2014 Fed budget cap on retirement account balances

[snafu]

People like me had the opportunity to transfer our vested, defined pension fund to a 'self directed' [401K type] retirement fund when we left [government] employment. I've also contributed the maximum [income based] allowed since taking contract work. I get to decide the allocation and chose from a group of Mutual Funds and ETFs. Much to my surprise, this has resulted in a far higher balance than would have accumulated in the defined pension fund in spite of the fact that my income runs like a rollercoaster.

The defined pension plan is nearly totally invested in conservative bonds. We all know that interest rates are horrid, currently not even keeping up with inflation. Those in defined pensions will not get the 85% of top 5 years our age group was promised.

The $3M you're talking about is merely a ' tax DEFERRED' program. As soon as you begin to withdraw from that account you will be paying back that DEFERRED tax - at the rate current to the year and I expect you will required to withdraw a certain percentage from age 72 onward.

I guess those individuals who already have $3M in a 401K will need to have a regular investment account to buy Utilities Bonds or other tax free investments. I hope they don't put their excess in off shore banks in Cypress etc. I think you need to be a wealthy as Romney to have Cayman Is. accounts.

[Like2Plan]

I priced out an annuity and it came to about $175K for $3M. If you're at the point where $175K per year isn't enough for you, then I'll be happy with the government not giving you any further tax advantages for pushing that number higher. That's more than fifteen times the federal poverty limit, more than triple median income. If you're inclined to save that much, great - more power to you - but not more tax deferral.

I don't see that the government is giving further tax advantages at that level. The higher the annual income, the higher the taxes will be when the money is drawn from the 401K and the less of a tax advantage it will be--especially if tax rates are increased over the course of 43 years of saving. Also, that money is taxed as ordinary income. As opposed to investments outside a 401K which could be taxed at a lower long term capital gain rate (or qualified dividend rate). And stock investments don't have any RMDs like 401ks do.

[bUU]

I don't see that the government is giving further tax advantages at that level.

That explains why you're opposed to the provision: You're choosing to ignore the impact of the change, claiming it is insignificant. Your contention is belied by the fact that people don't like it (demonstrating that it does matter to them, at least), and that everyone willing to do the math with integrity recognize that it does move tax revenues into budgets closer to when the economic activity that generated the income took place. In a time when so many in the middle class are beating their chests about tax burden making it difficult to afford the basics of life, shifting some of that burden onto those who aren't going to be pushed toward public assistance by this amount of additional burden, is simply listening to your constituents.

[Like2Plan]

That explains why you're opposed to the provision: You're choosing to ignore the impact of the change, claiming it is insignificant. Your contention is belied by the fact that people don't like it (demonstrating that it does matter to them, at least), and that everyone willing to do the math with integrity recognize that it does move tax revenues into budgets closer to when the economic activity that generated the income took place. In a time when so many in the middle class are beating their chests about tax burden making it difficult to afford the basics of life, shifting some of that burden onto those who aren't going to be pushed toward public assistance by this amount of additional burden, is simply listening to your constituents.

I believe I have made it clear in other posts why I am opposed. It doesn't seem right to me that folks who are currently contributing within the limits could possibly exceed the limit at the other end. This applies to folks at all income levels.
Why do they keep increasing the contribution level each year? Why don't they lower it? This would then impact people during the years in which they are making the contributions. This would make more sense if the goal is to "move tax revenues into budgets closer to when the economic activity that generated the income took place."
I am also opposed to anything that is going to discourage folks to save for retirement. Everything I have read seems to indicate the retirement savings rates are too low.

[Like2Plan]

Link:
Here is an article in the Wall Street Journal on this topic

[bUU]

It doesn't seem right to me that folks who are currently contributing within the limits could possibly exceed the limit at the other end.

"It doesn't seem right." Yes, you've made it clear that that is how you feel about it. I'm basing my objection on basic decency and humane considerations. The defense for the perspective you're supporting is generally assertions of entitlement of the affluent. You're entitled to feel that way, but it doesn't mean that self-serving opportunistic perspective should prevail.

