Author Topic: Any subscribers to the WSJ who can find out how tax reform will affect 401ks?  (Read 9658 times)

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2077
Trying to figure out what's going on... upcoming cuts to 401k benefits due to tax reform?

For subscribers of the Wall Street Journal:
https://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2017/04/21/grab-your-pitchfork-america-your-401k-may-need-defending-from-congress/

https://401kspecialistmag.com/fight-right-401k/

protostache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 903
The assertion is that Congress is thinking about outlawing additional contributions to traditional-style IRAs and 401(k)s in favor of Roth style. It's a nothingburger. Basically they interviewed some consultant who used to work within government a decade ago and he says "could happen".

Until there's an actual legislative proposal to talk about this is just noise, probably put out to cause outrage at the idea so Congress won't even include it in proposals.

gillstone

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 392
  • Age: 42
  • Location: The best state in the Union (MT)
Article tone is along the lines of "this is being talked about".  Overall, the spots to be concerned about in tax reform are mortgage deductability, state and local tax deductability, unknown effects of the border adjustment tax, and tax changes involving pass through corporations. 

Of course, that assumes that a plan even gets passed and since the House can't settle on one idea, the White House scrapped its prior plan and is being vague about their new one, and the Senate doesn't like anyone or their plan, the odds of reform happening seem remote.

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2077
Yech. These are the major deductions on my returns. Well, will keep an eye on it.

Thanks!

solon

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2363
  • Age: 1823
  • Location: OH
I PDFitized it!

Joeko

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 61
Can't imagine the Financial Industry with their army of lobbyist would allow any major changes that would discourage deposits to pass.

frugalecon

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 731
It wouldn't shock me if the backdoor Roth disappeared.  But seems like there is a decent chance nothing will happen on taxes this year.

Eric

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4057
  • Location: On my bike
It wouldn't shock me if the backdoor Roth disappeared.  But seems like there is a decent chance nothing will happen on taxes this year.

Who would that hurt?  Now ask yourself why would the current administration tackle that?

EnjoyIt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1386
It wouldn't shock me if the backdoor Roth disappeared.  But seems like there is a decent chance nothing will happen on taxes this year.

Who would that hurt?  Now ask yourself why would the current administration tackle that?

The majority of people have no idea what a backdoor Roth is.  Most CPAs don't even know what that is.

frugalecon

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 731
It wouldn't shock me if the backdoor Roth disappeared.  But seems like there is a decent chance nothing will happen on taxes this year.

Who would that hurt?  Now ask yourself why would the current administration tackle that?

My understanding is that there is interest on both sides of the aisle. Would free up some cash to give bigger cuts to the truly wealthy.

Bateaux

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2323
  • Location: Port Vincent
The bumbling idiots in Washington will not make disastrous changes to 401k or IRAs.  That is political suicide.   Maybe 20 years ago they could slip such through, but not now.  The American people know every move these elected thieves are up to before they do it now.

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2077
I PDFitized it!

Awesome, thanks!!  Welp, it looks like we should assess whether this is the time to convert some SEP-IRAs and an individual 401k that I've had sitting around, to Roths, while we can.

rantk81

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 905
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Chicago
Honestly, I don't know how they could possibly "sell this idea" to the masses... They're already telling us that Social Security is going broke and will need to be adjusted (whether increased contributions, or decreased benefits.)  One would think that the congresscritters wouldn't possibly be stupid enough to try to "take away" our ability to save "on our own" in tax-advantaged retirement accounts IN ADDITION to gimping down Social Security.


matchewed

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4422
  • Location: CT
I would not react at all to an article like this. Some people might have said some words somewhere in some meeting. Unless there is a bill on the floor being voted on there is no way to anticipate an action to take.

Paul der Krake

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5854
  • Age: 16
  • Location: UTC-10:00
Jason Zweig is one of the very few financial columnists worth reading. I was surprised that he penned an article based on what seems to be nothing but rumors.

Either he has ran out of subjects and is being pressured by his editor to sell some FUD, or he knows that these rumors hold water.

That being said, Congress is fickle and nothing is guaranteed. In 2013 both parties had top lawmakers work on immigration reform, it was considered a top priority by everyone, and nothing happened.

Babybalrog

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 89
  • Location: Raleigh, NC
This reminds me of a year or two back when Pres. Obama floated the idea of killing off the 529 plans because only "the rich" could take full advantage of it. Turns out lots of middle class people do and gave Washington an earful.

In one article I read about the possible 401k reforms, they would cap deduct-ability at 9k, with an addition 9k Roth available. its helps them "pass" a CBO scoring to tax money now, not past the ten year window.

