The Power Of Zero Show

As a financial advisor, David came up with the concept of the three buckets and a quick five-minute presentation to convey the idea to clients. This developed into an hour-long presentation which eventually became the seed of the Power of Zero book. It took David just three days to write the book because the core of the material was already in place. He just had to commit to putting it onto the page. The book was republished in 2018 with new content by Penguin Random House. David is currently writing a fictional story centered around a financial theme that has a lot of real-world applications right now. The plot basically revolves around the very real threat of Modern Monetary Theory. Modern Monetary Theory is the idea that the government isn't constrained by the same restrictions as the average American family and can essentially print as much money as they want without repercussions. All of the economists that David has interviewed for his podcast essentially agree on the fact that implementing MMT would lead to hyperinflation. However, this doesn't stop MMT proponents from espousing the theory though. If you start accumulating debt in the belief that it won't affect anything, reality will prove you wrong. The cost of servicing the level of debt the US government currently has is taking up a large portion of the federal budget. By 2040, it would consume the entirety of the federal budget if interest rates simply went back to where they were at in 2003. David believes the moment of reckoning for the US is going to be 2030. Brian Beaulieu has predicted the major economic trends with 90% accuracy over the past 40 years, and he believes that 2030 will be a confluence of events that will result in a global depression. As rough as the dollar is, it's still one of the most stable currencies in the world. It's relatively unlikely to be usurped. The real issue is that Social Security and Medicaid are tied to inflation, so if we print more money, the cost of the programs also rises and you will never really get ahead. The US is facing down a fiscal gap of $239 trillion just to be able to deliver on the promises already made. The Biden tax legislation has pros and cons for many Americans, but the bottom line is that he's not addressing the underlying problem. It doesn't arrest the slide into fiscal solvency. Politicians are generally reluctant to push anything through right before midterms. If the legislation doesn't get passed before the end of the year, it may never happen. If David were the president of the United States, he would take a page out of Larry Kotlikoff and basically guarantee that Biden wouldn't be elected for a second term. The big focus would be to reform the social programs that are driving the debt, in particular MediCare. Without this kind of action, the national debt will grow by definition. Maya MacGuineas did a study to find what the government would have to do to simply prevent the debt from growing by $1 trillion per year, and she found that they would have to tax every dollar earned above $50,000 at a rate of 40%. There is no way around the math. If we are going to fix this problem, no amount of taxing the rich or everyday Americans will do it. We have to fundamentally reform Social Security, MediCare, and Medicaid to get our country back on track. On Jan 1, 2026 tax rates are going to revert to what they were prior to the tax cuts. If you want to do Roth conversions, now is the time. You have five years to take advantage of the current historically low tax rates. Every year that goes by that you fail to take advantage of those tax rates, it increases the likelihood that you will rise into a tax bracket that gives you heartburn. When it comes to Roth conversions, time is your friend and when time is short they become less appealing. When doing a Roth conversion, you have to be convinced that the tax rate you will pay today will be lower than what you would be forced to pay somewhere down the road. If tax rates are even 1% higher, then it's probably the right move.