This applies to folks at all income levels.

However, folks at different income levels don't face the same risk of indigence. There is no other aspect related to money that comes close to avoidance of indigence in priority, not only from a personal standpoint but from a societal standpoint. The only way to assert that uniform applicability is important is to bury all sense of perspective - to bury all the human aspects of determining fairness, in favor of phlegmatic calculation.

Why do they keep increasing the contribution level each year?

Because all things (including the $3M cap) are rightfully tied to the CPI, because that primary risk I mentioned above is tied to the CPI.

This would make more sense if the goal is to "move tax revenues into budgets closer to when the economic activity that generated the income took place."

Both your flawed approach and this superior approach do that; this superior approach is superior because it acknowledges the relative primacy of avoiding specific risks.

I am also opposed to anything that is going to discourage folks to save for retirement.

Anyone who has already saved $3M isn't going to suddenly stop saving for retirement, just because they have to pay tax on the contributions. If anything, such folks, seeing the impact of RMDs, will have already switched to contributing significant amounts to taxable accounts, in consideration of retirement. Regardless, the rational foundation for what you've said here is that society has a vested interest in people saving for retirement so that they don't become indigent, and therefore an excessive financial burden on society, when they're elderly. With a $3M retirement accounts balance, there is practically no risk of that (see above, for discussion of relative risks). So your assertion here is without merit.

Everything I have read seems to indicate the retirement savings rates are too low.

This actually highlights a big problem, and the opposite of what you intended to show: Because there are people with excessive retirement account balances, the average balance is not a good indicator of the problem, because it is skewed upward by those excessive balances. So the reality is that the problem is bigger, but the problem is specifically that people at the lower-end of the scale aren't saving enough for retirement. There is no basis you can come up with that would enable you to twist this reality into a rational objection to the cap, because the risk you're highlighting is practically non-existent at that saving level.

By all rights, if you really cared about this aspect, as you seem to be trying to make it seem, then you'd have no objection the $3M cap, and would recognize that the tax revenue it brings in perhaps should be attributed back into retirement savings, in the form of granting those with low retirement account balances an additional catch-up capability, pegged specifically to low balance based on age, rather than a blind age-based catch-up capability.

Link:
Here is an article in the Wall Street Journal on this topic

I hope you realize that that is an opinion piece, not a news article. Note the derisive tone used (evidences by use of quoting) to defend self-serving avarice and to excuse the burying of basic decency and humane definitions of fairness: "Thus do our political betters now feel free to define for everyone what is 'needed' for a 'reasonable' retirement." Note also how the opinion piece, as we've seen repeated in discussions about this this week, tries to deceive the reader into thinking that the proposal caps retirement savings, instead of the reality, that it caps tax deferral. Ask yourself: Why do writers of such opinion pieces commit such lies of omission? Answer: They're trying to defend selfishness and realize that if they told the truth of the matter they'd lose a lot of the support they're hoping to gain. You should be better to yourself than buying into such callous, morally-bankrupt rhetoric.

[Like2Plan]

"It doesn't seem right." Yes, you've made it clear that that is how you feel about it. I'm basing my objection on basic decency and humane considerations. The defense for the perspective you're supporting is generally assertions of entitlement of the affluent. You're entitled to feel that way, but it doesn't mean that self-serving opportunistic perspective should prevail.

You clearly have your own self-serving opportunistic perspective in this discussion. I do not agree with your assertion that only the affluent will be harmed by this policy. In fact I think it will impact the folks in between the most. The truly affluent will not have any concern. I think it could also impact someone who sets aside money for retirement by making sacrifices to life style their entire working life.

