General Discussion

liberal_at_heart

(12,081 posts)

25. I have already suggesting putting protections in for people who have less than 2 to 3 million

Reply to B2G (Reply #24)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 04:51 PM

Nov 2012

do you think people who have say 100 million in retirement shouldn't have to pay more?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

45 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Uh, messing with 401Ks and IRAs? [View all] B2G Nov 2012 OP

You know, you try to do everything right, and someone wants to screw you OKNancy Nov 2012 #1

And that part of the aricle is total BS B2G Nov 2012 #2

It's only tax free until you start drawing on it auburngrad82 Nov 2012 #6

And you are required to start drawing on it in the year JDPriestly Nov 2012 #8

That's hardly the point B2G Nov 2012 #10

This is a non starter auburngrad82 Nov 2012 #19

They only lost it.. sendero Nov 2012 #31

they had money in the company stock because a lot of companies required it back then hollysmom Nov 2012 #34

The company MATCH was required to be in Enron stock, and they weren't allowed to sell shares Common Sense Party Nov 2012 #38

That was Enron B2G Nov 2012 #39

no, I was talking about Color Tile. hollysmom Nov 2012 #42

Sorry, I was referring to the Enron comment above. Common Sense Party Nov 2012 #45

I was not aware... sendero Nov 2012 #44

There are ways to withdraw before 59 1/2 without the penalty. Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Nov 2012 #37

Americans have an average of about $60000 in retirement accounts liberal_at_heart Nov 2012 #14

That is BS B2G Nov 2012 #15

I have a 401(k) as well liberal_at_heart Nov 2012 #18

The money will be taxed when it is distributed. dawg Nov 2012 #17

You did not read the article B2G Nov 2012 #20

No. I was replying to the other poster who wanted to tax the accounts now. dawg Nov 2012 #26

"The rich" don't park their money in IRAs mainer Nov 2012 #29

The article said that, not me OKNancy Nov 2012 #41

??? 1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #32

yes, the contributions were already taxed when they were paid as wages OKNancy Nov 2012 #40

No one with any authority is talking about this. dawg Nov 2012 #3

Then Obama needs to state it's off the table. Has he? n/t B2G Nov 2012 #4

No. Because it is a ridiculous idea that is not even being considered in the first place. dawg Nov 2012 #5

Given the amount of media coverage this is receiving, B2G Nov 2012 #7

How much media coverage was given to the President's birth certificate? dawg Nov 2012 #9

Good, I hope you're right B2G Nov 2012 #12

There's no reason Social Security can't be there, too. dawg Nov 2012 #16

+1 n/t 1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #33

I'd love to see some Republican congressmen suggest it gollygee Nov 2012 #11

This message was self-deleted by its author B2G Nov 2012 #13

Not that big of a deal really.. SoCalDem Nov 2012 #21

Wrong B2G Nov 2012 #22

with health care costs and inflation people should have way, way, way more liberal_at_heart Nov 2012 #23

What the hell does that have to do with taxing 401Ks? B2G Nov 2012 #24

I have already suggesting putting protections in for people who have less than 2 to 3 million liberal_at_heart Nov 2012 #25

No, I don't B2G Nov 2012 #27

The solution to the whole thing is to revert to the Clinton-era tax rates. dawg Nov 2012 #30

I am ot sure how accurate this is hollysmom Nov 2012 #35

Of course, you will probably find plenty of people on this board who would be willing to do this. dawg Nov 2012 #28

Leave these the fuck alone Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Nov 2012 #36

could this be misleading and just be about hollysmom Nov 2012 #43