national defense is constitutional, it is the unfunded welfare state that is bankrupting this country.

Ellis on April 6, 2013 at 2:35 PM

Can there possibly be anyone with more than two braincells that does not understand that obama (after the primary goal of taking care of obama) is only interested in redistribution to select groups?

rjh on April 6, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Umm…

bayam on April 6, 2013 at 2:03 PM

Cleombrotus on April 6, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Ah, but once the camel’s nose is… you get the drift.

“wealthy” became “billionaires” became “millionaires and billionaires” became “those making more than $250,000″ in rather short order.

If you think this is alright because *your* IRA is safe, think again.

Also… there are already regs in place that limit how much any one can put into an IRA in a single year, yes? Someone do the math – if you put in the max every year from the day you’re 18, and assume compounding growth of X% (pick a figure) at what age do you reach what they consider to be ‘enough’ in your IRA? I suspect the threshold is actually lower than the “like Mitt Romney” qualifier (that was odd, wasn’t it?) leads readers to believe.

Midas on April 6, 2013 at 2:39 PM

You people are hilarious. No one is trying to arbitrarily raise taxes.

bayam on April 6, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Wish I could say you were hilarious, but as idiotic as you are, you aren’t funny in the least. You and yours are dangerous, and I’d just as soon you promptly remove yourself from the gene pool and stop endangering the rest of us.

Midas on April 6, 2013 at 2:41 PM

bayam on April 6, 2013 at 2:03 PM

Looking at the tax rates rather than what the government actually got is disingenuous. Revenues from all sources have been around 18% of GDP up until our recent depression. It didn’t matter what the tax rates were.

chemman on April 6, 2013 at 2:43 PM

You people are hilarious. No one is trying to arbitrarily raise taxes. But you can’t spend $6 trillion on wars and never pay for it or weather a 25 year period of aging demographics and not raise additional revenue to cover the cost.

bayam on April 6, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Let’s assume higher tax (theft-rates) means more government revenue. Which of these scenarios is more likely:

a) “Okay, this backlog of bills we have, let’s start paying them off.”

b) “Woohoo, more money, baby! Let’s start a new transgender artwork appreciation program, for the children!”

mudskipper on April 6, 2013 at 2:46 PM

Taking everyone’s IRA and giving everyone what government thinks you deserve to retire on?

Because this is how it begins, start with the wealthy and magically the rate applies to the less and less wealthy.

Now government decides how much you’re allowed to retire on.

Speakup on April 6, 2013 at 2:46 PM

Why A Cyprus-Like Seizure Of Your Money Could Happen Here
Steve Forbes

This story appears in the April 15, 2013 issue of Forbes.

Don’t put it past our politicians to try it in a financial emergency. The breaking of contracts by the U.S. government, unfortunately, has happened before, and what’s under way in Cyprus shows that feckless politicos will continue to try such things.

In 1933–34, amid the depths of the Great Depression, the U.S. government seized the American people’s gold holdings. From that point, until 1975, it was illegal for Americans to own gold, other than in some forms of jewelry or collectors’ coins. In the panic of the Depression years the courts upheld this unconstitutional confiscation. Yes, people received dollars in return for their holdings of the yellow metal, but the dollar itself was formally devalued by 40%. Moreover, the U.S. government abrogated private commercial contracts containing the so-called gold clause, which allowed creditors to receive payments in either dollars or gold…

Speakup on April 6, 2013 at 2:48 PM

@Ellis Oh please, the same old B.S. Many at HA know me, but what they don’t know is that I’m an independent, temporirily aligned with the pubs. The U.S spends more on defense than the 9 following nations combined. As a pub, you’re blinded to that fact. We can easily cut 25% of the military budget, and still be the most powerful in the world. Rhetoric is blinding you. Get real, pubs and dems. We got real problems, and we need realistic solutions, not partisan ideological B.S.

tommy71 on April 6, 2013 at 2:48 PM

We should start calling this the You’re-Not-Allowed-To-Have Administration, for all the things Obama wants to take away from people. It’s amazing all the places this joker is scrambling to find (and then steal) money. Sadly, we’re still seeing only the tip of the iceberg. I truly believe Obama and the Dems have their eyes dreamily cast on the retirement accounts of everyone, for starters. Then more regulation of banks, so they have to charge ‘management fees’ on checking and savings accounts, which are then forwarded to Washington (watch out, you people with Christmas Clubs!).

Evil knows no bounds in its creativity.