This actually highlights a big problem, and the opposite of what you intended to show: Because there are people with excessive retirement account balances, the average balance is not a good indicator of the problem, because it is skewed upward by those excessive balances. So the reality is that the problem is bigger, but the problem is specifically that people at the lower-end of the scale aren't saving enough for retirement. There is no basis you can come up with that would enable you to twist this reality into a rational objection to the cap, because the risk you're highlighting is practically non-existent at that saving level.

By all rights, if you really cared about this aspect, as you seem to be trying to make it seem, then you'd have no objection the $3M cap, and would recognize that the tax revenue it brings in perhaps should be attributed back into retirement savings, in the form of granting those with low retirement account balances an additional catch-up capability, pegged specifically to low balance based on age, rather than a blind age-based catch-up capability..

So, you believe putting more restrictions to the program is going to encourage folks to contribute more into retirement accounts? I believe that the limit could be just as easily lowered to 100,000 or 25,000 using the same logic that you are expressing.
As I said before, the 401K has pretty much replaced the pension fund. Any person--high income, low income/diligent saver at the tail end of their career could be at risk to not be able to contribute and for losing the company match. That stikes me as unfair.
If this Cap had been implemented when this program was orginally set up, I would feel differently about it. But, there are folks who have been saving for over 25 years.
Also, I believe that money saved outside of a pension or 401K/IRA is more at risk of not staying in savings until retirement for whatever reason.

I hope you realize that that is an opinion piece, not a news article. Note the derisive tone used (evidences by use of quoting) to defend self-serving avarice and to excuse the burying of basic decency and humane definitions of fairness: "Thus do our political betters now feel free to define for everyone what is 'needed' for a 'reasonable' retirement." Note also how the opinion piece, as we've seen repeated in discussions about this this week, tries to deceive the reader into thinking that the proposal caps retirement savings, instead of the reality, that it caps tax deferral. Ask yourself: Why do writers of such opinion pieces commit such lies of omission? Answer: They're trying to defend selfishness and realize that if they told the truth of the matter they'd lose a lot of the support they're hoping to gain. You should be better to yourself than buying into such callous, morally-bankrupt rhetoric.

Maybe you are too young to even be thinking about this. What scares me the most is health care costs and end of life care. 200k/year in today's dollars seems like a lot, but when it comes to covering medical expenses and long term care it does not go very far. Who do you think is going to cover that cost if it isn't covered by the individual? Let's suppose there is just one 401K for both the husband and wife where one spouse is in LTC and the other spouse still has to pay for a household.

As I have stated before I am in no danger of reaching the 3million cap with my savings efforts (tax advantaged or otherwise), so it will not impact me. I can't even imagine 100million in a tax advantaged account-my gut reaction is there seems to be something "off" about that and maybe the rules do need to be changed. It would be interesting to find out the mechanism by which this done--sounds like a gaping loophole. And, I also feel like we are waiting for the other shoe to drop--why would anyone put such large amounts of money into a tax advantaged account that has RMD and is taxed as ordinary income? There must be a loophole for getting it out.

[bUU]

You clearly have your own self-serving opportunistic perspective in this discussion.

It is clear how your perspectives are self-serving and opportunistic. I'd love to hear your story behind your ridiculous claim that my perspectives serve my own personal interests. If I wanted to be self-serving, I'd be supporting the perspectives you espouse.

I do not agree with your assertion that only the affluent will be harmed by this policy.

But just not agreeing without explaining how someone receiving even $175k per year in an annuity isn't affluent, is the epitome of opportunistic. Even half that amount would still be close to double the median annual income. You're simply not acknowledging the reality of economic inequality in our nation. You claim to be in no danger or reaching $3M yourself, but either that's not true, or you're simply expressing a knee-jerk reaction to something that smells like true fairness, because you prefer the unfair fairness that those who oppose such measures, the unfair fairness that has allowed the rich to double economic inequality in a generation.

So, you believe putting more restrictions to the program is going to encourage folks to contribute more into retirement accounts?

