As recently as August, tax experts considered it unlikely, at least in the case of Roth IRAs.

"And even if Congress did tinker with Roth IRAs someday — perhaps taxing withdrawals or eliminating Roths altogether — such changes probably wouldn't affect money already invested, say tax experts. 'There would certainly be an uproar,' says Tax Policy Center co-director Eric Toder." Uproar? Um, yeah, I would be PISSED OFF! I don't know the legalities about how these rules can change, but it just seems to me that contributing under one set of rules is sort of like a contract -- i.e., I agree to make nondeductible contributions in exchange for the promise that later distributions will not be taxed. If they were to change that and take away the benefit bargained for, isn't that some sort of government "taking"? And "takings" are prohibited without "just compensation." So I think they're kind of locked into giving us what we expected at the time our contributions were made. Sorry, this is just very quick thinking, so I could be way off...

Link please. As recently as August, at least in the case of Roth IRAs.

'There would certainly be an uproar,' says Tax Policy Center co-director Eric Toder." Uproar? Um, yeah, I would be PISSED OFF! ...

While New Year’s day isn’t until next week, those that invest in the G fund for their current or future retirement always find it of interest when there is a debate about raising the debt ceiling. The reason: The federal government has to come up with money until the debt ceiling is approved. Your G fund investments will help fund the government while our elected representatives haggle and debate over what to do about the ever increasing debt and the need to, yet again, increase the amount of debt that can legally be incurred by the government.

The Treasury recently announced a series of measures that will delay the day the government will exceed its legal borrowing authority as imposed by Congress. These steps could delay the inevitable for up to two months depending on how much the government spends each day beyond what it takes in during that time.

One of these first measures to be taken by the Treasury Department is to suspend investment in the G fund and, presumably, the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund. According to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, these steps, including suspending investments in the G fund, “can create approximately $200 billion in headroom under the debt limit.”

We know from past experience that the Treasury Department can use some retirement funds of federal employees to avoid increasing the debt limit which is capped by law. That is likely to happen again if the debt limit is not raised by Congress.

When the debt ceiling limit was last raised in 2011 the debt ceiling went from $14.29 trillion to more than $16.39 trillion. We don’t know what the next debt ceiling will be, perhaps as much as $20 trillion or so. Of course, the federal government pays interest on the money that it borrows. While interest rates are currently at historically low levels, largely as a result of the Federal Reserve printing money and buying much of the debt, in 2011, these interest payments claimed $230 billion, or about 6 percent of the budget. Since the government is printing a large amount of money each month which is then used to purchase the government debt, there are inflationary pressures building in the economy. When or how large the ultimate inflation will be remains to be seen. But, when interest rates do finally go up, the amount of money spent by the government to finance the debt will go up rapidly.

In short, the current debt ceiling debate is only part of the problem. And, in addition to the pay freeze that has been in effect, federal employees are also helping with the problem through the involuntary use of G fund as explained above.

Ask and ye shall receive

If someone would have told me about this a few years back when it started (2010) I would have laughed in their face. Of course at that time I didn't think or Govt or even the Supreme Court would mandate the American People to buy a product or face a fine.

Now this scares the hell out of me because it could actually happen. The part right under "Via the National Seniors Council:" was posted on their site back in 2010 when this came to light and is part of the write up below.

This was posted on Sunday, December 09, 2012
Took out the link here because I'm limited to 1 URL per post

Plus if you're ever in a real serious financial bind...you can pull what you contributed to your Roth tax free as long as you don't touch the dividends. You may still have to pay the 10% "I'm the govt so I get to tell you when you can retire" tax for early withdraw.

Thanks for the link. I did read it, but I don't buy into what it says. It doesn't link to any source but itself to support its contentions. I'd actually like to see what this White House report on the middle class actually says, in context. I'm surprised that they don't "name names" about which Congressional members would support such a thing. And I'd like to see what Joe Biden really means when he talks about Guaranteed Retirement Accounts.

Besides, 401(k) accounts are owned by the account holders. The government can't legally seize them. And the National Seniors Council guy is full of it. He knocks the Healthcare law but not Medicare. His attitude is basically "I've got mine because I'm old, but I really hate the idea of anyone else being covered."

You should study up on these things before you speak and mislead people. First off, roth ordering rules for non-qualified distributions stipulate first out is contributions made directly to a Roth IRA (sometimes referred to as your basis). These are without tax and penalty.

And I believe that is exactly what I said. "you can pull what you contributed to your Roth tax free as long as you don't touch the dividends."

Therefore I didn't mislead anyone. I do know what I'm talking about because I pulled money out of my Roth. What I put in came back tax free and the earnings were taxed. I also had the 10% "your not old enough to retire because the gubernet says you aint" fee. Learn to read before you start accusing people. We said the exact same thing.

Now I didn't know there was a way around the 10%.

Add into the mix the current obbumercare and if they have even just talked about it... it makes me nervous.

As much as it pains me to say this, I find the VAT to be the solution I like the most. But, that is because it ensures all are taxed. Misery loves company.