A Couple Stored IRA Gold at Home. They Owe the IRS More Than $300,000.

cagcrisp

From WSJ…

“It’s official: Owners of individual retirement accounts with assets invested in gold and silver coins can’t store them in a safe at their home.

So ruled the judge in a recent Tax Court case, Andrew McNulty et al. v. Commissioner. The decision will cost Mr. McNulty and his wife Donna dearly—taxes of nearly $270,000 on about $730,000 of IRA assets, plus penalties likely to exceed $50,000.

The ruling disallows a scheme that was heavily promoted several years ago, when radio and internet ads touted the benefits of using IRA assets to buy gold and silver coins and then store them at home or in a safe-deposit box. Promoters based pitches on a perceived ambiguity in the law, despite warnings from the Internal Revenue Service and legal specialists.

These pitches are less common now, but they’re still around. Savers who have bought into them or are considering such a move should reconsider right away.

The McNulty case has a broader lesson as well: It’s a cautionary tale showing how dangerous it can be to invest retirement-plan funds in alternative assets without proper guidance.

“Good tax advice may appear expensive, but it’s not as costly as blowing up your IRA,” says Warren Baker, an attorney with Fairview Law Group in Seattle who specializes in alternative-asset IRAs.

Here’s what happened in the McNulty case, starting with some background.

Savers who have tax-favored retirement plans such as traditional IRAs, Roth IRAs, and Solo 401(k)s usually invest the assets in securities like stocks, mutual funds and exchange-traded funds.

But they don’t have to. The law gives retirement-plan owners broad latitude in how they invest funds, as long as it’s not in collectibles like artwork, jewelry, antique furniture, cars, wine and such.

Ami Givon, a benefits attorney with GCA Law Partners in Mountain View, Calif., says he has seen retirement accounts holding investments in real estate, litigation funding, deeds of trust and cryptocurrency. Mr. Baker says he knows of an IRA investment in a sports franchise, and ProPublica’s reporting on Peter Thiel’s $5-billion Roth IRA said his account had large amounts of nontraded stock.

Savers investing in alternative assets must follow strict rules against self-dealing. Otherwise, they risk disaster. For example, an IRA owner can use account funds to invest in a rental property like a beach house. But if she uses it herself for a week of vacation, that’s a “prohibited transaction” that dissolves the IRA, triggering taxes and perhaps penalties.

The McNultys ran afoul of such rules. Their attorney, Thomas Quinn of McLaughlinQuinn in Providence, R.I., said they declined to comment on the case and are considering an appeal.

According to the decision, the couple in 2015 began moving nearly $750,000 of existing retirement-plan funds, including from a MetLife annuity and 401(k), into self-directed IRAs. Then they had the IRAs purchase shares in limited-liability companies that in turn invested about $730,000 in a condominium plus gold and silver American Eagle coins.

These moves are legal: The law allows IRAs to invest in physical gold and silver, and many savers hold alternative assets through LLCs to ease administration. By using an LLC, the IRA owner doesn’t have to ask the custodian to, say, cut a check to pay a plumber for repairs to a rental property within the IRA.

But in an IRS audit, Mr. McNulty, a Rhode Island-based plant manager at a sailcloth factory, conceded that he engaged in prohibited transactions in 2015 and 2016, although the decision didn’t say what they were. That dissolved his IRA and caused taxable IRA payouts to him of about $316,000.

That left two issues for Tax Court Judge Joseph Robert Goeke to decide: whether Donna McNulty’s storage of about $411,000 of gold and silver American Eagle coins in a safe at her home was permitted under the law, and whether the couple owed stiff penalties for understating their tax. The couple lost on both issues.

According to the decision, Mrs. McNulty, a registered nurse, was careful with her IRA’s coins in some ways. She opened a bank account in the name of the LLC, documented the purchase of the coins, and labeled the coins as belonging to her IRA-owned LLC when she put them in the couple’s safe.

However, the judge ruled that her “unfettered control” of the coins, if upheld, would be ripe for abuse. He clarified what some saw as a gray area and said the law requires independent oversight of investments in coins or bullion by a third-party fiduciary—so it doesn’t allow for storage in a safe at home. Because that wasn’t allowed, Mrs. McNulty had a taxable payout from her IRA payout of the coins’ $411,000 value.

