dee27
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 28, 2016 21:08:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,211
|
Post by dee27 on Sept 24, 2017 16:32:02 GMT -5
Yes, not that anyone really enforces it much. I'm also not sure it matters TOO much, if I've blown through all the money you can't get blood from a stone. I guess my real question was basically whether they take care of you and try to find a way to get the money...or if they just say "you don't qualify, suck it". I know of a situation where Son lived in Mom's house with Mom, then Mom went to a nursing home. Son stayed in the house. He was a cosigner on all her bank and investment accounts and used Mom's money to pay for the nursing home. He also used her money to keep up the house and for his own living expenses which were pretty boundless (think hoarding). Mom's money ran out and he stopped paying for the nursing home. After a few months of the nursing home trying to get answers from Son, Mom went on Medicaid but when the State got whiff of how Mom ran out of money, they transferred Mom back home for him to take care of her. I believe Son was also facing criminal charges of some sort. Elder abuse with regard to finances, maybe? My BIL did commit fraud, but DH saw the checks and to whom they were written. He refused to return the money to the trust account, and DH threatened to have him arrested. The trust lawyer said after DH, as executor, sued him, the estate would be out more than the 50K he took out of MIL's accounts. The trust lawyer intervened and asked BIL to sign a paper saying he already received his inheritance, thus the estate was only out 10K. To this day no one in DH's family speaks to him because of his actions.
|
|
dee27
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 28, 2016 21:08:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,211
|
Post by dee27 on Sept 24, 2017 16:42:58 GMT -5
Shelby,
Your sister is a piece of work, and jail time probably would not change her behavior, but she is truly evil. Since your dad suffers from dementia, he is not capable of making rational financial decisions. Do you have a financial POA to manage his money? As his agent, you may not need his permission to notify the police about your sister's fraud. Also, you should notify the credit bureaus that you want to freeze his accounts because of her fraud, so she does not have the ability to open more CCs.
|
|
shelby
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 21:29:02 GMT -5
Posts: 1,368
|
Post by shelby on Sept 24, 2017 17:08:36 GMT -5
Shelby, Your sister is a piece of work, and jail time probably would not change her behavior, but she is truly evil. Since your dad suffers from dementia, he is not capable of making rational financial decisions. Do you have a financial POA to manage his money? As his agent, you may not need his permission to notify the police about your sister's fraud. Also, you should notify the credit bureaus that you want to freeze his accounts because of her fraud, so she does not have the ability to open more CCs. Yes we've been dealing with this for going on a year now. The cc in question was one that had to jump through hoops to get me listed as poa. So I never did. The other cards are closed and I keep a close watch on his credit. He is doing so much better and want him to make his own decisions that's why we both filled out the fraud report. She must have guilt trip him into backing out. This is a very new situation so I am calling the contact person to explain the situation and send poa directly. I just wish I didn't have to keep dealing with this. The reason I checked his credit is because we got a letter he was declined for a Home Depot cc....of course he never applied and all this after she used his debit card to buy a washing machine he did not approve 😡 She returned it after he confronted her but she knows he will not doing anything to bring her legal issues, so I will definitely need to step in. She will never stop. 😥 ETA she has multiple felonies for stealing from dementia patients where she used to work.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Sept 24, 2017 17:20:56 GMT -5
Anyone who doesn't take advantage of existing laws is foolish. So, yes, if you have the opportunity to protect a parent's income, then of course you should.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Sept 24, 2017 18:57:10 GMT -5
Anyone who doesn't take advantage of existing laws is foolish. So, yes, if you have the opportunity to protect a parent's income, then of course you should. So we're just picking and choosing which kind of mooching off taxpayers is okay?
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,481
|
Post by NastyWoman on Sept 24, 2017 19:49:42 GMT -5
Anyone who doesn't take advantage of existing laws is foolish. So, yes, if you have the opportunity to protect a parent's income, then of course you should. So we're just picking and choosing which kind of mooching off taxpayers is okay? Actually MJ, it is very simple: if you have $1M it is perfectly fine if you rip off the taxpayers. If you have nothing you are a leech for wanting to feed your kids. Remember you shouldn't have kids unless you can care for them according to the prevailing wisdom on the boards. Now this does make me wonder when these same "don't have kids yada, yada, yada" people will start promoting to throw mom/pop off the mountain should the parent's care start to eat into their inheritance?
