Am I the only one?

[Lou S.]

1 hour ago, ESOP Guy said:

As a tax person I can tell you now this will be fixed retroactively in a technical corrections law.   After every major tax law there seems to be a technical corrections law that fixes this kind of silly stuff.   The fact this kind of stuff happens so much is more proof of how rushed our laws are and how overly complex they are.   But as long as this was a typo and not a decision agreed to this will be fixed without much to do. 

Yeah that is probably what will happen.

However I think it might be important to note that it is the prior congress that passed the law and the current congress that will be responsible for approving the technical corrections and the nominal guy in charge of the current House was pretty outspoken against passing the law in the first place.

Again I think it will get worked out like it usually does but given the acrimony and dysfunction in today's Washington I'm not sure it's a given.

[RatherBeGolfing]

23 minutes ago, Lou S. said:

Washington I'm not sure it's a given.

Retirement is one of the few areas where there is some bipartisan agreement.  

Also, who wants to be the one to tell their higher income voters that they cant make catch-up contributions?  The rank and file voters won't care since very few earn enough to worry about catch-ups anyway.

I think that a technical correction here is about as much of a given as it can be in DC.  

[Below Ground]

We can only hope at this time that it will be corrected in a timely logical fashion.  Unfortunately, this particular law is so full of "silly" errors, that it makes one gag.  Consider that "Roth Treatment" is generally agreed to be better for the young, but it is now being imposed upon catch-up contributions which are by definition for the older participants.  I am personally waiting to see how this "Forced Roth Characterization" will be applied to recharacterized deferrals under a failed ADP Test.  Or is that just a tool we used for testing that is going away.  Anyway, I hope this does get fixed, and assume that in some fashion it will be, but I must admit that I am very pessimistic about the final result.

 

[Lou S.]

13 minutes ago, RatherBeGolfing said:

Retirement is one of the few areas where there is some bipartisan agreement.  

Also, who wants to be the one to tell their higher income voters that they cant make catch-up contributions?  The rank and file voters won't care since very few earn enough to worry about catch-ups anyway.

I think that a technical correction here is about as much of a given as it can be in DC.  

Oh I agree it is very likely to get done. It's the timelyness of it getting done and the forthcoming guidance I worry about. I mean we are talking about a Congress debating whether or not it is a good idea to pay its past bills after all.

[John Feldt ERPA CPC QPA]

Since employer contributions could be treated as Roth, do you think they count against the deduction limit when made as Roth now? I think they do.

[austin3515]

Absolutely.  It's still an employer contribution. A really interesting question I never thought of is, will the Employer have to pay the employer FICA portion, and Employer unemployment taxes.  Has that come up yet?

[RatherBeGolfing]

4 hours ago, austin3515 said:

A really interesting question I never thought of is, will the Employer have to pay the employer FICA portion, and Employer unemployment taxes.  Has that come up yet?

I have seen a few people raise the question.  I don't see why FICA would apply since it is a payroll tax. Match and nonelective contributions as Roth is more like a Roth conversion.  Its a pre-tax contribution from the employer that the employee elects to treat as Roth.  The employee has to include the amount as income, but it isn't compensation.

[austin3515]

Interesting analogy that it is a standing election to convert every single match to Roth...

[Below Ground]

On 1/12/2023 at 4:24 PM, austin3515 said:

I'm a little nervous that so many people are factoring this in for retirement...  Someone in my office is saying the same thing.  There might be a mass exodus of talent as a result of this too.   Quite frankly if I was 64 I'd probably retire too.

I just turned 60.  My fistulating Crohns turned into rectal cancer which took my entire rectum/colon, prostate and bladder.  Since I am a "double bagger" (Colostomy and Urostomy) I am told that getting full SS Disability is practically assured.  With that said, I DON'T WANT TO RETIRE.  I want to work.  I want to continue taking care of my clients.  However, the insanity of SECURE 2.0 may be the final straw.  I know I am not alone in this type of thinking.  Time will tell.

[Belgarath]

First, so sorry to hear about your health problems.  Best of luck on all that.

As to the retirement issue, I do suspect that it will drive some of us out of the business earlier than otherwise might be expected.

Trying to be positive, we've weathered big changes before, and eventually adjusted. I remember TRA 86, OBRA, GATT, EGTRRA, etc., etc. - there were a lot of changes over the years, and we managed to adjust. But this has so much more stupidity, and I'm a lot older and less enthusiastic about work these days!

[Riley Britton]

On 4/5/2023 at 4:56 PM, Below Ground said:

I just turned 60.  My fistulating Crohns turned into rectal cancer which took my entire rectum/colon, prostate and bladder.  Since I am a "double bagger" (Colostomy and Urostomy) I am told that getting full SS Disability is practically assured.  With that said, I DON'T WANT TO RETIRE.  I want to work.  I want to continue taking care of my clients.  However, the insanity of SECURE 2.0 may be the final straw.  I know I am not alone in this type of thinking.  Time will tell.

I got into this field 30 some years ago by mistake. I cannot imagine "wanting" to do this.  Retire and find something else or enjoy your life.  No one on their deathbed said, "I wish I'd spent more time at the office." Retiring soon and am so looking forward to it!!!!!!!