Back in 1986, they lowered the limit. From 30k to 7k, so something similar would happen now. Since the vast majority of people don't max out their allotment, and only "the rich" do, it can be politically feasible. Too bad there aren't enough Mustachians out there to make me confident it won't happen.
https://dqydj.com/the-complete-history-of-the-401k-contribution-limit/

the_fixer

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1252
  • Location: Colorado
  • mind on my money money on my mind
I had no idea that it has changed that much over the years.

In 1978 an employee was allowed to contribute $45475.00

$45,475.00 in 1978 had the same buying power as $176,797.43 in 2017

Babybalrog

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 89
  • Location: Raleigh, NC
Don't forget what tax rates were in 1987... 70%

Those were massive tax breaks if you could take advantage of them. It was seen as a supplement to the pension. I think the whole plan for the creation was to let those high earners avoid those 70% rates and smooth income over their life. 

VeggieTable

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 143
  • Location: GA
Unrelated, but the easiest way to get around the WSJ paywall is to find the article on their Facebook page. If you click to it from there, no paywall! They don't post everything, but definitely the vast majority.

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2077
Quote
This reminds me of a year or two back when Pres. Obama floated the idea of killing off the 529 plans because only "the rich" could take full advantage of it. Turns out lots of middle class people do and gave Washington an earful.

Even if this is not a likely scenario, it's worth it to put a bug in our MOC's ear so it doesn't happen. Will put it on my list.  I have been meaning to convert our SEPs/Indiv 401ks but the time never was right... but I'd like to keep the option.

wenchsenior

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3797
This idea has been floating around for more than a decade. Every time any party considers 'comprehensive tax reform' in fact.  Usually it is packaged as part of a massive deal to eliminate deductions, etc.,  altogether and just lower the overall tax rates a great deal while still cutting the deficit.  The Bowles-Simpson Plan and others have proposed this sort of thing many times and it floats to the top of the news every time there is a swing in party power.

Hypothetically, I think simplifying the tax code is a good idea and that this type of overall plan is worth considering.  Practically, I feel a sense of total panic when I consider that even though we don't even itemize most years and thus wouldn't feel the bite of THAT particular element of these plans, the pretax deductions we get for health care and retirement accounts alone are tremendous. Tax rates would have to fall a LOT to make up for that. 

In terms of likelihood of passing, I think very low.  It's mostly the upper middle class and wealthy that benefit from pretax retirement deductions, so the GOP is very unlikely to push something that contradicts their message of 'save on your own' and hurts the rich.  Then there are the financial lobbyists, etc.  An all-Dem government might consider it, but I'm very skeptical.

gillstone

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 392
  • Age: 42
  • Location: The best state in the Union (MT)

Hypothetically, I think simplifying the tax code is a good idea and that this type of overall plan is worth considering.  Practically, I feel a sense of total panic when I consider that even though we don't even itemize most years and thus wouldn't feel the bite of THAT particular element of these plans, the pretax deductions we get for health care and retirement accounts alone are tremendous. Tax rates would have to fall a LOT to make up for that. 


This hits right at the central issue of generational tax reform...everyone wants it in general, but is terrified of the specifics.  I think a general tax cut without simplification or some form of fig leaf "reform" is more likely given the complexity and the caliber of political players involved.   The 86 reform took Reagan the first 18 months of his 2nd term.  This was at a point where he had solid political capital, a Congress that was much more functional than it is today and the wind at their backs in terms of public opinion. 

gatorNic

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • Age: 44
  • Location: San Francisco Bay Area
I would raise a huge stink if they got rid of the mortgage interest and/or property tax deduction.  It is huge in HCOL areas like the SF/Bay area.   I think the argument was that it ends of being not that much for the majority of people and it something only worthwhile to the rich.    Yet again HCOL working/middle class getting lumped in as being rich. 

Malloy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 403
I would raise a huge stink if they got rid of the mortgage interest and/or property tax deduction.  It is huge in HCOL areas like the SF/Bay area.   I think the argument was that it ends of being not that much for the majority of people and it something only worthwhile to the rich.    Yet again HCOL working/middle class getting lumped in as being rich.

This is exactly why I think it is actually a politically good idea (note: policy-wise, I don't think it's that great, although I've heard some good arguments for reducing this deduction).  What does the Republican party care about pissing off a bunch of upper middle class professionals in NY or CA by dicking around with their itemized deductions?  Most people maxing out 401ks in HCOL areas are high earning professionals who generally voted for the other team.  The core of his political base is no-college middle class wage earners who may be getting a police/fire/teacher pension but who probably don't earn enough to max out a 401k or who don't pay enough mortgage interest to bother itemizing.  And, it's not like an MD earning 300k who has to cough up an extra 10 grand in taxes because of Trump will be a sympathetic figure to a cop in Cleveland who is getting back an extra $300 relative to his Obama tax levels.  And most people don't understand tax policy well enough to figure out that the only reason they are bothering to go after that MD is so that members of the 0.1% can get various tax breaks that will be significantly more than the $300 that cop got to distract him.