The vast majority of people who are in significant danger of becoming indigent as elderly people will hear about a $3M limit and laugh and laugh (because it is better than crying), because they have no pretensions of ever being able to amass that much wealth. This new restriction will sound like nothing other than true fairness to those for whom society needs to contribute more into retirement accounts. No matter how much you try to wiggle out of the reality, this only affects those who don't need the tax deferral. It reserves society's resources for things that are truly important to society. It won't dissuade rich people from saving. Your claims to the contrary are totally without merit.

I believe that the limit could be just as easily lowered to 100,000 or 25,000 using the same logic that you are expressing.

I think you're just making up stuff to say now. An annuity of $100,000 for 30 years wouldn't yield enough to stave off needing food stamps and Medicaid. An annuity of $25,000 for 30 years would leave the elderly in abject poverty. Your whole sense of perspective is broken if you think what you claims you thought there, and I don't believe it is. Despite your claims to the contrary, I think you're desperately trying to come up with something to say to protect the tax deferral you personally want to benefit from, even though society doesn't get much from offering it to you. Either that or just having that knee-jerk and therefore erroneous reaction I alluded to earlier.

That stikes me as unfair.

No. What is unfair is an "edifice which produces beggars" of our elderly.

If this Cap had been implemented when this program was orginally set up, I would feel differently about it.

Perhaps because you wouldn't have developed in unjustifiable sense of entitlement about it.

Also, I believe that money saved outside of a pension or 401K/IRA is more at risk of not staying in savings until retirement for whatever reason.

It would be nice to have the rule simply prohibit tax-deferred contributions. Assuming we can get an amendment in that would allow folks to be able to continue to contribute post-tax, this concern is without merit.

Maybe you are too young to even be thinking about this.

You seem to fall back on thinking that everyone thinks about things strictly from their own personal, myopic standpoint, and that they support things only out of a sense of selfishness. That's not true. Like I said, if I was being selfish, I would support what you support. I'm thinking beyond myself. I'm caring about people other than myself. I'm looking at what is truly fair, not what is "fair to me".

What scares me the most is health care costs and end of life care. 200k/year in today's dollars seems like a lot, but when it comes to covering medical expenses and long term care it does not go very far.

I think you're thinking far too much about your own situation and far too little about anyone else. Not that you shouldn't think of yourself at all, but when you're arguing against a $3M cap on tax deferral, that's going way too far down the path of self-interest in the absence of active advocacy in the interests of others. Show me where you've posted messages arguing strongly for funding for long term care for those so much less affluent than you and I'll take it back, but if you can't then I suggest you consider the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr:

"The first question which the priest and the Levite asked was: 'If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?' But... the good Samaritan reversed the question: 'If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?'"

What will happen to truly less affluent elderly (not the people who try to claim poverty even though they can amass $3M in retirement savings), regarding medical expenses and long term care, if we don't "stop to help" them?

[mrpaseo]

I suspect 401ks are an easy target because most people aren't adequately funding them. You've seen the occasional headlines - this "percentage of people"(large) have less than "x amount of dollars" (small) in their 401k at retirement. A rough excel calculation appears to indicate that 30 years of $17,000 contributions returning 8% comes out to approximately $2 million. I doubt this is the last we'll hear of this topic.

$2,079,879.51

Is there no way to delete a post once it is posted? After that last post, I want nothing to do with this thread.

SMDH.

[Like2Plan]

It is clear how your perspectives are self-serving and opportunistic. I'd love to hear your story behind your ridiculous claim that my perspectives serve my own personal interests. If I wanted to be self-serving, I'd be supporting the perspectives you espouse.

buu,
It is clear to me that you have a political agenda and you won't entertain any other point of view. It is difficult to make any sense out of what you are saying with all the inflamatory rhetoric and name calling.

You're simply not acknowledging the reality of economic inequality in our nation. You claim to be in no danger or reaching $3M yourself, but either that's not true, or you're simply expressing a knee-jerk reaction to something that smells like true fairness, because you prefer the unfair fairness that those who oppose such measures, the unfair fairness that has allowed the rich to double economic inequality in a generation.

