529 Sunset Provision

[Optsol]

In looking into saving for college, one finds the 529 plans as a primary vehicle.

Having a three year old, it sounds great to start early and save often, but what has stopped me is that their tax-free benefits expire in 2010. Before my daughter reaches high school...

Ya, I know that politicians will want to extend it "for the children", but demographics seem to be against this occurring. Namely, won't Boomers' children will be out of college?

So for you 529-ers out there, is this of concern to you? How do you reconcile the uncertainty of the sunset provision?

[sweeps]

I think it's highly unlikely that the politicians will allow the 529 tax benefits expire. I'm not concerned -- I contribute every month.

[Optsol]

Well I agree that there will be pressure to keep it rolling, it's just not clear whether it wil be enough. For example, boomer's college kids will be out, and they will be wanting funds for SS -- not tax breaks for saving for college.

[sweeps]

I know what you're saying but... (1) The uproar from parents would be too great. No politician wants to be labeled as anti-education. (2) You have a strong lobby from the brokerages to keep the 529 money flowing in. (3) It's likely that Americans will come to their senses and elect more Democrats to office, who would be more willing to make middle-class tax cuts permanent.

Worst case I think Congress will extend the provision longer, or at least offer a way to unwind your investment without a tax penalty.

[Optsol]

I'm one who typically thinks in absolutes, so the unwind concept is one that I hadn't considered. Well, it's time to load up on a 529 for the litt'lun

[crosses]

They may also grandfather it - those who have already invested will get the tax breaks, but nobody after a certain date.

[sweeps]

Update on this: No "sunset" on college savings tax benefits

[poundwise]

Originally Posted by Sweepsplayer

It's likely that Americans will come to their senses and elect more Democrats to office, who would be more willing to make middle-class tax cuts permanent.

Wow. Sweeps, I think you give great advice and are a primary reason I enjoy ths board, however, this statement just stuck me as completely oddball.

Whether a person is Republican or Democrat, likes Bush or hates him, doesn't change what is simply the fact-of-the-matter on the policies of the Democrats and Republicans. I will not engage in dialogue about Bush, the parties, or politics beyond this subject and these facts. Opinions, what should be done, who provides the best leadership, etc. is for some other forum.

The facts I refer to are...

Rangel, Ranking Dem on House Ways And Means Com. in 2001 delineated what is essentially the party line on tax cuts from the Democrats.

First, the politcal statement: "The Democratic Plan provides dramatic tax relief for Americans, especially working families with children."

Then, the facts from the same document (emphasis mine): "The Democratic proposal provides a new, lower 12% tax rate on a couple's first $20,000 of taxable income ($10,000 on a single return). This would provide a maximum tax cut of $600 annually for couples and $300 for singles. Couples who use the standard deduction also would receive "marriage penalty" relief of $225, yielding a total maximum tax cut of $825.

Next, from SmartMoney.com, "What the Bush Tax Cut Means For You."

From the "Illustrative Scenarios" section of that work --

"Married with two kids under 17, $50,000 income" = Tax savings of "$1,133."

It should be noted that this, of the scenarios given by SmartMoney.com, was the least amount, dollar-wise, of tax break for a married couple.

So Dems plan max is $825.
Basic married couple with two kids gets $1133. under 'Bush' plan.

Those are facts.

If you want to say, "Yes but..." and then talk about how the 'rich' (those making $100K or more) are getting more relief (dollar-wise) and that shouldn't be a part of the plan, etc. then that's opinion, and part of what is genuine cause for debate. You can also debate estate taxes, child tax credits, etc. etc. but the bottom-line fact is that the middle-class benefits more under the Bush plan that they would have under the proposed Dem plan. Period.

To say that people may wise up and put Dems in for better or more permanent tax cuts for the middle-class is akin to saying that we should vote Republican to better protect the environment.

[Broken Arrow]

Ah, that's good to know!