[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.