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Sept 24, 2017 21:28:56 GMT -5
Anyone who doesn't take advantage of existing laws is foolish. So, yes, if you have the opportunity to protect a parent's income, then of course you should. So we're just picking and choosing which kind of mooching off taxpayers is okay? If you dont like the law then work to change it.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Sept 24, 2017 22:35:52 GMT -5
Anyone who doesn't take advantage of existing laws is foolish. So, yes, if you have the opportunity to protect a parent's income, then of course you should. So we're just picking and choosing which kind of mooching off taxpayers is okay? Kind of, yes. I would hazard a guess that most people think quite differently of things like contributing to a qualified account in order to reduce a tax burden, and going out of your way to let the taxpayers support you for your entire life. I'd also guess people are going to see things differently where someone pays taxes their entire life then takes advantage of tax rules to their benefit later in life, vs someone who doesn't routinely pay into the system at all.
It's a bit like comparing mooching off of other people by allowing your parents to pay your college tuition, vs being supported by them your entire adult life. Yes they're still both mooching, but people are going to feel very different when you start comparing timelines, social acceptability, etc.
In terms of responsibility though...I haven't seen anyone say you SHOULDN'T save up to pay for your own retirement...just like people say you shouldn't have kids without being able to support them.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,221
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 25, 2017 23:13:39 GMT -5
So we're just picking and choosing which kind of mooching off taxpayers is okay? Kind of, yes. I would hazard a guess that most people think quite differently of things like contributing to a qualified account in order to reduce a tax burden, and going out of your way to let the taxpayers support you for your entire life. I'd also guess people are going to see things differently where someone pays taxes their entire life then takes advantage of tax rules to their benefit later in life, vs someone who doesn't routinely pay into the system at all.
It's a bit like comparing mooching off of other people by allowing your parents to pay your college tuition, vs being supported by them your entire adult life. Yes they're still both mooching, but people are going to feel very different when you start comparing timelines, social acceptability, etc.
In terms of responsibility though...I haven't seen anyone say you SHOULDN'T save up to pay for your own retirement...just like people say you shouldn't have kids without being able to support them.
I would not call that mooching off the taxpayers. The rules were set up to entice people to save for their own retirement. Everyone has access to at least one type of plan. Some have more than one. Either way, though, they are doing exactly what the rules intended them to do.
My general philosophy is this: It's all a game. I do not create the rules, I only play by them. But, if you're going to play, play to win.
|
|
gooddecisions
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:42:28 GMT -5
Posts: 2,418
|
Post by gooddecisions on Sept 26, 2017 13:24:47 GMT -5
I told my parents a long time ago that I expect them to enjoy their money while they are alive. If there is an inheritance, it better be insurance related.
As for my own kids, when they are much older, I may have a conversation with them regarding their preference. If they want an inheritance and expensive care would wipe it out, then they better think about if it's worth a multigenerational household to preserve an inheritance.
In this situation, maybe if these grown kids want that money for their kids, they can step up and take care of their mother rather than shove her in a Medicaid facility. Those facilities and funding should be for people who have no alternative. I am guessing op's child is the special needs child although that was not spelled out.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Sept 26, 2017 14:26:39 GMT -5
I told my parents a long time ago that I expect them to enjoy their money while they are alive. If there is an inheritance, it better be insurance related. As for my own kids, when they are much older, I may have a conversation with them regarding their preference. If they want an inheritance and expensive care would wipe it out, then they better think about if it's worth a multigenerational household to preserve an inheritance. In this situation, maybe if these grown kids want that money for their kids, they can step up and take care of their mother rather than shove her in a Medicaid facility. Those facilities and funding should be for people who have no alternative. I am guessing op's child is the special needs child although that was not spelled out. If people are really fully funding their long term care, there should almost always be an inheritance. It's not like we know which day/month/year we're going to die. So it's not like you have to choose between an inheritance, or just living out your life in relative comfort by never needing to go on Medicaid...if you never need to go on Medicaid, then you'll never run out of money. Given how expensive some of that care is per year, there could still be a significant amount left over for those who are properly prepared (very few of us actually live to the kind of age people should be planning for in their retirement savings).
|
|
TheOtherMe
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 14:40:52 GMT -5
Posts: 27,375
Mini-Profile Name Color: e619e6
|
Post by TheOtherMe on Sept 26, 2017 16:21:46 GMT -5
As I have said before on this thread and elsewhere on board, most of my rep payee clients outlived their money and their spouses. The first two I had like that never had children. They had no one to look out for them near the end of their lives. The last summer of one of my client's life, she asked for $40 to go on an outing with the nursing home to the dog track. Had no problem giving it to her. She always cried when I visited her because nobody else came to see her.