Liam on April 6, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Reprobates like stalinist bayam would put a tic in the “gas them” column next to your surname if he was in any position of power.

tom daschle concerned on April 6, 2013 at 2:56 PM

@tommy, not sure why you are talking to me, I said nothing about the military only that national defense is defined as a role of the government in the constitution while the super welfare state is not. We have a spending problem combined with a political problem that reduces revenues as it shrinks the economy. Maybe we can cut waste in the military but I think you have a naive view of geopolitics if you think 25% cut is realistic.

Ellis on April 6, 2013 at 2:58 PM

You people are hilarious. No one is trying to arbitrarily raise taxes.

bayam on April 6, 2013 at 2:12 PM

If this is what you believe you are a dummy and a liar.

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2013 at 2:59 PM

. The OBOZO regime will out-do the Cyprus atrocity in every way possible.

TeaPartyNation on April 6, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Of course, the Cypriots had been disarmed long ago…willingly.

Perhaps there’s a lesson to be learned there. Mmmmm?

Solaratov on April 6, 2013 at 3:02 PM

bayam on April 6, 2013

You should have told that dummy Barack to end those wars, including the one he supported, on day one. Yet we know who you are, you’re a toady.

CW on April 6, 2013 at 3:06 PM

bayam on April 6, 2013 at 2:12 PM

And you are an unfunny liar. We’d have to be at war another 35 or so years to hit $6 trillion in war spending, and the 1983 Social Security tax hikes were supposed to pay for the aging demographics through 2050 or so.

Steve Eggleston on April 6, 2013 at 2:22 PM

Perhaps the little leftoid drone confused that with the $6+Trillion deficit that his obamassiah has accumulated in just 4 years.

And, what would Bayam know about it, anyway? He’s had his face stuck between lil barry’s butt-cheeks for so long he doesn’t even recall daylight.

Solaratov on April 6, 2013 at 3:09 PM

Kind of alluded to above…he doesn’t want a budget that will get any look. So throw something out that will get tossed without a further thought because it is so absurd. When I get elected POTUS, I will propose a $500 tax everytime somebody flushes their toilet.

Btw, go back to the history of 401k’s…they were instituted as a means of telling people to provide for their own retirement because the Soc Sec Ponzi scheme was going to unravel. They just couldn’t express the truth in such terms without creating massive riots.

teejk on April 6, 2013 at 3:10 PM

@Ellis But thats the truth. And you’d never be able to accept it. And international geopolitics? Maybe 4-5 other HotAirians could match me. You just don’t know what you’re talking about, I do. You can spout bout national defense, but if you’re truly a fiscal conservative, you can slice atleast 25% of the pie without affecting operations. But you just want to spout publican rationale and ideology, and not come to a realistic solution.

tommy71 on April 6, 2013 at 3:14 PM

bayam on April 6, 2013 at 2:12 PM

And you are an unfunny liar. We’d have to be at war another 35 or so years to hit $6 trillion in war spending, and the 1983 Social Security tax hikes were supposed to pay for the aging demographics through 2050 or so.

Steve Eggleston on April 6, 2013 at 2:22 PM

Brayam’s an idiot.

CW on April 6, 2013 at 3:19 PM

@Ellis But thats the truth. And you’d never be able to accept it. And international geopolitics? Maybe 4-5 other HotAirians could match me……

tommy71 on April 6, 2013 at 3:14 PM

Tommy you sound like a jerk.

And prove your contention about a 25% cut smart guy.

CW on April 6, 2013 at 3:21 PM

The U.S spends more on defense than the 9 following nations combined.

So what?

As a pub, you’re blinded to that fact.

As a fool you’re obsessed by it.

We can easily cut 25% of the military budget, and still be the most powerful in the world.

According to you … based on your close examination of all the figures and the militaries of the rest fo the world and the threats America faces and the responsibilities that we take on, willingly … Okey doke. Just make stuff up.

Rhetoric is blinding you. Get real, pubs and dems. We got real problems, and we need realistic solutions, not partisan ideological B.S.

tommy71 on April 6, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Defense spending – which as was pointed out, is about the only actual Constitutional spending done in Washington – is a pittance compared to the un-Constitutional waste on social programs that the feral government isn’t even allowed to be mucking around with. Get your priorities straight. Our defense spending as a percentage of GDP is not so much.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 6, 2013 at 3:23 PM

And international geopolitics? Maybe 4-5 other HotAirians could match me……

tommy71 on April 6, 2013 at 3:14 PM

Who would want to match you? You’re a fool.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 6, 2013 at 3:25 PM

The proposal would save around $9 billion over a decade,

SAVE!? What the @#$% are they saying here? Not allowing people to save money in an IRA or 401K will “save” the government money. … as if the government is the first recipient of any earnings and that not taxing something is somehow an “expense”. … or more realistically here, deferring taxing something since those funds are taxable when withdrawn.

a senior administration official said, while also bringing more fairness to the tax code.