The decision also came down hard on the McNultys’ reliance on their LLC provider’s advertisements instead of competent professional advice, calling home-storage gold IRAs a “questionable internet scheme.” It added that the McNultys didn’t act in good faith because they didn’t disclose information about their IRAs to the CPA who prepared their 2015 and 2016 tax returns.

As a result, the judge imposed accuracy penalties of 20% of the McNultys’ tax understatement under Section 6662(a) of the tax code. Based on the facts in the decision, the penalty comes to about $54,000.

MsMorrisine

The precious metals forum will love this

Why not post it there

coinbuf

Interesting, I have not done this but I do remember when this was "all the rage" and remember reading about some of these opportunities.

charlesf20

@coinbuf said:
Interesting, I have not done this but I do remember when this was "all the rage" and remember reading about some of these opportunities.

Not just covering your tracks?

charlesf20

@cagcrisp said:
As a result, the judge imposed accuracy penalties of 20% of the McNultys’ tax understatement under Section 6662(a) of the tax code. Based on the facts in the decision, the penalty comes to about $54,000.

Excellent write.

Type2

Wow that sucks…

cagcrisp

Do Not try this at Home…

erwindoc

My investment guy told me the same thing about tax consequences if I took physical hold of precious metals. While it would be really neat to look at a big gold brick on my desk every day, Ill just keep the funds safe in my IRA!

291fifth

Always be very wary of "investment" pitches that in any way attempt to take advantage of supposed ambiguities in the law. Avoid the pitchmen (or pitchwomen) who promote these things.

DrBuster

Agree on posting this in the PM forum....and the boating accidents forum.

LanceNewmanOCC

i read all that was posted. what exactly is the problem here.

1, gold/silver cannot be used in ira (unless stored in pre-approved locations/methods)
2. they can be but don't go outside the intricate and extensive legal dictations
3. forgot the other one.

this whole thing SEEMS to imply that gold/silver are NOT a legal means of investing for iras BUT imo, after reading (only what was posted) they are OK but one needs to take dance classes in order to do it properly?

can we get a consensus with a simple yes/no for those reading?

Is it still legal to put money into gold/silver for iras.] thanks

edited to add: it seems the ONLY problem here was the invester's nefarious activities on a few different fronts.

MetroD

Interesting topic.

I am NOT an expert, but will share what I found in order to further the discussion...

~ "If my IRA invests in gold or other bullion, can I store the bullion in my home?

Gold and other bullion are "collectibles" under the IRA statutes, and the law discourages the holding of collectibles in IRAs. There is an exception for certain highly refined bullion provided it is in the physical possession of a bank or an IRS-approved nonbank trustee. This rule also applies to an indirect acquisition, such as having an IRA-owned Limited Liability Company (LLC) buy the bullion. IRA investments in other unconventional assets, such as closely held companies and real estate, run the risk of disqualifying the IRA because of the prohibited transaction rules against self-dealing."
(Source = IRS IRA FAQs; Section = "Investments"; Emphasis Added)

~ "Certain highly refined bullion" that is excepted is defined elsewhere.

"Your IRA can invest in one, one-half, one-quarter, or one-tenth ounce U.S. gold coins, or one-ounce silver coins minted by the Treasury Department. It can also invest in certain platinum coins and certain gold, silver, palladium, and platinum bullion."
(Source = IRS Publication 590-A (2020); Section = "What Acts Result in Penalties or Additional Taxes?"; Sub-Section = "Investment in Collectibles")

privatecoin

I'll just buy with after tax dollars.....keep the feds out of my physical assets.

coinbuf

@charlesf20 said:

@coinbuf said:
Interesting, I have not done this but I do remember when this was "all the rage" and remember reading about some of these opportunities.

Not just covering your tracks?

Your accusing me of some nefarious activity violates rule 2 in the forum rules and guidelines.

cagcrisp

can we get a consensus with a simple yes/no for those reading?

Is it still legal to put money into gold/silver for iras.] thanks

It is legal to have specific silver and gold coins in an IRA. It is Illegal to create an LLC, that you control, to be the legal authority to oversee the IRA, and to store the legal silver and gold coins in your home...

