May 15, 2013
We know this because they are spouting utterly absurd lines which Paul Sullivan unfortunately felt he had to repeat in his NYT column. Sullivan discusses the number of people who could be hit by President Obama’s proposal to cap tax sheltered savings at $3.4 million.
The discussion is ridiculous throughout. It makes a point of saying that under optimistic assumptions we could get 10-20 million people rubbing up against the proposed limits. (Yes, 10 percent of the population will have millions of dollars in financial assets.) However even more ridiculous is that there is no reason any serious person should give a damn.
If a person has $3.4 million in a tax sheltered account is there some national tragedy that the additional $50,000 they want to save will be subject to normal tax rules. If this ever rises to the point of meriting serious policy consideration then the world is way better off that I thought.
But here’s the best part:
“Any discussion of retirement savings that suggests ‘taking away tax-advantaged investing and capping investment amounts is detrimental to the system and society as a whole,’ said Robert L. Reynolds, president and chief executive of Putnam Investments and one of the people considered responsible for popularizing the 401(k) plan.
“‘Right now elderly poverty is at an all-time high,’ Mr. Reynolds said. ‘If that tells government anything, it’s we should do more to encourage saving for retirement.'”
Actually elderly poverty is nowhere close to being at an all-time high, but more importantly, what does Mr. Reynolds think he is talking about? The elderly who are in poverty are not worried about brushing up against the $3.4 million tax-exempt limit being proposed by President Obama. He is spouting non-sequiturs.
Apparently that is the state of the debate on this issue. And, the NYT’s retirement columnist presented this nonsense as a serious argument.
Comments