1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Economy

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by TigerVols, May 14, 2020.

  1. garrow

    garrow Well-Known Member

    And Obama was president on 9/11 and during Katrina

     
  2. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    Netflix's world has been turned upside down as stock plunges 35% - CNN

    Not surprising. Factor in everyone else getting into the streaming game, and their libraries and also factor in limited "emotional" ties to Netflix shows (probably doesn't help that they seem to kill shows after two or three years). They probably need to adjust their algorithms because just because I don't watch a show from beginning to end within a month after it drops, doesn't mean I WON'T be watching it. I think they killed some good shows too soon because people figured they were "safe" and they didn't need to binge them as soon as they dropped.
     
    Neutral Corner likes this.
  3. sgreenwell

    sgreenwell Well-Known Member

    I think they pivoted too hard from "expensive Emmy and Oscar bait" to "throw another 50 trashy teen dramas and game shows on the heap!" Yeah, I want the 20 seasons of Criminal Minds on Netflix, but I also want some prestige shows on there too. Queen's Gambit came out in October 2020, but the rest of their shows that got Emmy nods after that pretty much hit one demographic - The Crown, Bridgerton and Queer Eye combined for 42 noms.
     
  4. Neutral Corner

    Neutral Corner Well-Known Member

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/04/20/retirement-ira-inequality-budget/


    The American retirement system is built for the rich

    "Bipartisan support for Secure 2.0 is part of a decades-long pattern: While loudly and proudly proclaiming that their goal is to nurture nest eggs for the working class, lawmakers have constructed a complex of tax shelters for the well-to-do. The lopsided result is that as of 2019, nearly 29,000 taxpayers had amassed “mega-IRAs” — individual retirement accounts with balances of $5 million or more — while half of American households had no retirement accounts at all. Overall, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the top 10th of households reap a larger share of the income tax subsidy for retirement savings than the bottom 80 percent.

    It’s working out just fine for the financial institutions that manage assets in IRAs and 401(k)s. The combined amount in those vehicles reached $21.6 trillion at the end of 2021 — up fivefold since 2000 — and the more money that pours in, the more that managers collect in fees. A small sliver makes it back to lawmakers in the form of campaign contributions: The largest asset managers — BlackRock, Vanguard, Fidelity and State Street — gave almost $1.2 million through their political action committees to House and Senate candidates in the last election cycle. But that’s a pittance compared with what these firms stand to gain from Secure 2.0.


    University of Virginia law professor Michael Doran — who held tax policy roles at the Treasury Department under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush — calls the current state of affairs “the great American retirement fraud.” It’s hard to argue with that description. And Secure 2.0 would take the fraud to a new level: Its congressional supporters have engaged in Enron-style accounting gimmicks to mask the bill’s effects on deficits — tricks that, if used by corporate executives, might well land them in jail. (Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) has introduced a broadly similar bill in the upper chamber, though without some of the House’s most egregious accounting shenanigans.)"
     
  5. Mr._Graybeard

    Mr._Graybeard Well-Known Member

    I've read that there are 22 million millionaires in the United States, so it surprises me that there might be only 29,000 with $5 million in an IRA. A million isn't what it used to be.
     
  6. Neutral Corner

    Neutral Corner Well-Known Member

    I would think that most millionaires have better places to park five million.
     
  7. Twirling Time

    Twirling Time Well-Known Member

    Oh yeah?
    [​IMG]
    _____

    A lot of those 22 million are millionaires on paper only. They might have it as real estate or investment assets but don't have a million dollars in the bank.
     
  8. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    You can't just "park" $5 million in an IRA. You have to grow it to that amount on small yearly contributions that have ranged from $2,000 a year 25 years ago to $6,000 a year today. That is why the number is so small.

    What isn't clear is if those 29,000 people are all like Peter Theil, who contributed to a Roth IRA with stock in a start up that was worth pennies at the time, and then the business exploded later on and the value of the stock grew enormously, or if a lot of those people were regular middle class people who deferred vacations their peers were taking and drove their cars a few years longer, made their maximum contributions and due to luck or some crazy "investment" decisions have made outsized gains that have compounded into $5 million or more. I'd actually guess those people comprise way more of the 29,000 people. Either way, it's also why the number of them is so small, same as why the number of lottery winners is so small.
     