MrEureka

As far as I'm concerned, tax-advantaged IRAs are a ridiculous creation to begin with. (Just had to get that off my chest.)

That said, putting gold bullion in an IRA is almost as ridiculous. Bullion doesn't spin off dividends, so there is no benefit from deferred taxation. And the privacy and security provided by bullion is mostly lost when kept in an easily monitored account.

Sorry for the slightly OT rant. Carry on.

stockdude_

Also you cant store Gold bullion ( collector coins are ok) in a bank Safe Deposit box anymore. I closed my box years ago when they came out with that

charlesf20

@coinbuf said:

@charlesf20 said:

@coinbuf said:
Interesting, I have not done this but I do remember when this was "all the rage" and remember reading about some of these opportunities.

Not just covering your tracks?

Your accusing me of some nefarious activity violates rule 2 in the forum rules and guidelines.

I apologize. I was just teasing, my bad. Sorry if it offended you.

blitzdude

@stockdude_ said:
Also you cant store Gold bullion ( collector coins are ok) in a bank Safe Deposit box anymore. I closed my box years ago when they came out with that

Says who? I've stored gold bullion in my SDB for many years.

jmlanzaf

@MrEureka said:
As far as I'm concerned, tax-advantaged IRAs are a ridiculous creation to begin with. (Just had to get that off my chest.)

That said, putting gold bullion in an IRA is almost as ridiculous. Bullion doesn't spin off dividends, so there is no benefit from deferred taxation. And the privacy and security provided by bullion is mostly lost when kept in an easily monitored account.

Sorry for the slightly OT rant. Carry on.

Traditional IRA would be different than a Roth.

jmlanzaf

@blitzdude said:

@stockdude_ said:
Also you cant store Gold bullion ( collector coins are ok) in a bank Safe Deposit box anymore. I closed my box years ago when they came out with that

Says who? I've stored gold bullion in my SDB for many years.

The banks say so. Obviously, you can get away with it since they don't really look. But it does violate the terms and conditions for most banks. Same with cash. Probably due to anti-crime laws.

ricko

Nothing wrong with keeping gold/silver bullion... just do not put it in an IRA.... Or if done, follow the rules. Cheers, RickO

Jzyskowski1

Oh my. Put all that figuring and complicated thinking to finding a little supplement that will give you a couple extra bucks, instead of beating an IRA to the point of illegalities and worse. Just buy the bullion and stash it somewhere safe. As said multiple times, it doesn’t pay dividends. 😉

derryb

@jmlanzaf said:

@MrEureka said:
As far as I'm concerned, tax-advantaged IRAs are a ridiculous creation to begin with. (Just had to get that off my chest.)

That said, putting gold bullion in an IRA is almost as ridiculous. Bullion doesn't spin off dividends, so there is no benefit from deferred taxation. And the privacy and security provided by bullion is mostly lost when kept in an easily monitored account.

Sorry for the slightly OT rant. Carry on.

Traditional IRA would be different than a Roth.

"tax advantaged IRAs" aren't ridiculous to those who enjoy the tax advantage the IRA gives them.

Regular and ROTH both have tax advantages. It's like a horse bet in Britain; you either choose to pay taxes up front when you place the bet and then receive winnings tax free or don't pay a tax on the bet but then pay taxes on the winnings.

For an account holder who expects to turn great profits with the IRA, the ROTH will provide the greatest tax advantage. Imagine a life long investment account where all of the profits are earned income tax-free! I'm surprised congress has not put an end to them.

MrEureka

@derryb said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@MrEureka said:
As far as I'm concerned, tax-advantaged IRAs are a ridiculous creation to begin with. (Just had to get that off my chest.)

That said, putting gold bullion in an IRA is almost as ridiculous. Bullion doesn't spin off dividends, so there is no benefit from deferred taxation. And the privacy and security provided by bullion is mostly lost when kept in an easily monitored account.

Sorry for the slightly OT rant. Carry on.

Traditional IRA would be different than a Roth.

"tax advantaged IRAs" aren't ridiculous to those who enjoy the tax advantage the IRA gives them.

Regular and ROTH both have tax advantages. It's like a horse bet in Britain; you either choose to pay taxes up front when you place the bet and then receive winnings tax free or don't pay a tax on the bet but then pay taxes on the winnings.

