Could the federal government state they simply need more money and decide to take a one-time 25% (insert your number here) off the top of every 401(k) worth more than $500k (insert your number here)? (This would be in addition to any required taxes.)
$500K in a 401K is nothing.
Kadant wrote:
Could the federal government state they simply need more money and decide to take a one-time 25% (insert your number here) off the top of every 401(k) worth more than $500k (insert your number here)? (This would be in addition to any required taxes.)
Yes. And they can means test Social Security and Medicare as well.
The USSC would simply rule it a "tax" and the bottom 51% would cheer our living Constitution.
They do take 25% from your 401K income.
Kadant wrote:
Could the federal government state they simply need more money and decide to take a one-time 25% (insert your number here) off the top of every 401(k) worth more than $500k (insert your number here)? (This would be in addition to any required taxes.)
They could, but it would require (at least) a change in the 401k law and a constitutional amendment allowing a federal direct property tax. This is not a possibility that a rational person would consider remotely likely.
Kadant wrote:
Could the federal government state they simply need more money and decide to take a one-time 25% (insert your number here) off the top of every 401(k) worth more than $500k (insert your number here)? (This would be in addition to any required taxes.)
The tax is paid when the 401k is disbursed. That is how the system is designed.
You are an imbecile
2011
IRISH GOVERNMENT RAIDS PRIVATE PENSIONS
The Irish government plans to institute a tax on private pensions to drive jobs growth, according to its jobs program strategy, delivered today.
From the jobs initiative release:
The various tax reduction and additional expenditure measures which I am announcing today will be funded by way of a temporary levy on funded pension schemes and personal pension plans. I propose that the levy will apply at a rate of 0.6% to the capital value of assets under management in pension funds established in the State.
...
Unwilling to budge on the country’s low corporate tax rate, Enda Kenny’s Irish government has chosen to target pensioners for funds to grow the economy. Whether it turns out to be an example to other countries seeking alternative ways to raise revenues with aging populations is yet unknown.
Monkeys typing wrote:
This is not a possibility that a rational person would consider remotely likely.
Neither was ObamaCare, but that's what we got.
We certainly wouldn't need an amendment. The Supreme Court has shown that they will rule anything a "tax" to enable the government to keep growing.
If they can take your money for something you haven't done, they there are no limits to their power.
They are much more likely to increase withdrawal taxes though, because it would look and feel more an "income tax" which everyone is already used to. But can they afford to wait that long?
The general rule is that government WILL take what it needs, and they WILL go to where the money is to do it. Those 401k funds are just sitting there, waiting to be raided by the government. Government just needs to find a way to demonize those who've saved all that money so that they can justify taking it. They are very good at that, so keep an eye out for the demonization campaign.
Didn't Greece try something like this a few years ago?
yeahyeahyay wrote:
2011
IRISH GOVERNMENT RAIDS PRIVATE PENSIONS
I propose that the levy will apply at a rate of 0.6% to the capital value of assets under management in pension funds established in the State.
Wow, that's almost 25%!!!
Kadant wrote:
Didn't Greece try something like this a few years ago?
Didn't the EU do that to rich Russians living in Cyprus?
Kadant wrote:
Could the federal government state they simply need more money and decide to take a one-time 25% (insert your number here) off the top of every 401(k) worth more than $500k (insert your number here)? (This would be in addition to any required taxes.)
they probably COULD do that, but unlikely that they will
more likely that they will say something like 'anyone who has more than $3m in total retirement accounts cannot put any more in'
or
changing up the RMD rules to make the money come out faster
but they key fact here is the RMD rule - money HAS to come out and keep coming out - and when that happens it is taxed heavily. So a fix really isn't needed - they could just accelearate the RMD rule if they want more taxes.
Kadant wrote:
Didn't Greece try something like this a few years ago?
In desperation.
The government cannot legally or morally confiscate privately owned wealth; however, it is certainly capable of doing so againt morality and the Constitution, and we are very much headed down a dangerous path that will lead us within a few decades to a stage where the government will act autonomously to do whatever it wants, which will undoubtedly include the outright confiscation of privately owned wealth from pretty much everyone (those of you who tell yourselves that "we" will reserve such treatment for the super-rich are going to deserve what you get).
Brian Gates wrote:
The government cannot legally or morally confiscate privately owned wealth;
The Government can legally seize wealth, see Law of Eminent Domain and Google "stop and seize".
Keynesian economics, universally accepted by government economists, tells us that spending drives the economy. The savers crashed our economy when they stopped spending enough in 2009. Peoplr don't NEED retirement savings - they can live off Social Security and food stamps. Anything more than bare survival is too good for Americans, who obtained all their wealth from exploiting minorities and indigenous peoples anyway. What Americans really need is not to learn to be more responsible with their finances, but to learn to accept poverty. Everything you "have" belongs to the government. Where in the Constitution does it say that private citizens are allowed to save money? That's what I thought. The selfish, greedy savers have cheated Society out of economy growth for too long! No American should have more than $100 in reserves. Any needs beyond that can be covered by welfare, SS, and subsidized housing. Anyone who tries to cheat Society by holding more than $100 should be shot. I hate wealth. I hate prosperity. I hate myself. I hate mankind. I am a leftist.
Randy Oldman wrote:
They do take 25% from your 401K income.
Yup, 401k "income" is not tax exempt.
No.They can't decide to take wealth in that way.
They could reduce the maximum that you can contribute in your working years and increase the minimum distribution in your retirement years and that would increase taxable income.
But taking any percent of of an accumulated savings is a 100% marginal tax rate.
Can't happen.
They COULD but it is extremely unlikely, given that people with high-value 401ks vote with both their wallets and their ballots at a much, much higher proportion than people without high value retirement funds.
It would be political suicide for every single politician who passed it. Even FLOATING that kind of idea would instantly destroy your political career.
Not if you contribute post-tax monies to your 401K.