Yep, people wanted her money when she died. She didn't have any. What she did have went to the state to pay for her care in the nursing home.
|
|
shelby
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 21:29:02 GMT -5
Posts: 1,368
|
Post by shelby on Sept 26, 2017 18:56:09 GMT -5
Multigenerational is what we are doing. trying to figure out how to shoe horn my dad in here. We got a bid to rehab our barn into an inlaw suite but it would cost between $30-50k....so doesn't make a lot of sense to me to go forward. I think we may just give him our master since it is on the main floor and update the bathroom for him. It would not work for everyone though. You need the space and the time and energy to take care of your elderly parent. I don't have a high paying stressful job my DH makes most of the money so I work part time and here for my dad when he needs it. You need serious patience too if you are taking care of someone with dementia or cognitive decline it really is not for everyone. But if you don't have the ability or patience then you really shouldn't ask for the best of both worlds....all the money but none of the responsibilities.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Sept 27, 2017 15:20:35 GMT -5
As I have said before on this thread and elsewhere on board, most of my rep payee clients outlived their money and their spouses. The first two I had like that never had children. They had no one to look out for them near the end of their lives. The last summer of one of my client's life, she asked for $40 to go on an outing with the nursing home to the dog track. Had no problem giving it to her. She always cried when I visited her because nobody else came to see her. Yep, people wanted her money when she died. She didn't have any. What she did have went to the state to pay for her care in the nursing home. That makes me so sad to hear of elderly people with no one to care about them I'm glad you are there for your clients
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,481
|
Post by NastyWoman on Sept 27, 2017 15:25:28 GMT -5
Kind of, yes. I would hazard a guess that most people think quite differently of things like contributing to a qualified account in order to reduce a tax burden, and going out of your way to let the taxpayers support you for your entire life. I'd also guess people are going to see things differently where someone pays taxes their entire life then takes advantage of tax rules to their benefit later in life, vs someone who doesn't routinely pay into the system at all.
It's a bit like comparing mooching off of other people by allowing your parents to pay your college tuition, vs being supported by them your entire adult life. Yes they're still both mooching, but people are going to feel very different when you start comparing timelines, social acceptability, etc.
In terms of responsibility though...I haven't seen anyone say you SHOULDN'T save up to pay for your own retirement...just like people say you shouldn't have kids without being able to support them.
I would not call that mooching off the taxpayers. The rules were set up to entice people to save for their own retirement. Everyone has access to at least one type of plan. Some have more than one. Either way, though, they are doing exactly what the rules intended them to do.
My general philosophy is this: It's all a game. I do not create the rules, I only play by them. But, if you're going to play, play to win.
Exactly! But that is not what we are talking about here. This is using rules to save for retirement and then NOT using the money for retirement but stuffing it away for an inheritance of the grand/kids and letting the taxpayers pay for the retirement.
|
|
quince
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 23, 2011 17:51:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by quince on Sept 27, 2017 15:38:52 GMT -5
There is often a difference in how people react to people maximizing what they get financially out of the government/other people.
Poor and on benefits? Leech.
Rich and strategic foreclosure? Savvy business person. Rich and giving away money to have the govt pay for end of life care? Wisely using rules to benefit heirs.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Sept 27, 2017 16:07:15 GMT -5
I would not call that mooching off the taxpayers. The rules were set up to entice people to save for their own retirement. Everyone has access to at least one type of plan. Some have more than one. Either way, though, they are doing exactly what the rules intended them to do.
My general philosophy is this: It's all a game. I do not create the rules, I only play by them. But, if you're going to play, play to win.
Exactly! But that is not what we are talking about here. This is using rules to safe for retirement and then NOT using the money for retirement but stuffing it away for an inheritance of the grand/kids and letting the taxpayers pay for the retirement. Right, so the rule these people are using is the rule which entices people to give money away tax-free to others. So they're doing it.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Sept 27, 2017 16:11:55 GMT -5
There is often a difference in how people react to people maximizing what they get financially out of the government/other people. Poor and on benefits? Leech. Rich and strategic foreclosure? Savvy business person. Rich and giving away money to have the govt pay for end of life care? Wisely using rules to benefit heirs. Agree, though some of that is because people who are rich are at least paying into the system. People tend to see a significant difference between people saving on their taxes while still paying in, and people who aren't paying anything.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Sept 27, 2017 16:18:50 GMT -5
There is often a difference in how people react to people maximizing what they get financially out of the government/other people. Poor and on benefits? Leech. Rich and strategic foreclosure? Savvy business person. Rich and giving away money to have the govt pay for end of life care? Wisely using rules to benefit heirs. Agree, though some of that is because people who are rich are at least paying into the system. People tend to see a significant difference between people saving on their taxes while still paying in, and people who aren't paying anything. Actually not all the rich are "at least paying into the system".....