More fairness? Again, who are they to say what is fair for someone to save or not?

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.”

“Reasonable levels of retirement savings” ? Who the @#$% are you to decide what is reasonable?

Only good thing about this statement is that is shows the dark, dark souls of the marxists in the White House. This is going way past talk and pushing toward pitchforks and torches here with kind of attitude being exhibited by those who are supposed to be elected officials and administering the affairs of the government, not ruling over a kingdom.

Yeah, blood boiling indeed.

AZfederalist on April 6, 2013 at 3:31 PM

@CW Come on to QOTD during the nights, and if I’m unavailable, ask bout me. You’d get a realistic picture. And TPOP, you know me. By abusing me now, you’re translating yourself into a fool. Please don’t do that.

tommy71 on April 6, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Can there possibly be anyone with more than two braincells that does not understand that obama (after the primary goal of taking care of obama) is only interested in redistribution to select groups?

rjh on April 6, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Umm…

bayam on April 6, 2013 at 2:03 PM

Cleombrotus on April 6, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Now, in fairness to rjh, he did qualify that with the requirement for two braincells; a fact not in evidence with bayam who only has the ability to appeal to authority and cite the fact that crony capitalist tycoons support government intervention and high taxes on those who might pose a threat to their empires won under more a more favorable business climate.

AZfederalist on April 6, 2013 at 3:33 PM

tommy is not a “fool”. He’s just immodest today, for unknown reason.

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Previous generations of Americans paid far higher taxes to build out this country’s infrastructure. You are NOT a victim.

bayam

So, a girl who was previously raped by one guy isn’t a victim as long as another girl was raped by 2 or more guys?

You people are hilarious. No one is trying to arbitrarily raise taxes. But you can’t spend $6 trillion on wars and never pay for it or weather a 25 year period of aging demographics and not raise additional revenue to cover the cost.

bayam

But you can apparently pull bogus numbers out of your azzz when you’re on the wrong side of an argument.

Ok – To be fair there are already caps on how much we can all contribute to our 401k’s as part of a tax shelter.

Skywise

Which makes the entire premise bogus. Romney can’t contribute any more to an IRA than Bob the accountant, and both can accumulate the exact same amount. Romney’s IRA won’t grow faster and bigger because he’s rich.

xblade on April 6, 2013 at 3:35 PM

From another thread.

Unlike most of you partisans, I insisted that the GOP would hold true to the sequester. Most of you thought that the GOP would cave. I didn’t. Jeez peeps, have the ba**s to admit it when you were wrong. And I was right again. Lol. Wanna take future bets? Don’t bet against me, you’ll lose.

tommy71 on April 6, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Me thinks Tommy’s self-esteem is down and needs a pick me up.

CW on April 6, 2013 at 3:36 PM

And TPOP, you know me.

I thought I did.

By abusing me now, you’re translating yourself into a fool. Please don’t do that.

tommy71 on April 6, 2013 at 3:32 PM

I have no patience for that sort of argument. I had no patience for it when the idiot GOP agreed to hit defense first and hardest with their stupid Sequestration deal with the devil and I have no patience for it now.

As to the following 9 countries, you don’t know what China or Russia’s actual expenditures are and I would guess that most of the nations on that list are defended by us. Add to that that, with the exception of China, no other nation’s GDP even comes within spitting distance of ours – not even combined.

With most of our budget going to un-Constitutional social programs that grow without bound the idea that you anyone would hone in on defense to argue about cuts is offensive. Yes, defense could take cuts, but last. Priorities dictate that first and most important cuts are to those un-Constitutional expenditures that actually threaten the solvency (LOL) of the feral government, of which defense is certainly not one.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 6, 2013 at 3:38 PM

tommy, in regards to your post directed at me:

Oh Tommy please– I have seen you around and generally I know you’re fine and not too bad a fellow but I went back and looked at some of your posts and it is not like you really bring too many facts to the table.

CW on April 6, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Comment pages: 1 2