For an account holder who expects to turn great profits with the IRA, the ROTH will provide the greatest tax advantage. Imagine a life long investment account where all of the profits are earned income tax-free! I'm surprised congress has not put an end to them.

It's not ridiculous to take advantage of the tax advantages provided by IRA's. It is, however, ridiculous public policy to offer the plans in the first place. At the most basic level, look at it this way. Those who don't take advantage of the plans effectively subsidize those who do. Sure, you can argue that that's their fault, but it's still not fair.

moursund

@MrEureka said:

It's not ridiculous to take advantage of the tax advantages provided by IRA's. It is, however, ridiculous public policy to offer the plans in the first place. At the most basic level, look at it this way. Those who don't take advantage of the plans effectively subsidize those who do. Sure, you can argue that that's their fault, but it's still not fair.

Need to define "fair". Sounds "fair" to me, but perhaps not "right".

MrEureka

@moursund said:

@MrEureka said:

It's not ridiculous to take advantage of the tax advantages provided by IRA's. It is, however, ridiculous public policy to offer the plans in the first place. At the most basic level, look at it this way. Those who don't take advantage of the plans effectively subsidize those who do. Sure, you can argue that that's their fault, but it's still not fair.

Need to define "fair". Sounds "fair" to me, but perhaps not "right".

Excellent point. I was just thinking the same thing. (: >)

Still, IMHO, it's bad public policy.

derryb

@MrEureka said:

It's not ridiculous to take advantage of the tax advantages provided by IRA's. It is, however, ridiculous public policy to offer the plans in the first place. At the most basic level, look at it this way. Those who don't take advantage of the plans effectively subsidize those who do. Sure, you can argue that that's their fault, but it's still not fair.

IRAs encourage retirement planning/saving which in turn reduces later in life dependency on taxpayers. No one is subsidizing IRA accounts except for the person contributing to them. Taxes not collected in the current year for an IRA will be collected in later years at likely a much higher rate. The taxes are not forgiven nor are they passed on to other tax payers; they are deferred to a later point in time.

moursund

@MrEureka said:

@moursund said:

@MrEureka said:

It's not ridiculous to take advantage of the tax advantages provided by IRA's. It is, however, ridiculous public policy to offer the plans in the first place. At the most basic level, look at it this way. Those who don't take advantage of the plans effectively subsidize those who do. Sure, you can argue that that's their fault, but it's still not fair.

Need to define "fair". Sounds "fair" to me, but perhaps not "right".

Excellent point. I was just thinking the same thing. (: >)

Still, IMHO, it's bad public policy.

It's a piece of complex public policy. I don't have a particular problem with tax-advantaged retirement accounts, in order to encourage savings, and help reduce number of destitue seniors. But the overall trend is "the rich get rich, and the poor get poorer". If the people who are good at making/keeping money are rewarded with more and more of the pie, something eventually has to change. Things look maybe ok as long as the pie is growing, but when it shrinks, the poor get squished.

ctf_error_coins

@derryb said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@MrEureka said:
As far as I'm concerned, tax-advantaged IRAs are a ridiculous creation to begin with. (Just had to get that off my chest.)

That said, putting gold bullion in an IRA is almost as ridiculous. Bullion doesn't spin off dividends, so there is no benefit from deferred taxation. And the privacy and security provided by bullion is mostly lost when kept in an easily monitored account.

Sorry for the slightly OT rant. Carry on.

Traditional IRA would be different than a Roth.

"tax advantaged IRAs" aren't ridiculous to those who enjoy the tax advantage the IRA gives them.

Regular and ROTH both have tax advantages. It's like a horse bet in Britain; you either choose to pay taxes up front when you place the bet and then receive winnings tax free or don't pay a tax on the bet but then pay taxes on the winnings.

For an account holder who expects to turn great profits with the IRA, the ROTH will provide the greatest tax advantage. Imagine a life long investment account where all of the profits are earned income tax-free! I'm surprised congress has not put an end to them.