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Sept 27, 2017 16:44:29 GMT -5
Agree, though some of that is because people who are rich are at least paying into the system. People tend to see a significant difference between people saving on their taxes while still paying in, and people who aren't paying anything. Actually not all the rich are "at least paying into the system"..... Can you provide an example of someone who is rich but not paying any taxes?
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Sept 27, 2017 16:57:57 GMT -5
Kind of, yes. I would hazard a guess that most people think quite differently of things like contributing to a qualified account in order to reduce a tax burden, and going out of your way to let the taxpayers support you for your entire life. I'd also guess people are going to see things differently where someone pays taxes their entire life then takes advantage of tax rules to their benefit later in life, vs someone who doesn't routinely pay into the system at all.
It's a bit like comparing mooching off of other people by allowing your parents to pay your college tuition, vs being supported by them your entire adult life. Yes they're still both mooching, but people are going to feel very different when you start comparing timelines, social acceptability, etc.
In terms of responsibility though...I haven't seen anyone say you SHOULDN'T save up to pay for your own retirement...just like people say you shouldn't have kids without being able to support them.
I would not call that mooching off the taxpayers. The rules were set up to entice people to save for their own retirement. Everyone has access to at least one type of plan. Some have more than one. Either way, though, they are doing exactly what the rules intended them to do.
My general philosophy is this: It's all a game. I do not create the rules, I only play by them. But, if you're going to play, play to win.
Guess what? This board SLAMMED me a few years go when I was complaining that my husband's new job was limiting his 401K contributions below to what is allowed by IRS. I heard all kinds of crap from righteous people of YM how I should just save it in taxable accounts and stop bitching. YM kings and queens have very strict parameters of what is acceptable and what is not. And if OP is still reading - I agree, 1M is not wealthy at all!! Not only it can take people their entire working life to be able to save up that much, it can all be gone in a NY minute with one serious medical emergency. YM is so hypocritical it's not even funny.
|
|
quince
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 23, 2011 17:51:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by quince on Sept 27, 2017 17:02:42 GMT -5
I'm all for people saving on their taxes. Strategic foreclosures/ sheltering funds and drawing down government funded end of life care isn't that.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,481
|
Post by NastyWoman on Sept 27, 2017 18:01:28 GMT -5
Exactly! But that is not what we are talking about here. This is using rules to safe for retirement and then NOT using the money for retirement but stuffing it away for an inheritance of the grand/kids and letting the taxpayers pay for the retirement. Right, so the rule these people are using is the rule which entices people to give money away tax-free to others. So they're doing it. Note that my very first post in this thread (the one that I fear chased the OP off) I did say that what she was planning was legal. However, I also mentioned that I personally considered it morally wrong and I did say that compare on a moral level this is equivalent to the mythical "welfare mother popping out babies to stay on the dole" and I stand by those comments.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Sept 27, 2017 18:08:27 GMT -5
Right, so the rule these people are using is the rule which entices people to give money away tax-free to others. So they're doing it. Note that my very first post in this rthread (the one that I fear chased the OP off) I did say that what she was planning was legal. However, I also mentioned that I personally considered it morally wrong and I did say that compare on a moral level this is equivalent to the mythical "welfare mother popping out babies to stay on the dole" and I stand by those comments. All I'm saying is that to some people, this is the moral equivalent of any other method of managing taxes, which includes things like qualified plans, timing of income, etc.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion on morality which presumably draws distinctions between which types of legal tax "evasion"/minimization/whatever other phrase is ok, and which ones are not.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Sept 27, 2017 18:13:15 GMT -5
I'm all for people saving on their taxes. Strategic foreclosures/ sheltering funds and drawing down government funded end of life care isn't that. So it's not ok to make the government (really, the other taxpayers) foot the bill for end of life care...but it IS ok to make the government (really, the other taxpayers) pay for everything else that your taxes would have paid for had you not strategically saved on them?
How do you determine the distinction? Is it ok if people pay for their own end of life care, but then structure things so as not to pay things like inheritance taxes?
