[MAGZine]

I agree. I don't think it was the intent for people to amass a multi-billion dollar accumulation in their Roth account. And when we're talking about whether something is "right," or "wrong,"--which different from whether or not if it falls within the rules--I think we can look at the contribution limits as a hint of the intent.

I'd even go as far to say that the $5k/yr contribution limit of Roth account makes it pretty clear that Roth was not supposed to be used to gain tax privilege on vast sums of money.

It's a retirement account. How much money do people need for retirement? 22B? Give me a break.

[thunky]

> I don't think it was the intent for people to amass a multi-billion dollar accumulation in their Roth account

Intent doesn't matter now. The rule is the rule.

You can't call foul and say it's "wrong" when someone plays by the rules and wins.

If you want to advocate for changing the rules that's fine. But don't forget to consider the non-billionaire Roth holders out there, the ones that are "right", who may be affected by a rule change.

[MAGZine]

I'm not calling foul, and I do advocate for changing the rules. He amassed that position fair and square.

... but that doesn't mean that he gets to keep it either. There's an obligation to society, as much as the libertarian crowd hates to admit it. I think that there was an oversight in the rules, and with new data, we should change the rules. How about 1B max in your IRA? Or 500MM max? or 100MM max?

I will not cry over the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in tax-sheltering privilege, and neither should you.

[thunky]

> I think that there was an oversight in the rules

I'm not sure about that. Ever heard of a "mega backdoor Roth"? It's a legal way for high income earners to contribute much more than the normal limits.

Besides, you're free to load up on TQQQ or penny stocks in your Roth if you're feeling lucky. If you lose it all, you will have squandered a great opportunity to gain tax-free wealth. Or, maybe you'll hit the jackpot and end up with a pile of tax-free money. Then if the rules change and you have to give it back you'll probably ease off of that whole "obligation to society" line.

[lotsofpulp]

>I'd even go as far to say that the $5k/yr contribution limit of Roth account makes it pretty clear that Roth was not supposed to be used to gain tax privilege on vast sums of money.

How is this clear? By the same reasoning, one could say the lack of specification of maximum tax free gains makes it pretty clear that Roth was supposed to be used to gain tax privilege on vast sums of money.

[MAGZine]

Then why would they put in a maximum contribution? Why have any limit at all if it is as you say it is?

Are you implying that the government was trying to create a lottery for tax shelter? Or a shelter that at the minimum benefits the wealthiest class? Sure--it's available to everyone, but how much wealth is being sheltered by the lowest 90% vs the top 10%?