My daughter started her elementary school teaching job this year. Because she still lives at home, I insist that she Max out a Roth IRA with 6K every year she stays at home. Each 6K will be 100K at her retirement Tax Free

derryb

@moursund said:

It's a piece of complex public policy. I don't have a particular problem with tax-advantaged retirement accounts, in order to encourage savings, and help reduce number of destitue seniors. But the overall trend is "the rich get rich, and the poor get poorer". If the people who are good at making/keeping money are rewarded with more and more of the pie, something eventually has to change. Things look maybe ok as long as the pie is growing, but when it shrinks, the poor get squished.

IRA tax advantages are eventually removed as income increases.

cagcrisp

Those that do Not like IRA's will Not like what will happen in 2022.
Nearly complete bipartisan support for some form of what is being called "Secure Act 2.0" will pass in 2022.
IF you do Not like 401k, 402b or IRA's you will Not like Secure Act 2.0.
Secure Act 2.0 is what we currently have and add a multiplier effect to it.
With Social Security in the state that it is in, the government is going more and more private vs. public for retirement benefits...

derryb

@ErrorsOnCoins said:

@derryb said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@MrEureka said:
As far as I'm concerned, tax-advantaged IRAs are a ridiculous creation to begin with. (Just had to get that off my chest.)

That said, putting gold bullion in an IRA is almost as ridiculous. Bullion doesn't spin off dividends, so there is no benefit from deferred taxation. And the privacy and security provided by bullion is mostly lost when kept in an easily monitored account.

Sorry for the slightly OT rant. Carry on.

Traditional IRA would be different than a Roth.

"tax advantaged IRAs" aren't ridiculous to those who enjoy the tax advantage the IRA gives them.

Regular and ROTH both have tax advantages. It's like a horse bet in Britain; you either choose to pay taxes up front when you place the bet and then receive winnings tax free or don't pay a tax on the bet but then pay taxes on the winnings.

For an account holder who expects to turn great profits with the IRA, the ROTH will provide the greatest tax advantage. Imagine a life long investment account where all of the profits are earned income tax-free! I'm surprised congress has not put an end to them.

My daughter started her elementary school teaching job this year. Because she still lives at home, I insist that she Max out a Roth IRA with 6K every year she stays at home. Each 6K will be 100K at her retirement Tax Free

The only question remaining is "what will those dollars be worth when she retires compared to what they could buy today?" Real estate that she can live in might be a better investment. This is one of the few things some see as a better investment than a ROTH simply because of it's ability to keep up with inflation while providing a needed service.

moursund

@derryb said:

@moursund said:

It's a piece of complex public policy. I don't have a particular problem with tax-advantaged retirement accounts, in order to encourage savings, and help reduce number of destitue seniors. But the overall trend is "the rich get rich, and the poor get poorer". If the people who are good at making/keeping money are rewarded with more and more of the pie, something eventually has to change. Things look maybe ok as long as the pie is growing, but when it shrinks, the poor get squished.

IRA tax advantages are lowered and eventually removed as income increases.

Yes... and those with enough income to exceed those limits have plenty of other ways to work the system. I rather like the idea of rewarding those who can produce/increase wealth (basic capitalisms), but in the US, it seems to be going too far.

Ok, too much politics. back to coins...

ctf_error_coins

@derryb said:

@ErrorsOnCoins said:

@derryb said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@MrEureka said:
As far as I'm concerned, tax-advantaged IRAs are a ridiculous creation to begin with. (Just had to get that off my chest.)

That said, putting gold bullion in an IRA is almost as ridiculous. Bullion doesn't spin off dividends, so there is no benefit from deferred taxation. And the privacy and security provided by bullion is mostly lost when kept in an easily monitored account.

Sorry for the slightly OT rant. Carry on.

Traditional IRA would be different than a Roth.

"tax advantaged IRAs" aren't ridiculous to those who enjoy the tax advantage the IRA gives them.

Regular and ROTH both have tax advantages. It's like a horse bet in Britain; you either choose to pay taxes up front when you place the bet and then receive winnings tax free or don't pay a tax on the bet but then pay taxes on the winnings.

For an account holder who expects to turn great profits with the IRA, the ROTH will provide the greatest tax advantage. Imagine a life long investment account where all of the profits are earned income tax-free! I'm surprised congress has not put an end to them.