Here you are calling me a liar.

.... No matter how much you try to wiggle out of the reality, this only affects those who don't need the tax deferral. It reserves society's resources for things that are truly important to society.

Here you claim to know what is good for everyone.

It won't dissuade rich people from saving. Your claims to the contrary are totally without merit.

Here you claim to know everyone's state of mind.

I think you're just making up stuff to say now. An annuity of $100,000 for 30 years wouldn't yield enough to stave off needing food stamps and Medicaid. An annuity of $25,000 for 30 years would leave the elderly in abject poverty. Your whole sense of perspective is broken if you think what you claims you thought there, and I don't believe it is.

Here's where you call me a liar again.

Despite your claims to the contrary, I think you're desperately trying to come up with something to say to protect the tax deferral you personally want to benefit from, even though society doesn't get much from offering it to you. Either that or just having that knee-jerk and therefore erroneous reaction I alluded to earlier.

Here's where you call me a liar again.

Perhaps because you wouldn't have developed in unjustifiable sense of entitlement about it.

Here is where you use more name calling because someone disagrees with your point of view.

It would be nice to have the rule simply prohibit tax-deferred contributions.

I try to look for common ground on what we can agree on. As I stated in another post, I would prefer lower the contribution limits than to make changes to the program after someone has been contributing the majority of their working life. If the goal is to achieve more taxable revenue closer to the time it is earned, lowering the limit would achieve this.
If you contribute the maximum allowable contribution (you do not even have to contribute the maximum allowable to exceed the cap) over 40years and earn 7% rate of return (which according to the information I have read is not unreasonable to expect on average), you will exceed the 3 million cap. Additionally, the 3million cap is not fixed. If interest rates were higher, the cap could be much lower.

You seem to fall back on thinking that everyone thinks about things strictly from their own personal, myopic standpoint, and that they support things only out of a sense of selfishness. That's not true. Like I said, if I was being selfish, I would support what you support. I'm thinking beyond myself. I'm caring about people other than myself. I'm looking at what is truly fair, not what is "fair to me".

More name calling

I think you're thinking far too much about your own situation and far too little about anyone else. Not that you shouldn't think of yourself at all, but when you're arguing against a $3M cap on tax deferral, that's going way too far down the path of self-interest in the absence of active advocacy in the interests of others.

More name calling

Show me where you've posted messages arguing strongly for funding for long term care for those so much less affluent than you and I'll take it back,

We already have funding for long term care for those who can not afford to pay for it.
There are more baby boomers who are going to be needing this type of care. You seemed to have missed the point I was making. The problem is we need more people to be able to self-fund, not fewer.

What will happen to truly less affluent elderly (not the people who try to claim poverty even though they can amass $3M in retirement savings), regarding medical expenses and long term care, if we don't "stop to help" them?

I don't consider folks who have amassed 3M in retirement savings at poverty level nor did I say this anywhere. The less affluent elderly will have to rely on their own families and the government after they have exhausted their own resources. I believe it would be far better to encourage savings to have more folks who are self sufficient and able to cover their own care--do you disagree with this?

[KTP]

Like2Plan, you can't argue with a socialist..all you accomplish is tired fingers.

[bUU]

It is clear to me that you have a political agenda and you won't entertain any other point of view.

There is nothing about my perspective that is any more political than your first comment in this thread:

"It sounds like it comes under the heading of getting the 'rich guy'".

Since the proposal actually had demonstrable revenue impact, parroting the Republican party line, as you did here, made your agenda very clear from the start. The reality is that the federal budget is political through and through, so I wouldn't think it make sense to call you out on making a political comment about a political matter.

It is difficult to make any sense out of what you are saying with all the inflamatory rhetoric and name calling.

That's a ridiculous dodge. You expressed disrespect for a perspective you didn't like and had your perspective repudiated in return, in a mirrored tone. Get over it.

Here you are calling me a liar.

