Individual Suggests Retirement Funding Exclusion From RMDs

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

Docket: IRS-2019-0050
Updated Life Expectancy and Distribution Period Tables Used for Purposes of Determining Minimum Required Distributions (REG-132210-18)

Comment On: IRS-2019-0050-0001
Updated Life Expectancy and Distribution Period Tables Used for Purposes of Determining Minimum Required Distributions

Document: IRS-2019-0050-0018
Comment from Bill Deany,

---

Submitter Information

Name: Bill Deany

Address:

Email: whodeany1@aol.com

Phone: 7576855303

---

General Comment

There are numerous reasons why a person might want to shelter money from an RMD, including the fear of running low on access to large sources of cash. It's amazing that we as a government are unable to recognize that as people get older, they are even less able to understand how rules operate. After just ten or fifteen years or retirement, one's intellectual capacity can be greatly diminished. As a country, we should recognize these facts.

I would encourage that at least 250,000 dollars be allowed to remain in the account and not be subject to the RMD for a myriad of reasons. I would also encourage that this same amount be indexed for inflation based on the rising cost of healthcare, not everyday life.

The 250,000 does represent what many have proposed are the cost of dying in the last two years of life. It could also represent a lifetime of dollars that were earned for the purposes of passing down to heirs.

One should also note that the financial experts have said for years that we should accumulate at least 1 million dollars in savings, yet per one source it says that the average size of a nest egg for 70 years is only $161,000. Now the experts are starting to tout 2 million dollars. At 4 percent per year using that well published rule for retirement withdraw, it looks as if one needs to keep accumulating at least until 80 or 85. Again at age 80 or 85, the ability to be mobile or quick of mind are not the same as say 65 or at 35 where experts say we have reached our peak intellectual capacity.

I would also ask that elderly parents that have taken on the awesome responsibility of caring for another love one, such as a child that remains incapacitated for life and needs excessive care be granted an additional $250,000 per dependent that is incapacitated. When both parents are gone, $250,000 will seem like nothing for the care of this dependent. We should lessen the fear of these parents.

It also makes sense that perhaps these dollars should be taxed at a top rate of say 22 percent, thus giving incentive to others to take more out of the account for whatever purposes they should so deem.

We know that the rules were set up so we could shelter more money, but people forty years ago did not have the same advantages of those in the retirement game today. For example Roth's with a lifetime of no tax for paying the taxes today. Perhaps the age of minimum withdraw could be raised to 80 because of this and gradually lowed until 72 anticipating this quirk in our nation's laws.