Barron's article on future taxation of Roth IRAs

Mar 03, 2007 3 Replies

Below are excerpts from a Barron's article warning of possible tax increases, in the long run, on Roth IRAs, making traditional dedectible IRAs more attractive by comparison.



Barron's, March 5, 2007 "Breaking Faith on Savings Is Very Easy" By Edward F. Mcquarrie



The idea that Congress will never change today's Roth provisions for the worse, for the rest of your life and the life of your heirs', requires more faith than reason. [...] Consider just a few ways a future Congress, hungry for revenue, might renege on that promise of "tax-free forever." Congress decides to include Roth distributions in the definition of "modified adjusted gross income." [...] Congress revokes the tax-free status of Roth distributions after the death of the initial Roth account holder and spouse. [...] Congress imposes an excise tax on "excess" Roth accumulations -- a nice round number like $1 million. [...] Congress sets a deadline after which excess distributions from a Roth account -- more than $100,000 a year is a likely number -- will be included in ordinary income and taxed at your regular rate. [...] Once enough money accumulates in Roth accounts, Congress may simply tire of seeing such enormous amounts of wealth escape the tax system. It could "close the loophole," simply by sunsetting the Roth after a certain date. [...] A better choice for that young person may be to accept the tax subsidy right now to reduce the expense of a contribution to a traditional



401(k)-type plan. The subsidy can easily exceed 40% in a high-tax state. That's a bird in the hand, much to be preferred to the dubious promise of "tax-free forever."

[snip]

They missed an obvious one -- making making qualified Roth distributions an AMT preference item.

While I fully recognize the non-taxability of Roth earnings is very attractive, I consider that feature to be lesser than it's immunity from RMDs. Does anyone question this feature will not be maintained? Does anyone think Congress will add RMDs to Roths if/when it adds back taxes?

Elizabeth Richardson

I was about to add to this thread by remarking that the author (of the Barrons story, not the thread OP) Edward McQuarrie is not a Barrons writer, his comments appear on the "other voices" page in Barrons. Also, he's a professor of marketing, not finance. But then I looked at his web page,

formatting link
found he suggests not investing in gold or variable annuities, so he gains credibility right there. I think it would be political suicide for any congress to pass laws reversing the benefits of existing Roths. I think the tinkering with retirement plans (aside from annual increases to deposit caps, and income cut-offs rising) causes more confusion in the average consumer's mind, and too many choices create a frustration resulting in bad choices or worse, no choice, made. They want to call it quits on new deposits, so no new Roths at some point, I can accept, although that would be a shame. But in any way, having Roths trigger other taxes to go up is just wrong. The continued tax-free status of inherited Roths was also sold to the people as a feature, and for many, it's part of their estate planning. When we reply to others posting here, do we now have to add the warning "if the Roth continues to enjoy its tax free status"? Don't we have enough trouble keeping track of all the assumptions/exclusions already? JOE

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required