Bull. I don't know you well enough to call you a liar. What I did is responded to what you wrote. In that specific case, I actually outlined two possible foundations for the perspective. Let's speculate why you might have chosen to ignore half of what I said and respond as if I never posted the other half. Perhaps you have some defense?

Here you claim to know what is good for everyone.

Something your perspective doesn't even attempt to do, being so grounded in focus on only what is good for your interests.

Here you claim to know everyone's state of mind.

False. I said your claims were without merit, and I explained why. I was responding to what you wrote and the lack of foundation for it.

Here's where you call me a liar again.

Again, I don't know you, so I wouldn't bother to comment on you. I'm responding to what you wrote and finding it inadequate to defend the assertions you made. If you actually have reason for people to think what you wrote is accurate, present it. I doubt you do.

You've done a great, job, though, of derailing the thread by talking about the discussion instead of responding to the topic and further defending your perspective from the criticisms I posted. You've chosen to ignore point after point that I've made, trying to evade the ramifications of points you don't like with some vacuous meta-comment, instead of responding to the topic. You've most fastidiously avoiding responding to the moral criticisms I posted. Very telling. Regardless, I'm going to just note that I note that you've tried to dodge the issues, and rather than calling you out on each instance, for the rest of your message, I'm ignoring your pointless self-serving meta-discussion and replying just to your comments where you actually did respond on-topic.

I try to look for common ground on what we can agree on. As I stated in another post, I would prefer lower the contribution limits than to make changes to the program after someone has been contributing the majority of their working life. If the goal is to achieve more taxable revenue closer to the time it is earned, lowering the limit would achieve this.

The problem with that is that there are multiple objectives and that idea degrades one of the other objectives, specifically maintaining a high level of incentive to save for retirement, on the part of those who are currently closest to the point where if they don't save more for retirement, they'll end up being more likely to be more dependent on society's resources to afford the basics of life as an elderly person.

We already have funding for long term care for those who can not afford to pay for it.

Show me where you've posted messages arguing strongly for funding for long term care for those so much less affluent than you and I'll take it back.

There are more baby boomers who are going to be needing this type of care. You seemed to have missed the point I was making. The problem is we need more people to be able to self-fund, not fewer.

We need more lower-middle class people to be able to self-fund a basic level before we help millionaires fund more luxury and comfort. There are many in Congress who say that there is a limit to how much revenue can be raised: Are you disagreeing with them? I didn't think so. Given that, it is incumbent on us to be more responsible in using that available amount, and surely helping millionaires to afford more comfort and luxury is lower in priority than expanding the number of people who can afford the at least the basics.

I don't consider folks who have amassed 3M in retirement savings at poverty level nor did I say this anywhere.

I didn't say you did. You misread my comment, specifically the word "not".

Like2Plan, you can't argue with a socialist..all you accomplish is tired fingers.

What an inane comment. LIke I don't know Like2Plan, you don't know me. I happen not to be a socialist. The fact that you see morality and compassion as socialism is a failure in your understanding of these different concepts.

[Like2Plan]

There is nothing about my perspective that is any more political than your first comment in this thread:

"It sounds like it comes under the heading of getting the 'rich guy'".

Since the proposal actually had demonstrable revenue impact, parroting the Republican party line, as you did here, made your agenda very clear from the start. The reality is that the federal budget is political through and through, so I wouldn't think it make sense to call you out on making a political comment about a political matter.

That's a ridiculous dodge. You expressed disrespect for a perspective you didn't like and had your perspective repudiated in return, in a mirrored tone. Get over it.

I really don't know what the Republican party line is because I am not a Republican. You seemed to have missed my point. If you would continue reading my post you will notice that my point was someone could contribute less than the max over 40 years and exceed the CAP that is being proposed. You can use your own calculator. I just used one online. You have not addressed that point.

Bull. I don't know you well enough to call you a liar.

Then, please stop calling me a liar. My total assets are in no danger of reaching the proposed CAP that we are discussing. And by the way, where I come from an apology would be nice.