  9. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    Another way one could wind up with multiple millions in an IRA is to inherit a goodly sum from someone else's (perhaps multiple someone elses') retirement accounts. It can be pretty byzantine (especially w.r.t. the benefactor's RMDs), but in essence the money flows straight from the benefactor's account(s) to the beneficiary's without Uncle Sam getting a finger on it ... yet.
    Nevertheless, the main reason the number of $5 million IRAers is so small relative to the number of millionaires is that to be a millionaire one only has to have a net worth of $1 million. If you've got $5 million in an IRA, your total net worth is almost certainly MUCH larger than $5 million. It's on the order of being at 99th percentile as compared to the 90th.
     
  10. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I can't say for sure, but I don't think that includes inherited IRAs, which are a bit different. An inherited IRA doesn't stay entirely tax deferred; your mandatory distributions start right away. I inherited an IRA from my dad and starting immediately, every year I have had to pull out some money that gets taxed as income based on my life expectancy.

    FWIW, I can't remember how much my dad's IRA was worth when he died, but one of the reasons that article bugged me was how it painted anyone who took advantage of an IRA or employer plan as part of a fraud that was designed to benefit them because they were already wealthy. Those kinds of absolutes play on the class warfare that plagues this country, and worse, it has morphed into something more than class warfare, with that article being a prime example.

    My parents were both school teachers, but saved like squirrels, and when the IRA was first introduced, they were one of the very small number of people who put their $1,500 a year into one. We weren't poor, but we weren't wealthy. But they scrimped to make it happen. We didn't take vacations the way some of my friends did and they always drove a car that was a model down from what they could afford and would drive it into the ground. When my dad retired from being a school principal, he kept working, collected social security and a really good pension. And he continued to live modestly, so he never touched his IRA. I felt from reading that article that someone like him is being demonized as having taken part of a fraud, where he was given preferential treatment over everyone else. But the fact is, it was just about the choices he made. He had peers who never contributed to an IRA, chose to consume more when they were younger than he did. I'm not suggesting that one way is right or the other is wrong, just that as fucked up as our tax system is -- and I'd get the goverment out of the business of trying to "incentize" behavior with the ancillary corruption it leads to -- one thing about an IRA at least is that it is equally available to everyone (cue someone pointing out that if you earn $11 an hour sweeping garages, you are not going to be able to contribute $6,000 a year to your retirement, but IRAs and employer plans didn't create that reality. Reading that article you'd think it did).
     
    maumann and Neutral Corner like this.
  11. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    Point noted about the taxability timeline of IRA inheritances ... The one I've been overseeing (the original owner died in 2019), no beneficiaries were named, so the IRS's timeline was largely a moot point: That money was coming out of there ... the plan allowed for 5 years ... and Uncle Sam was getting his.

    One of the inheritors, she had this bumblefuck of a financial advisor who was insistent that if the right moves were made the taxes could be deferred indefinitely. I looked into it and looked into it (and paid a couple of people to look into it) and we were unanimous in declaring Sir Edward Jones to be full of shit. Finally I got tired of it all and told him what was going to happen and that if he wasn't OK with that, I would have no trouble finding some other advisor to handle the proceeds. He got really cooperative after that.
     
  12. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Once the person dies, there isn't some secret handshake trick that allows an IRA beneficiary to keep it all tax deferred indefinitely. So you had it right. You need to take mandatory distributions. If it was a Roth IRA, I believe you need to take it all out within 5 years, but you don't get taxed because the person who died paid the taxes on the front end. What you lose is the tax-free growth past that 5 years. On a regular IRA, the trick (if you don't need that money right away) is keeping it to minimum required mandatory distributions. Which means using the life expectancy method if you relatively young. There isn't any optionality to get around that. Every year you need to divide the value of the inherited IRA on Dec. 31 by a number from a table that is based on your age, withdraw that much and pay tax on the distribution. The closest thing to what you are talking about would have been for the person to have chosen really young beneficiaries when they were still alive -- say infant grandchildren. With a longer life expectancy, a child's mandatory required disbributions will be smaller than if the beneficiary is in their 40s, the way I was when my dad died. Plus, presumably their income will be lower, so the amount they get taxed on their distributions will fall into a lower tax bracket.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page