5 ms·

> If the law is changed it will not only limit Peter Thiel from doing this but also you and me. That obviously not necessarily true. One can imagine a change

by ska 5y ago

> If the law is changed it will not only limit Peter Thiel from doing this but also you and me. That obviously not necessarily true. One can imagine a change in law that limits tax sheltering of this type for any individual to say, 10mm. A tiny fraction of the population would be affected.

tablespoon 5y ago
> That obviously not necessarily true. One can imagine a change in law that limits tax sheltering of this type for any individual to say, 10mm. A tiny fraction of the population would be affected. Or limit the types of assets that can be held in an IRA to those that are publicly traded and can be bought on the open market. It seems like an important part of this scheme was Thiel basically got to set the price of some shares he sold himself, because they weren't publicly traded at the time.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  Then you are limiting what people can do with their money 2 inflating stock prices of giant companies. What if I want to invest in a friend's business or buy a rental property. Are you saying it should be illegal for me to do that with my IRA?
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > Then you are limiting what people can do with their money 2 inflating stock prices of giant companies. So? It's what 99.999% of them do anyway. > What if I want to invest in a friend's business or buy a rental property. Are you saying it should be illegal for me to do that with my IRA? Yes.
    - icedchai 5y ago
      No. IRA is funded with your money, so you should be able to do with it what you please. Next you'll be telling people they can only buy ETFs because stocks are too risky.
      - s1artibartfast 5y ago
        Better yet, they can only invest in blue-chip companies
      - tablespoon 5y ago
        > No. IRA is funded with your money, so you should be able to do with it what you please. No. You can't even do what you please with money that's not in an IRA. And I mean, you already have to accept other restrictions to enjoy the tax advantages of an IRA, so what's so bad about adding another small one to solve this problem?
        s1artibartfast 5y ago
        All money is yours legally. The gov can tax it. Some things are are illegal to do with money and assets, but that doesn't mean that everything belongs to the government
        icedchai 5y ago
        If you can legally invest in an asset in a taxable account, you should be able to invest in the same when its an IRA. Anyone can take advantage of this. Why do you want to restrict the way people invest their retirement funds?
      - snotrockets 5y ago
        The gains over doing the same at a taxable accounts are not your money, but public funds (the taxes not paid on those).
        icedchai 5y ago
        With taxable accounts, it is legally your assets, gains or not. You pay taxes when you sell. Just like with a traditional, non-Roth IRA: you pay taxes when you withdraw. The IRS makes the rules.
        snotrockets 5y ago
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      It always amazes me how quick people are to needlessly take away freedoms and fuck others over as a knee-jerk reaction. Putting restrictions on others should have careful thought and clear rationale.
      - tablespoon 5y ago
        > It always amazes me how quick people are to needlessly take away freedoms and fuck others over as a knee-jerk reaction. What freedoms? We're talking about tax advantaged investment accounts intended for a very specific public purpose, which are already restricted in many ways because of that. If you don't like restrictions, we could also solve this problem by abolishing IRAs then. Does that sound better to you?
        s1artibartfast 5y ago
        You are proposing adding new restrictions on what people can do with their money. That is taking away their freedom. It is worse because you propose it as a solution to problem that doesn't even exist.
walshemj 5y ago
Your being very optimistic here and changes will make the existing v poor US pensions system worse. edge cases make bad law eg using the small number of social security cheats to reduce entitlements to all or the tiny tiny number of cases of elector fraud to disenfranchise the poor and BAME. Dunblane and the Dangerous dogs act in the UK are related. This is the sort of thing that fringe "hobbyist" activists do assuming they aren't paid agent provocateur's
- ska 5y ago
  > Your being very optimistic here I'm not being optimistic or pessimistic, just pointing out a logical fallacy.

by ska 5y ago

tablespoon 5y ago

> That obviously not necessarily true. One can imagine a change in law that limits tax sheltering of this type for any individual to say, 10mm. A tiny fraction of the population would be affected. Or limit the types of assets that can be held in an IRA to those that are publicly traded and can be bought on the open market. It seems like an important part of this scheme was Thiel basically got to set the price of some shares he sold himself, because they weren't publicly traded at the time.

s1artibartfast 5y ago
Then you are limiting what people can do with their money 2 inflating stock prices of giant companies. What if I want to invest in a friend's business or buy a rental property. Are you saying it should be illegal for me to do that with my IRA?
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > Then you are limiting what people can do with their money 2 inflating stock prices of giant companies. So? It's what 99.999% of them do anyway. > What if I want to invest in a friend's business or buy a rental property. Are you saying it should be illegal for me to do that with my IRA? Yes.
  - icedchai 5y ago
    No. IRA is funded with your money, so you should be able to do with it what you please. Next you'll be telling people they can only buy ETFs because stocks are too risky.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      Better yet, they can only invest in blue-chip companies
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > No. IRA is funded with your money, so you should be able to do with it what you please. No. You can't even do what you please with money that's not in an IRA. And I mean, you already have to accept other restrictions to enjoy the tax advantages of an IRA, so what's so bad about adding another small one to solve this problem?
      - s1artibartfast 5y ago
        All money is yours legally. The gov can tax it. Some things are are illegal to do with money and assets, but that doesn't mean that everything belongs to the government
      - icedchai 5y ago
        If you can legally invest in an asset in a taxable account, you should be able to invest in the same when its an IRA. Anyone can take advantage of this. Why do you want to restrict the way people invest their retirement funds?
    - snotrockets 5y ago
      The gains over doing the same at a taxable accounts are not your money, but public funds (the taxes not paid on those).
      - icedchai 5y ago
        With taxable accounts, it is legally your assets, gains or not. You pay taxes when you sell. Just like with a traditional, non-Roth IRA: you pay taxes when you withdraw. The IRS makes the rules.
        snotrockets 5y ago
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    It always amazes me how quick people are to needlessly take away freedoms and fuck others over as a knee-jerk reaction. Putting restrictions on others should have careful thought and clear rationale.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > It always amazes me how quick people are to needlessly take away freedoms and fuck others over as a knee-jerk reaction. What freedoms? We're talking about tax advantaged investment accounts intended for a very specific public purpose, which are already restricted in many ways because of that. If you don't like restrictions, we could also solve this problem by abolishing IRAs then. Does that sound better to you?
      - s1artibartfast 5y ago
        You are proposing adding new restrictions on what people can do with their money. That is taking away their freedom. It is worse because you propose it as a solution to problem that doesn't even exist.

walshemj 5y ago

Your being very optimistic here and changes will make the existing v poor US pensions system worse. edge cases make bad law eg using the small number of social security cheats to reduce entitlements to all or the tiny tiny number of cases of elector fraud to disenfranchise the poor and BAME. Dunblane and the Dangerous dogs act in the UK are related. This is the sort of thing that fringe "hobbyist" activists do assuming they aren't paid agent provocateur's

ska 5y ago
> Your being very optimistic here I'm not being optimistic or pessimistic, just pointing out a logical fallacy.