No. of Recommendations: 0
I posted this question at another board but have rec'd no answer. SO--in your opinions, will the 70.5 yrs old mandatory withdrawals commencement ever be eliminated?
Are any of our legislators interested?

Thank you you for your input.

Sheila
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Probably not. The government will eventually want to get their hands on the tax revenue that has been sitting in you retirement account.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Probably not. The government will eventually want to get their hands on the tax revenue that has been sitting in you retirement account.

Wouldn't they eventually get their hands on the tax revenue when you die? Even more so. A large IRA or 401K is also included in one's estate for Federal Estate Taxes, isn't it?

cf
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
sheilaoliver wrote "in your opinions, will the 70.5 yrs old mandatory withdrawals commencement ever be eliminated?
Are any of our legislators interested?

Thank you you for your input.

Sheila"

In a sense, they have eliminated it already with the Roth IRA, haven't they?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I posted this question at another board but have rec'd no answer. SO--in your opinions, will the 70.5 yrs old mandatory
withdrawals commencement ever be eliminated?
Are any of our legislators interested?

Thank you you for your input.


Not in our lifetime.

In general your estate will be better off if the money left behind in not in an IRA or 401k etc.

I would plan on spending down the retirement plans before you death and let the non tax deferred assets accumulate.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
SO--in your opinions, will the 70.5 yrs old mandatory withdrawals commencement ever be eliminated?
Are any of our legislators interested?

I'd have to disagree with some of the replies to this message. Obviously legislators are somewhat interested in changing this. I forget if it was SBJPA '96 or TRA '97 that congress saw fit to eliminate the 70 1/2 min required distributions from qualified retirement plans (401k's, PS, etc.) for individuals who continue to participate in their qualified retirement plan (unless they are a 5% owner). My point being, if they tinkered with it then what's to say they won't again...if press by their constiuency (sp?) to do so.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
constiuency (sp?) (constituency) According to spelling in Microsoft Word. I am not good a spelling. Thankful for spelling and thesaurus in MS Word.

cf
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I agree that we will see tinkering with the age rather than elimination of required minimum distributions as long as IRAs are still intended primarily as vehicles to pay for retirement. As people live longer, I see the age for RMD getting higher and higher.

Also, I would love for the legislators to give us a better rule on when RMDs must begin. Why April 1 of the year after your turn 70 1/2? Most people stopped counting their half year birthdays when they started kindergarten. In addition, most people think of Apr. 15 as a tax deadline, not Apr. 1.

As another posted pointed out, whether or not minimum distributions are required, it may be to your benefit to take them from your IRA instead of an equivalent amount from a taxable account.

-- Suzanne
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement