On Oct 5, 10:00 am, zkeith <z...@o...edu> wrote:
> Approximately 20 years ago (I think it has been that long), Congress
> changed the maximum age to begin RMD from 75 to 70.5.  Now that so
> many individuals have found their retirement accounts shrinking, I
> wonder whether it might not be advantageous for the age to begin RMD
> to be put back at 75 so that people have a longer time for their
> retirement accounts to recover before having to take the required
> distribution.  Being forced to take the RMD from an account that has
> less value in it than the original and subsequent investments results
> in a real loss.  I can think of no real disadvantage to either the
> retiree or the U.S. Treasury for moving it back to 75.  I suspect the
> age was lowered to force retirees to begin spending their retirement
> money earlier (and perhaps not "skimp" so long).

It's hard to second guess why politicians change the laws. I think
that there is an effort to recover taxes from untaxed income by
lowering the maximum age for RMD.

Retirees don't have to spend the money they are required to withdraw
since they can put it into a non-retirement account or if they qualify
can convert it to a Roth retirement account.

--
Ron

--------------------------------------
Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.