Is your distinction based on the expense that other taxpayers are covering and if it can be more directly attributable to you...or if it's a big shared expense where only a portion is attributable to you in the obscure?
|
|
TheOtherMe
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 14:40:52 GMT -5
Posts: 27,375
Mini-Profile Name Color: e619e6
|
Post by TheOtherMe on Sept 27, 2017 19:21:00 GMT -5
As I have said before on this thread and elsewhere on board, most of my rep payee clients outlived their money and their spouses. The first two I had like that never had children. They had no one to look out for them near the end of their lives. The last summer of one of my client's life, she asked for $40 to go on an outing with the nursing home to the dog track. Had no problem giving it to her. She always cried when I visited her because nobody else came to see her. Yep, people wanted her money when she died. She didn't have any. What she did have went to the state to pay for her care in the nursing home. That makes me so sad to hear of elderly people with no one to care about them I'm glad you are there for your clients Thank you. I did my best to visit them at least monthly, always gave them birthday and Christmas cards. Birthday and Christmas cards made all of them cry. What irritated me was how long lost family and friends who didn't care about these people wanted their money when they died. Almost every client I had that died, this happened. They were on Medicaid. The money in their bank accounts did not belong to them or me. One asked if I got the money. No, it went back to the State.
|
|
TheOtherMe
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 14:40:52 GMT -5
Posts: 27,375
Mini-Profile Name Color: e619e6
|
Post by TheOtherMe on Sept 27, 2017 19:23:43 GMT -5
There is a fine line between tax planning and tax evasion as some people have found out.
Back in the mid-80s about all we at the IRS were doing was tax shelter work. I probably worked 150 of those investor returns. Of all of those, only one taxpayer thought the scheme sounded too good to be true and put the money from the tax refunds in a bank account for the day someone like me came calling. All the others were scrimping to find the money to pay back what were ill gotten gains.
|
|
quince
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 23, 2011 17:51:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by quince on Sept 27, 2017 19:28:40 GMT -5
I'm all for people saving on their taxes. Strategic foreclosures/ sheltering funds and drawing down government funded end of life care isn't that. So it's not ok to make the government (really, the other taxpayers) foot the bill for end of life care...but it IS ok to make the government (really, the other taxpayers) pay for everything else that your taxes would have paid for had you not strategically saved on them?
How do you determine the distinction? Is it ok if people pay for their own end of life care, but then structure things so as not to pay things like inheritance taxes?
Is your distinction based on the expense that other taxpayers are covering and if it can be more directly attributable to you...or if it's a big shared expense where only a portion is attributable to you in the obscure?
I'm kind of fond of people who can afford to take care of themselves doing so. There's also limitations to the size of strategic tax savings, while end of life care is often massively expensive. Or at least, there should be. At really high levels of wealth, there's a lot more dodging, but they aren't really relying on the government for end of life care either. Also, I think a big difference is the attitude. People with moderate amounts of money still can cost more end of life than they would have paid in taxes. If you come up net negative you're not better than anyone else who does, even if they were on welfare and you were wealthy. Treating people of wealth getting all they can from others/the government as wise and poor people as scum is a dissonance I can't get behind. It's OK if people do whatever they do legally. It's OK from the bottom and the top, equally. I don't have a lot of extra respect for anyone at any level who spends their energy trying to get the most with contributing the least.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,221
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 27, 2017 19:35:07 GMT -5
I would not call that mooching off the taxpayers. The rules were set up to entice people to save for their own retirement. Everyone has access to at least one type of plan. Some have more than one. Either way, though, they are doing exactly what the rules intended them to do.
My general philosophy is this: It's all a game. I do not create the rules, I only play by them. But, if you're going to play, play to win.
Exactly! But that is not what we are talking about here. This is using rules to safe for retirement and then NOT using the money for retirement but stuffing it away for an inheritance of the grand/kids and letting the taxpayers pay for the retirement. The part that I bolded, that I WAS responding to, was " contributing to a qualified account in order to reduce a tax burden." That seemed to be a separate example of "mooching" and not part of the main discussion about shifting long-term care costs to the government instead of one's own funds. Qualified accounts such as IRA's and 401k's were set up intentionally, and we are supposed to take advantage of those things. What people do after that is on them.
|
|
princessleia
Established Member
Joined: Jan 23, 2011 21:13:41 GMT -5
Posts: 266
|
Post by princessleia on Sept 27, 2017 20:09:39 GMT -5
I would not call that mooching off the taxpayers. The rules were set up to entice people to save for their own retirement. Everyone has access to at least one type of plan. Some have more than one. Either way, though, they are doing exactly what the rules intended them to do.
My general philosophy is this: It's all a game. I do not create the rules, I only play by them. But, if you're going to play, play to win.
Guess what? This board SLAMMED me a few years go when I was complaining that my husband's new job was limiting his 401K contributions below to what is allowed by IRS. I heard all kinds of crap from righteous people of YM how I should just save it in taxable accounts and stop bitching. YM kings and queens have very strict parameters of what is acceptable and what is not. And if OP is still reading - I agree, 1M is not wealthy at all!! Not only it can take people their entire working life to be able to save up that much, it can all be gone in a NY minute with one serious medical emergency. YM is so hypocritical it's not even funny. I think when you are 85 and you still have 1M...you are pretty rich.
|
|