My daughter started her elementary school teaching job this year. Because she still lives at home, I insist that she Max out a Roth IRA with 6K every year she stays at home. Each 6K will be 100K at her retirement Tax Free

The only question remaining is "what will those dollars be worth when she retires compared to what they could buy today?" Real estate that she can live in might be a better investment. This is one of the few things some see as a better investment than a ROTH simply because of it's ability to keep up with inflation while providing a needed service.

You can't buy real estate with 6K but you could buy Rivian

ElmerFusterpuck

I keep all my gold at a place called Saddle Ridge. Oh wait...

tincup

@cagcrisp said:
Those that do Not like IRA's will Not like what will happen in 2022.
Nearly complete bipartisan support for some form of what is being called "Secure Act 2.0" will pass in 2022.
IF you do Not like 401k, 402b or IRA's you will Not like Secure Act 2.0.
Secure Act 2.0 is what we currently have and add a multiplier effect to it.
With Social Security in the state that it is in, the government is going more and more private vs. public for retirement benefits...

Can you explain what this will entail? I have not heard of this...

cagcrisp

@tincup said:

@cagcrisp said:

Can you explain what this will entail? I have not heard of this...

1. RMD go from 72 to 75 over a fazed in period of 10 years with 72 going to 73 in 2022
2. Senate version of Secure Act 2.0 would allow for NO RMD's when account balances are below $100,000
3. Mandatory Automatic enrollment for New 401k's, 403b's with an opt out but the default would be 3% at enrollment.
4. Increase tax credits for employers to start 401k
5. Reduce the 50% penalty if you miss an RMD
6. Allow people that pay down student loans to receive company match
7. House version increase catch up for IRAs for 62-64 ages from $6500 to $10,000
8. Senate version would just make catch up $10,000 at age 60
9. Allow after tax Roth contributions to SEP and SIMPLE plans
10. More favorable options for those that are considered part time employees
11. Simplification of the Savers Credit for low income participants
12. Increase Qualified Charitable Deductions (QCD) from $100,000 annually to $130,000 annually

olympicsos

This is why you don't buy pm's just to invest. Collect and take profits when it's time.

amwldcoin

@moursund said:

@MrEureka said:

@moursund said:

@MrEureka said:

It's not ridiculous to take advantage of the tax advantages provided by IRA's. It is, however, ridiculous public policy to offer the plans in the first place. At the most basic level, look at it this way. Those who don't take advantage of the plans effectively subsidize those who do. Sure, you can argue that that's their fault, but it's still not fair.

Need to define "fair". Sounds "fair" to me, but perhaps not "right".

Excellent point. I was just thinking the same thing. (: >)

Still, IMHO, it's bad public policy.

It's a piece of complex public policy. I don't have a particular problem with tax-advantaged retirement accounts, in order to encourage savings, and help reduce number of destitue seniors. But the overall trend is "the rich get rich, and the poor get poorer". If the people who are good at making/keeping money are rewarded with more and more of the pie, something eventually has to change. Things look maybe ok as long as the pie is growing, but when it shrinks, the poor get squished.

Sounds like you are saying the people that saved their money, invested it wisely, and worked hard should contribute to the partying, irresponsible crowd that lives paycheck to paycheck due to their lifestyle. Of course there are exceptions to this, just with anything else. I would wager I'm in the upper 90% crowd for number of hours worked in my lifetime and I'll be damned if I want to contribute to some lazy SOB that's worked 1/2 as many hours as I have in my lifetime that didn't plan ahead!

cagcrisp

I've Never had a thread that I started shut down...

Always a First Time...

jmlanzaf

@amwldcoin said:

@moursund said:

way. Those who don't take advantage of the plans effectively subsidize those who do. Sure, you can argue that that's their fault, but it's still not fair.

good at making/keeping money are rewarded with more and more of the pie, something eventually has to change. Things look maybe ok as long as the pie is growing, but when it shrinks, the poor get squished.

Sounds like you are saying the people that saved their money, invested it wisely, and worked hard should contribute to the partying, irresponsible crowd that lives paycheck to paycheck due to their lifestyle. Of course there are exceptions to this, just with anything else. I would wager I'm in the upper 90% crowd for number of hours worked in my lifetime and I'll be damned if I want to contribute to some lazy SOB that's worked 1/2 as many hours as I have in my lifetime that didn't plan ahead!