I'm one of those assholes who benefits a great deal from 401k and property tax/mortgage deductions, and I'll certainly pay more under such a scenario. While we can certainly afford it, it does chap my ass to imagine my tax dollars being spent on bullshit like a vanity wall project and creating revenue cover for the elimination of the estate tax. 

sirdoug007

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 585
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Houston, TX
Unrelated, but the easiest way to get around the WSJ paywall is to find the article on their Facebook page. If you click to it from there, no paywall! They don't post everything, but definitely the vast majority.

Good to know.

Jason Zweig also posts articles to his own site http://jasonzweig.com/grab-your-pitchforks-america-your-401k-may-need-defending-from-congress/

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2136
  • Location: Cleveland
USAT picked it up via Motley Fool, but didn't really source it: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/retirement/2017/04/24/is-donald-trump-about-to-take-away-your-401ks-biggest-tax-break/100837046/

My initial reaction is "not a chance in hell," but at this point I feel like literally anything is possible.


OurTown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1372
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Tennessee
I just sent an angry letter to my Congressman. 

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
I would raise a huge stink if they got rid of the mortgage interest and/or property tax deduction.  It is huge in HCOL areas like the SF/Bay area.   I think the argument was that it ends of being not that much for the majority of people and it something only worthwhile to the rich.    Yet again HCOL working/middle class getting lumped in as being rich.

This is exactly why I think it is actually a politically good idea (note: policy-wise, I don't think it's that great, although I've heard some good arguments for reducing this deduction).  What does the Republican party care about pissing off a bunch of upper middle class professionals in NY or CA by dicking around with their itemized deductions?  Most people maxing out 401ks in HCOL areas are high earning professionals who generally voted for the other team.  The core of his political base is no-college middle class wage earners who may be getting a police/fire/teacher pension but who probably don't earn enough to max out a 401k or who don't pay enough mortgage interest to bother itemizing.  And, it's not like an MD earning 300k who has to cough up an extra 10 grand in taxes because of Trump will be a sympathetic figure to a cop in Cleveland who is getting back an extra $300 relative to his Obama tax levels.  And most people don't understand tax policy well enough to figure out that the only reason they are bothering to go after that MD is so that members of the 0.1% can get various tax breaks that will be significantly more than the $300 that cop got to distract him.

I'm one of those assholes who benefits a great deal from 401k and property tax/mortgage deductions, and I'll certainly pay more under such a scenario. While we can certainly afford it, it does chap my ass to imagine my tax dollars being spent on bullshit like a vanity wall project and creating revenue cover for the elimination of the estate tax.

As far as I have heard they aren't planning on getting ride of itemizing your mortgage interest. Rather they may raise the standard deduction so high that it becomes irrelevant for the vast majority of people.

The side effect could easily be that with no tax advantage to having a high interest mortgage more people may chose to rent or put off buying.

I am curious if they were still interested in getting ride of personal exemptions. And if that would also carry over to itemizing. That would absolutely kill the mortgage interest deduction as a useful tool and impose more taxes on big families.

It never seemed clear if this was the case though.

Proud Foot

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
It wouldn't shock me if the backdoor Roth disappeared.  But seems like there is a decent chance nothing will happen on taxes this year.

Who would that hurt?  Now ask yourself why would the current administration tackle that?

My understanding is that there is interest on both sides of the aisle. Would free up some cash to give bigger cuts to the truly wealthy.

How would eliminating the backdoor Roth free up some cash to give bigger cuts? No tax difference in the current year.  Eliminating it would impact future tax revenues but I think the only future event legislators actually think about is their reelection campaign.

farmecologist

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
Unrelated, but the easiest way to get around the WSJ paywall is to find the article on their Facebook page. If you click to it from there, no paywall! They don't post everything, but definitely the vast majority.

Good to know.

Jason Zweig also posts articles to his own site http://jasonzweig.com/grab-your-pitchforks-america-your-401k-may-need-defending-from-congress/

Thanks for the link.   I read the article and it seems like this has very little chance of being passed.  However, at this point who knows what they will attempt!  What scares me is that they have to find alternative sources of 'revenue' in order to fund their other ridiculous initiatives.  They seem to view traditional 401k's as loss of 'revenue'...so who knows. 