The situation with the Biden infrastructure plan continues to evolve. Senators Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema have continued to be obstacles in the Democrats' way from getting the bill passed. The Democrat caucus has been in disarray and seems to be pulling in different directions. Biden was hoping the bill would pass by having everyone vote before the legislation was written prior to him landing in Rome. Right now, it looks like things are dead in the water including raising tax rates on the rich. The big question is whether the Trump tax code will remain in place until 2026. Joe Biden has expressed his desire to raise taxes on the rich, and the easiest way for him to do that is to simply let them expire. For most Americans, this means that if you want to shift your money from tax-deferred to tax-free, you have just five years left. The fewer years you have to shift your money, the more likely you are to rise into a tax bracket that is going to give you heartburn. Whatever happens in the next week is going to determine how people plan for retirement in a significant way and is going to determine the legacy of the Joe Biden presidency. Will Congress simply change the laws regarding Roth accounts? Not likely. To do so at this point would cause political and economic chaos. The Roth IRA is also one of the accounts that both the federal government and the average American likes. If anything, the government will try to make the Roth IRA even more attractive in order to raise more tax revenue now. David is currently writing a new novel based on the very real threat of the Modern Monetary Theory to America. There is a massive fiscal gap in the US of $239 trillion dollars which is going to have to be dealt with eventually, but the Modern Monetary Theory has been saying the debt is nothing to worry about. Modern Monetary Theory is becoming more in vogue recently with many politicians advocating it as a solution to our economic woes. Inflation is already here. We feel it at the grocery store and in our everyday expenses, but we are just at the tip of the iceberg. There is no question that inflation is coming, but whenever MMT proponents are asked about it, it's never their fault. We have been practicing MMT for decades at this point, and eventually we will get to the point where interest rates begin to rise toward historical averages. When that happens the interest on the debt will consume the federal budget. Social Security, Medicare, and MediCaid are tied by law to inflation, so when money is printed to pay for those programs their cost goes up commensurately. It's not possible to print enough money to solve the issue. Longevity risk is a major concern for all retirees, and one of the ways to mitigate it is with the 4% Rule, or what some economists now call the 3% Rule. The trouble is the rule is a very expensive way to mitigate the risk. The alternative is with a guaranteed income annuity. The financial industry has accepted the reality of longevity risk and the benefits of annuities in mitigating that risk, but since the standard is to implement that annuity in the tax-deferred bucket it comes with a number of drawbacks and other risks. Some companies allow for piecemeal Roth conversions which allow you to convert that annuity money to tax-free. For people who say annuities are not for them, they aren't going to like Social Security or their company pension plan since they operate exactly the same way. The Power of Zero paradigm basically says that tax rates are going to rise dramatically in the near future, and when you have the majority of your money in tax-deferred accounts like 401(k)s and IRAs, you are at risk. David advocates for five or more streams of tax-free income including the Roth IRA, Roth 401(k), Roth conversions, and LIRP. The LIRP stands out because of its additional features of mitigating long-term care and coming with a death benefit. Very few Americans will be exposed to the estate tax even if it's lowered by Joe Biden. There are strategies you can use to avoid going past that threshold. David's number one tip as a father of seven is that you have to remember to stop and smell the roses along the way. Have a long-term perspective and know there are precious moments that will pass you by. Starting a life insurance policy is like getting married, it only really works if it's until death do you part. You have to make sure you have a list of things in mind when picking a policy. They are long-term contracts so have a long-term perspective when choosing one. Required Minimum Distributions may be impacted by the Secure Retirement Act working its way through Congress right now, but RMDs only affect 20% of Americans since most people will be accessing in excess of their RMD. The death of the stretch IRA is a big deal and puts an emphasis on converting your IRA to tax-free today. Even if you think your tax rate is higher now, it may still be lower than your kid's tax rates in which case you should strongly think about doing Roth conversions today.

Joe Biden has talked about how his tax plan is cost neutral, where the increases in taxes on the wealthiest Americans will offset the costs. Maya MacGuineas recently took a look at the numbers to find out if that's true. The Build Back Better Act is set to cost $2.1 trillion as it's currently written. It relies on a number of sunsets and expirations to keep the costs down. If the plan's temporary policies were made permanent, the costs would increase by an additional $2.2 trillion. When the federal government is trying to make a bill seem cost neutral, they often build expiry dates into the legislation, knowing full well that Americans will get hooked on those programs and then demand they be renewed. This makes the cost of the program appear lower and much more palatable on the front end. The Build Back Better Act has several such gimmicks built into it including extending the child tax increase, the earned income tax credit, and setting universal Pre-K and childcare to expire after six years. These are things that are likely to be around for the long term. The most expensive provision would cost roughly $1 trillion to make permanent. Universal Pre-K and childcare subsidies would cost over $400 billion a year when combined if extended beyond their expiration dates. As written, the Build Back Better Act will increase the deficit by $800 billion over the first five years and then taper off from there for a net additional cost of $2.2 trillion. If the legislation were made permanent without additional taxation, it would add nearly $1.5 trillion to the deficit over five years and increase the total debt by $3 trillion by 2031. The Build Back Better Act relies on short-term policies and arbitrary expiration dates to lower the cost. This allows the government to present the bill as cost neutral, although any extensions will have to be funded by debt. History serves as a model, and it's fairly likely that those short-term programs will become permanent in time. The tax rules have recently been updated for 2022. Because of higher than usual inflation in 2021, the index for inflation has increased as well. The standard deduction has modestly increased from $25,100 to $25,900 for married couples. The personal exemption is not coming back until 2026. Under the current law, the standard deduction will be reduced when the personal exemption returns and will end up with a net neutral effect. Capital gains tax rates remain the same, but the tax brackets are changing. The federal state tax exemption for decedents dying in 2022 will increase to $12.06 million per person. The gift tax exclusion jumps from $15,000 in 2021 to $16,000 in 2022. The Roth IRA is not changing to adjust for inflation because that would require an act of congress. 401(k) contribution limits are being adjusted alongside Roth 401(k) and 403(b) plans. Roth income limits will go up slightly in 2022 from $204,000 to $214,000. This is something that should definitely be changed because the cost of living is not the same all over the country. There has been no change to the provisional income thresholds. If inflation continues to go up and Social Security is increased to keep up, there are going to be more people that bump into Social Security taxation.

