Stretch IRA'sI have read bits and pieces of this strategy. Basically its lets your designated IRA beneficiary name a beneficiary and effectively S_T_R_E_T_C_H the payments over thelifetime of a younger beneficiary. This could be 50 years or more and allow for longercompounding. Anyone have info on this? Thanks. Tim
<< Anyone have info on this? >>I'm pretty sure there's an article on this in the FAQ of the Tax Strategies board. There's also been at least one message thread on it on that board.TMF ExROPhil Marti
RE: Social Security invested in Stock Market.Whenever I see "Heritage Foundation" as a source, I automatically think "Hey, aren't these the same guys who encouraged us to bankrupt the country during the Regan years?" Isn't that when we went from being the largest creditor country in the world to being, ten years later, the biggest debtor? I see these guys (and their greedy sponsors) are at it again.Now, it's time to loot social security instead of the S&L's!1)How much money will be spent on commissions for investment houses? How political will the investments be if they are managed in house.2)What if there's a downturn, or a sustained bear market when a person is retiring, and they suddenly find themselves short 40, 50 or 70%? What are demographics of aging baby boomers going to do to the markets? If many pull their money out around the same time, won't that knock the markets down, perhaps into a deep spiral if other negative factors are present?3) Some people simply will not make responsible investment decisions, or will take bad advice. That's human nature, and many people are not interested in becoming Fools and learning all about the fascinating ins and outs of corporate lifespans. Sure, I guess that's their tough luck (if you're from the Heritage Foundation), but a) that's not what social security is for and b) In the event they blow it, they would likely become permanent welfare wards (or maybe, in that more enlightened time, we'll just let them starve, or let their families care for them, or whatever).I say, let's keep the sharks out of people's pensions.If George W. is so interested in shoring up social security, why doesn't he stop proposing tax cuts for rich people and instead suggest we dedicate the budget surplus to front-loading Social Security now so that it will be solvent in the coming decades.George W. should go back to what he's good at, which is using his family connections to make money while leaving other people to hold the bag. Let's not let him do it with the whole country.
RE: SS invested in stock markets. I hate to remind everyone of the trend of most employers putting the 'risk' on the employee for their retirement (401k). Why do you think the White House 'plunge team' is so busy working with the Feds to support the market and keep the bubble from bursting? The current attitude of the 30+ group is that they don't care about anything in politics as long as their 401k is booming.I agree that SS is nothing more than a 'tax' and we have been duped through the Gov't marketing it as a retirement program. Forbidding SS payments to the well off won't make a dent in the future of SS. Personally I like the "Fair Tax" proposal that will encourage the producers to produce and earn and not penalize someone for succeeding. I've seen too many people who work hard all their lives wind up with little but SS. Poor choices? You bet! But should the rest of us who have at least scrimped and saved and done w/out pay for their mistakes? Sorry, I am not a believer in the Robin Hood system. We need to educate our children and grandchildren so that they will be better prepared to make better choices.
Thanks for all the info. The link to the Tax Board is http://www.fool.com/school/taxes/1999/taxes991231.htm. The article stresses the importance of naming a secondary or contingent beneficiary. I just jumped in a read some of this thread. How did Social security get intertwined with stretch IRA's?Am I missing something? Thanks. Tim.