If only 10% of the population worked less than you, you shouldn't be bragging.

moursund

@amwldcoin said:

@moursund said:

@MrEureka said:

@moursund said:

@MrEureka said:

It's not ridiculous to take advantage of the tax advantages provided by IRA's. It is, however, ridiculous public policy to offer the plans in the first place. At the most basic level, look at it this way. Those who don't take advantage of the plans effectively subsidize those who do. Sure, you can argue that that's their fault, but it's still not fair.

Need to define "fair". Sounds "fair" to me, but perhaps not "right".

Excellent point. I was just thinking the same thing. (: >)

Still, IMHO, it's bad public policy.

It's a piece of complex public policy. I don't have a particular problem with tax-advantaged retirement accounts, in order to encourage savings, and help reduce number of destitue seniors. But the overall trend is "the rich get rich, and the poor get poorer". If the people who are good at making/keeping money are rewarded with more and more of the pie, something eventually has to change. Things look maybe ok as long as the pie is growing, but when it shrinks, the poor get squished.

Sounds like you are saying the people that saved their money, invested it wisely, and worked hard should contribute to the partying, irresponsible crowd that lives paycheck to paycheck due to their lifestyle. Of course there are exceptions to this, just with anything else. I would wager I'm in the upper 90% crowd for number of hours worked in my lifetime and I'll be damned if I want to contribute to some lazy SOB that's worked 1/2 as many hours as I have in my lifetime that didn't plan ahead!

Really? It didn't sound like that to me... Lazy, partying, irresponsible stereotypes aside, it appears to me that a growing percentage of the US population is "on the margins". Middle class shrinking, more and more wealth concentrated at the very top. That trend is not a healthy one. Whether you agree, and what you might propose to do about it, are up to you, and are probably for another forum.

amwldcoin

@jmlanzaf said:

@amwldcoin said:

@moursund said:

way. Those who don't take advantage of the plans effectively subsidize those who do. Sure, you can argue that that's their fault, but it's still not fair.

good at making/keeping money are rewarded with more and more of the pie, something eventually has to change. Things look maybe ok as long as the pie is growing, but when it shrinks, the poor get squished.

Sounds like you are saying the people that saved their money, invested it wisely, and worked hard should contribute to the partying, irresponsible crowd that lives paycheck to paycheck due to their lifestyle. Of course there are exceptions to this, just with anything else. I would wager I'm in the upper 90% crowd for number of hours worked in my lifetime and I'll be damned if I want to contribute to some lazy SOB that's worked 1/2 as many hours as I have in my lifetime that didn't plan ahead!

If only 10% of the population worked less than you, you shouldn't be bragging.

Either your math skills are bad or mine are! Upper 90% would be working more than 90% of the Population!

jmlanzaf

@amwldcoin said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@amwldcoin said:

@moursund said:

way. Those who don't take advantage of the plans effectively subsidize those who do. Sure, you can argue that that's their fault, but it's still not fair.

good at making/keeping money are rewarded with more and more of the pie, something eventually has to change. Things look maybe ok as long as the pie is growing, but when it shrinks, the poor get squished.

Sounds like you are saying the people that saved their money, invested it wisely, and worked hard should contribute to the partying, irresponsible crowd that lives paycheck to paycheck due to their lifestyle. Of course there are exceptions to this, just with anything else. I would wager I'm in the upper 90% crowd for number of hours worked in my lifetime and I'll be damned if I want to contribute to some lazy SOB that's worked 1/2 as many hours as I have in my lifetime that didn't plan ahead!

If only 10% of the population worked less than you, you shouldn't be bragging.

Either your math skills are bad or mine are! Upper 90% would be working more than 90% of the Population!

No, that would be the upper 10%. The upper 90% would be from 10 to 100.

Now, you might mean "percentile" rather than "percent".

alefzero

@blitzdude said:

@stockdude_ said:
Also you cant store Gold bullion ( collector coins are ok) in a bank Safe Deposit box anymore. I closed my box years ago when they came out with that

Says who? I've stored gold bullion in my SDB for many years.

Varies by bank. But here is an example: Wells Fargo.

https://safedepositboxinsurance.com/landing_page/wells-fargo/