OurTown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1372
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Tennessee

frugalecon

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 731
Outline of tax reform plan out now...biggest "take away" is deductibility of state and local taxes, which would hit high tax jurisdictions (CA, NY, NJ, IL, e.g.) pretty hard. Lots of people would no longer itemize if standard deduction were expanded as envisioned.

Hard to believe that there won't be lots of entrenched interests who will fight this.

OurTown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1372
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Tennessee
Okay, so the 401(k) debacle is not included in the Trump tax plan from what I can tell. 

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/26/the-white-house-just-outlined-its-tax-plan-heres-whats-in-it.html

It looks like the proposal is not revenue neutral, so they either need 60 Senate votes or it gets a 10 year sunset.

solon

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2363
  • Age: 1823
  • Location: OH
Outline of tax reform plan out now...biggest "take away" is deductibility of state and local taxes, which would hit high tax jurisdictions (CA, NY, NJ, IL, e.g.) pretty hard. Lots of people would no longer itemize if standard deduction were expanded as envisioned.

Hard to believe that there won't be lots of entrenched interests who will fight this.

The doubling of the standard deduction is pretty interesting too. Takes some of the value out of mortgage interest and charitable giving.

Ocinfo

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 313
I haven't seen this mentioned yet but I believe the elimination of deductions also includes being able to deduct health insurance premiums (unclear if it's that insurance premiums are no longer pre-tax for individuals or if businesses just lose the ability to deduct premiums paid). Either way this is a big loss.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

sirdoug007

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 585
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Houston, TX
During the press briefing from National Economic Director Gary Cohn he stated that "Homeownership, charitable giving, and retirement savings will be protected, but other tax benefits will be eliminated."

https://youtu.be/TTlkX41zuhQ?t=429

That sounds to me like tax deductible retirement savings will not be affected.

freeedom

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 92
I'm subscribed through my work. For the non subscribers:

"The lucky participants in one of the best retirement plans around are coming after yours with a meat cleaver.

In the early stages of negotiating tax reform, Congress is already considering whether to reduce the benefits of contributing to a 401(k) and similar retirement plans — even as U.S. representatives and senators bask in the safety of the pension system that taxpayers fund for federal employees.

..."

[MOD NOTE: Quoting a few lines is okay.  Pasting the whole thing isn't.  Doing so without attribution just isn't right at all.]
« Last Edit: April 28, 2017, 06:25:19 AM by FrugalToque »

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7525
Okay, so the 401(k) debacle is not included in the Trump tax plan from what I can tell. 

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/26/the-white-house-just-outlined-its-tax-plan-heres-whats-in-it.html

It looks like the proposal is not revenue neutral, so they either need 60 Senate votes or it gets a 10 year sunset.

Quote
Trump's plan would also repeal the alternative minimum tax

Of course it will.

Gumption

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 121
  • Location: HCOL
Nothing of substance regarding taxes or healthcare will be passed. To quote the new phrase ,"it's all optics."

OurTown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1372
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Tennessee
That is my hope that nothing gets passed, both with this misguided tax "reform" and Obamacare repeal.  It seems they (Congress) can only make things worse.   

protostache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 903
Someone asked Sean Spicer this question directly at the press conference today and he said that the only deductions their plan allows is charitable giving and the home mortgage deduction. Someone followed up for clarification and he backpedaled a little, and then someone else asked if they were willing to fight the bank lobby on that and he said they'd fight anyone they have to.

So. Could be interesting. Maybe think about calling your members of congress if this is an issue that you care deeply about, no matter what your political leanings.

GU

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 214
Outline of tax reform plan out now...biggest "take away" is deductibility of state and local taxes, which would hit high tax jurisdictions (CA, NY, NJ, IL, e.g.) pretty hard. Lots of people would no longer itemize if standard deduction were expanded as envisioned.

Hard to believe that there won't be lots of entrenched interests who will fight this.

To echo wenchsenior above, economists and tax wonks hate tax deductions for specific behavior.  Their view is that if we just had no deductions (or just a standardized deduction), we could lower the tax rates on everyone and still raise the same amount of money, all the while causing less distortions to people's economic decisions.  So you can look at pretty much every "blue ribbon" tax reform write-up and you'll see recommendations to get rid of the mortgage interest deduction, the charitable giving deduction, the SALT deduction, etc.  They don't always go after tax-deferred retirement plans like 401(k)'s but they do sometimes.  I wouldn't say there's a zero percent chance any of those deductions go away, but I'll believe it when I see it.   

PeteD01

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1392
WSJ apparently likes referrals from Facebook.

javascript:window.location=%22https://m.facebook.com/l.php?u=%22+encodeURIComponent(window.location.href);

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!