So would you support a Roth IRA tax?

**disneysteve** · 10-30-2009, 11:35 AM

Nope. I would oppose changing the rules mid-way through the game. If people knew Roths would be taxed, they might not have used them in the same way. If they want to change the rules for new accounts, that is one thing but don't change the rules on existing accounts.

What I can definitely see happening, though, is means testing for SS benefits. So that person who built up a huge Roth or 401k might find they don't qualify for full SS benefits, if any at all. I would oppose that, too, but I think that is more likely to happen than taxing Roths.

**bjl584** · 10-30-2009, 11:57 AM

I vote NO as well. Contributions to Roth accounts are after tax contributions. Taxing them further would be double taxation in essence. The rules and guidlines were already set up for these types of accounts and are used as tax shelters to an extent. You can't change the rules in the middle of the game.

**disneysteve** · 10-30-2009, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by bjl584 View Post

Taxing them further would be double taxation in essence.

Only if they tax the contributions. They could conceivably just tax the earnings and avoid the double taxation issue (not that I want to give them any ideas).

**Goldy1** · 10-30-2009, 12:26 PM

Why am I responsible for paying other people's retirement? Most jobs offer no pension. Many already have to pay taxes for welfare and medicad etc that they am not qualified to get even during a lay off for themselves b/c they bothered to amass small savings.

Why don't' we just have a nation of nobody working and 10% of the population working to support those, and if those who work fall on hard times, don't help them if they need help.(sarcasm)

Is it a crime to have anything?
TAxing roths? This thought just makes me not want to put anything more into it. Don'tchange the rules mid game. Grandfather things in if you must. Then again, if I dot' get medicare or soc sec one day, that is changing the rules.
What should our motto be? Burn all your money so uncle sam can save you? Take responsibility.

**JustDave** · 10-30-2009, 12:50 PM

I'm opposed to a Roth tax because it goes against the very reason people invest in a Roth IRA in the first place. But that aside, I'm opposed for the reason you gave: to support those with poor planning.

I work hard for what I earn, and preparing for the future takes a little work and discipline. I don't feel that I'm responsible for helping out those who don't want to do the same. It's not like this information is exactly top-secret; there should be no excuse for not planning ahead for the future.

**EEinNJ** · 10-30-2009, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by KTP View Post

Couldn't we help out a lot more people who didn't plan well enough or decided not to save during their working years by taxing these wealthy Roth IRA accounts and supplying these other poorer people with a good monthly income?

I mean, if it only affects a small number of people (those who established Roth IRA accounts and were thrifty enough to contribute to them each year) wouldn't that really be for the better benefit of society?

Now I'm a pretty liberal, progressive person, but this suggestion is just out & out Communism- "From each according to their means, to each according to their needs".

This is worse than means testing, where if you're "wealthy" (you saved for retirement) you get less or no SS, even though we all pay in the same rate.I have long feared that is coming,

**maat55** · 10-30-2009, 01:34 PM

No. I am curious why raising taxes instead of cutting spending is always the solution.

The whole point to a Roth is to get individuals to save for themselves. Taxing them will only discourage saving.

Who on earth would let the government invest their money, so why do we give them so much for SS.

**GREENBACK** · 10-30-2009, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by KTP View Post

wouldn't that really be for the better benefit of society?

I would fight the hell out of this idea. As for benefitting society? The goverment has continually shown thet it has no idea how to manage money so giving them more will not benefit anybody.

**KTP** · 10-30-2009, 03:05 PM

Very interesting responses. So the majority feel that if they have worked hard for something, they should get to keep it.

**maat55** · 10-30-2009, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by KTP View Post

Very interesting responses. So the majority feel that if they have worked hard for something, they should get to keep it.

That's crazy talk, shame on you.

**GREENBACK** · 10-30-2009, 05:01 PM

As stated by Maat, this goes without saying. Hell yes if I worked for it I should be able to keep it. I earned it and played by the rules so hands off goverment.

**Snodog** · 10-30-2009, 05:57 PM

I would be against taxing the roth's because it would be changing the rules mid-stream and it would be a tax on the middle class. America's middle class has been loosing ground, and we need a strong middle class.

**am_vanquish** · 10-30-2009, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by KTP View Post

Very interesting responses. So the majority feel that if they have worked hard for something, they should get to keep it.

Although that's quite true, it wouldn't be the biggest reason I oppose Roth taxation. To me it's more about the principle that I sacrificed to set aside my earnings for future benefits while others spend every dime they make. Why should they get the same retirement income as me when I made the lifestyle adjustments that they didn't? It's even worse that I would be the one required to fund the future impact of their current spending through my savings.

**Jessica_A** · 10-30-2009, 07:03 PM

well 1200/mo is not really that much now days especially if you live in NY/CA/FL
besides 1200 now is not going to be the same 1200 20+ years from because of inflation
you can read some interesting information about roth ira taxation here:

rothirarules.net/roth-ira-tax.htm

and here

rothirarules.net

Later!

Originally posted by KTP View Post

I am curious if all of the people who responded positively to the proposed increase in taxes on people making 500,000/year (which is NOT me btw) would support a Roth IRA tax on people who have managed to save up a lot of money in their account?

Assume that a person gets 1200/month for SS. Do they *really* need the extra $4000 a month that a $1,000,000 Roth IRA could generate safely? Couldn't we help out a lot more people who didn't plan well enough or decided not to save during their working years by taxing these wealthy Roth IRA accounts and supplying these other poorer people with a good monthly income?

I mean, if it only affects a small number of people (those who established Roth IRA accounts and were thrifty enough to contribute to them each year) wouldn't that really be for the better benefit of society?

How many of you would support something like this?

So would you support a Roth IRA tax?