False. I said your claims were without merit, and I explained why. I was responding to what you wrote and the lack of foundation for it.

Really, you have not addressed my point that someone could contribute less than the max over 40 years and exceed the CAP that is being proposed. You can use your own calculator. I just used one online. You have not addressed that point.

You've done a great, job, though, of derailing the thread by talking about the discussion instead of responding to the topic and further defending your perspective from the criticisms I posted.

Really? You have not addressed my point was someone could contribute less than the max over 40 years and exceed the CAP that is being proposed. You can use your own calculator. I just used the online. You have not addressed that point.

Another point that I made that you have not responded to is you can be any income level and max out the 401K. You can not automatically tell what the income level is of the indivdual saving by looking at their 401k balance.

[bUU]

You seemed to have missed my point.

No, I saw what you were saying and placed it in a broader context than you wanted to consider it.

If you would continue reading my post you will notice that my point was someone could contribute less than the max over 40 years and exceed the CAP that is being proposed.

Which is irrelevant to the point, as to whether society has a strong vested interest in extending tax deferral once someone has accumulated such a high tax-advantaged balance.

Then, please stop calling me a liar.

You apparently missed the point. Like I already said, I haven't called you a liar. If you cannot tell the difference between pointing out falsehood and calling you a liar, then that's your problem.

My total assets are in no danger of reaching the proposed CAP that we are discussing.

So you claim, so now go back and read the second half of the sentence that you flew off the handle, in response to. Hint: It started with the word "or".

And by the way, where I come from an apology would be nice.

I'm sorry that you didn't like me calling you out on the offensive perspectives that you've expressed. Now stop with the nonsensical attempt to make my comments sounds like they're apology worthy. If you're not going to treat the topic seriously, then there is no sense in having a discussion with you.

Really, you have not addressed my point that someone could contribute less than the max over 40 years and exceed the CAP that is being proposed.

It is irrelevant to the point, as to whether society has a strong vested interest in extending tax deferral once someone has accumulated such a high tax-advantaged balance.

You have not addressed my point was someone could contribute less than the max over 40 years and exceed the CAP that is being proposed.

It is irrelevant to the point, as to whether society has a strong vested interest in extending tax deferral once someone has accumulated such a high tax-advantaged balance.

Another point that I made that you have not responded to is you can be any income level and max out the 401K.

It is irrelevant to the point, as to whether society has a strong vested interest in extending tax deferral once someone has accumulated such a high tax-advantaged balance.

[Like2Plan]

No, I saw what you were saying and placed it in a broader context than you wanted to consider it.

Which is irrelevant to the point, as to whether society has a strong vested interest in extending tax deferral once someone has accumulated such a high tax-advantaged balance.

You apparently missed the point. Like I already said, I haven't called you a liar. If you cannot tell the difference between pointing out falsehood and calling you a liar, then that's your problem.

So you claim, so now go back and read the second half of the sentence that you flew off the handle, in response to. Hint: It started with the word "or".

I'm sorry that you didn't like me calling you out on the offensive perspectives that you've expressed. Now stop with the nonsensical attempt to make my comments sounds like they're apology worthy. If you're not going to treat the topic seriously, then there is no sense in having a discussion with you.

It is irrelevant to the point, as to whether society has a strong vested interest in extending tax deferral once someone has accumulated such a high tax-advantaged balance.

It is irrelevant to the point, as to whether society has a strong vested interest in extending tax deferral once someone has accumulated such a high tax-advantaged balance.

It is irrelevant to the point, as to whether society has a strong vested interest in extending tax deferral once someone has accumulated such a high tax-advantaged balance.

I would have much more respect for you if you would own up and apologize for calling me a liar.


You still have not addressed my point, but you are well versed in rhetoric.
While I do not know what your political afiliation is, I think KTP makes a point about the futility of trying to have a discussion with someone who is incapable of adressing the points that I have made.

So, carry on.