Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 0
The new IRA limits which were passed by the House increased the amount that individuals can contribute to IRA's from $2,000 to $5,000. I'm assuming that this is only for traditional IRA's. Has there been any talk of increasing the limit for Roth IRA's? Also, my understanding is that you can contribute only $2,000 to an IRA each year - either Roth or traditional. With the new laws, can you contribute $2,000 to a Roth and $3,000 to a traditional?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Greetings, Nathar, and welcome. You wrote:

<<The new IRA limits which were passed by the House increased the amount that individuals can contribute to IRA's from $2,000 to $5,000. I'm assuming that this is only for traditional IRA's. Has there been any talk of increasing the limit for Roth IRA's? Also, my understanding is that you can contribute only $2,000 to an IRA each year - either Roth or traditional. With the new laws, can you contribute $2,000 to a Roth and $3,000 to a traditional?>>

Please do not get all excited or await this change with bated breath. NOTHING has been enacted into law yet, and in all likelihood even if the Senate fully agrees with the House, the President will veto the measure. A lot can happen between what the House has proposed and what may (and most probably may not) get enacted into law.

Should by the most remote of chances this legislation get enacted, then ultimately you can contribute $5K to a traditional or a Roth (or both depending on how you wish to divide that $5K). Be assured if and when the law is enacted, we will run several articles on the topic.

Regards..Pixy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Yeah, when it gets enacted we may all be retired by then!!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I saw a news segment about the pending legislation and eagerly listened for them to specify whether Roth IRA's were included when they simply said "IRA". They never specified, which actually probably means that it is covered...otherwise I think they would make a point of saying the Roth would not be covered. One thing they did say was that the new $5,000 limit would be phased in. I think they said it would be UP TO $5,000 by something like 2003. They will probably increase the limit by $1000 each year until then. They also said the $2000 limit hasn't been changed in about 20 years. Hopefully Clinton won't veto it. If he does, hopefully Bush will be elected and Congress will be able to push the bill through again.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Please do not get all excited or await this change with bated breath. NOTHING has been enacted into law yet, and in all likelihood even if the Senate fully agrees with the House, the President will veto the measure.

So... Maybe I'm missing something here, but why would Clinton veto this? What's wrong with letting people save more for retirement, particularly with questions about the long-term viability of Social Security?

jason
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Greetings, Jason, and welcome. You asked:

<<So... Maybe I'm missing something here, but why would Clinton veto this? What's wrong with letting people save more for retirement, particularly with questions about the long-term viability of Social Security?>>

Because in his enlightened view he believes only the "rich" will benefit and the bill will do absolutely nothing to help those who "cannot" save and who have no employer-provided pension plan.

Regards..Pixy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Increasing the traditional IRA limits takes a bite out of the government's revenue. That $5000 would be tax deductible so the gov't wouldn't get the tax revenue. Clinton also feels that saving for retirement benefits the rich more than everyone else, which is true, but it's pretty obvious that the more money you have the more you'll save. The government shouldn't discourage saving. It's good for the economy.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Yes, you are right about Clinton. He is a politician however and knows that he can easily be overruled by the House (401 Ayes to 25 Noes). That would look really bad and he will probably avoid it. I think he is just posturing.

http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2000&rollnumber=412
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<So... Maybe I'm missing something here, but why would Clinton veto this? What's wrong with letting people save more for retirement, particularly with questions about the long-term viability of Social Security?>>

<< Because in his enlightened view he believes only the "rich" will benefit and the bill will do absolutely nothing to help those who "cannot" save and who have no employer-provided pension plan. >>

This is the typical liberal response . . .if IRAs were being proposed for the first time today and at the same $2,000 contribution limit, you would still get the same response.

I have yet to hear Clinton define what level of income is considered as being rich. My guess is there many people who could contribute the proposed $5K maximum,and wouldn't be considered as being rich by most people. Why should people who can afford to contribute more than the current limit of $2k or at the proposed $5K maximum be penalized just because there are some people who can't afford to contribute . . .there will always be people in this position. Instead of trying to perpetuate people's dependency on government, increasing the contribution limit to $5K will help in minimizing this.

I just had to let off a little steam.

Dave
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
TruckeeDave writes,

I have yet to hear Clinton define what level of income is considered as being rich.

Sure he has. It's anything above minimum wage.

intercst
(who's trying to keep his wage and salary income below the "minimum wage level" now that he's retired.)
Print the post Back To Top