There is a little-known part of the IRS tax code that allows you to access your 401(k) or 403(b) prior to 59 and a half without penalty. Traditionally, the penalty is 10%, but the Rule of 55 gives you access without paying a penalty, but it comes with certain requirements. If you leave your job in the calendar year you turn 55 or older for any reason and your employer has stipulated that you have the ability to tap into your plan, you can do so without penalty. Some plans may require you to withdraw your entire balance as one lump sum, which would most certainly be a bad deal. To maximize the Rule of 55, there are a number of roll-over strategies you can use. For example, if you have an old 401(k) or IRA, you can roll those balances into your employer's plans, and then when you separate you will have unfettered access to the total amount between age 55 and 59 and a half. If you have specific circumstances or know that you'll have heavy cash flow needs between those ages, this is a solid, penalty-free option. You have to get all the shifting done before you leave your employer. You won't be able to roll over a balance after you are no longer employed. There are some caveats. You can only withdraw funds from your most recent employer, and you can't make penalty-free withdrawals from your IRA. The Rule of 55 is very specific and only applies to narrow circumstances. People are retiring at younger and younger ages, and if that's the case for you in that period between age 55 and 59 and a half, the Rule of 55 is a great option. You will want to apply Power of Zero principles during those years because if you don't you may bump into a higher tax bracket than you expect or accidentally suffer a 10% penalty. Another reason you may want to take money out of your 401(k) using the Rule of 55 is to take advantage of historically low taxes. You can use the money to fund your lifestyle as well as your Roth IRAs and LIRPs. A 72T is another viable option for some people, but it comes with artificially low limits that may be an obstacle. The 72T works for a lot of people, it just doesn't work for everybody, particularly those that want to retire early.

The Joe Biden legislature is currently dead in the water. Congress people are looking for ways to pay for the package, but even if they could there may not be a package to pay for. Every Senator wields considerable power and a couple in particular have been vocal opponents of the proposed bill. Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema have voiced concerns about the package and the price tag. Other members of the Democrat party have lambasted Joe Manchin on social media and on the floor, and he has not taken the criticism lightly. He's gone from proposing a $1.5 trillion dollar limit to $0, and Krysten Sinema has made it clear that she's not interested in any sort of tax increases at all. Congress has now turned its attention to a different sort of tax. They've proposed a wealth tax, also described as taxing the unrealized capital gains on the liquid assets of anybody who has $1 billion or more in assets or anyone reporting more than $100 million in income for three consecutive years. This would affect only the 700 richest people in the country, and will generate $200 billion in revenue over the next decade. The reasoning is that raising the tax rate isn't going to directly affect the highest earners because so much of their net worth is tied up in the value of their stock ownership. Democrats are not calling this a wealth tax because it's not being levied against the entire net wealth of a wealthy person. Elizabeth Warren proposed a wealth tax in her presidential run and it is considered to have sunk her campaign. Jeff Bezos doesn't liquidate his stock to fund his lifestyle. He borrows money and uses his stock holdings as collateral. This allows him to fund his lifestyle while still maintaining a controlling interest in Amazon. Democrats have asked Krysten Sinema to weigh in on the proposal, but she's not likely to vote for it since she's opposed to similar measures already being proposed. This would leave the Democrats below the threshold of a simple majority. Critics of the plan say that it will force billionaires out of the stock market and into more opaque markets like art and real estate. The real issue is that, even if passed, this tax only raises $200 billion in revenue. Even if the Democrats managed to pass the bill, there is still no clear plan to pay for it. The real question with this package hanging from a thread is what will happen to individual tax rates? Joe Biden's proposed tax increases are tied to the bill so right now we have a choice. We can either assume the tax rates will expire in 2026 and this bill will not pass. The trouble with this is compressing the amount of shifting you need to do over five years and possibly bumping into a higher tax bracket along the way, only to realize after the fact that you had nine years all along. The reverse is also troublesome. You don't want to plan for nine years when you only have five and end up in the scenario where you didn't shift as much as you need to. Joe Biden wants to increase tax rates on the rich, but the only way for him to really accomplish that is by allowing the Trump tax cuts to expire in 2026. The more time that passes that Joe Biden fails to push through this legislation, the less likely that anything is going to be adopted. Few Congress people want to have their name tied to a controversial piece of legislation leading up to midterms because that's the kind of thing that will get you voted out of office. Mentioned in this Episode: With corporate tax off table, U.S. Democrats turn to billionaires to fund spending bill - reuters.com/world/us/with-corporate-tax-off-table-us-democrats-turn-billionaires-fund-spending-bill-2021-10-25/ Secretary Yellen: How new billionaire tax would work [video] - edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/10/24/yellen-on-billionaire-tax.cnn

David gets variations of one question pretty frequently whenever he gives one of his presentations, whether that's in front of financial advisors or members of the general public. At the end of the workshop, there are five takeaways. The first is that tax rates are likely to be dramatically higher in the future than they are today. Mathematically speaking, we are past the point of no return. The second is that the only way to truly insulate yourself from the impact of higher taxes is to get to the zero percent tax bracket. The third is that it is nearly impossible to get to the zero percent tax bracket with only one stream of income. This is where most people stumble. Invariably at the end of the presentation, someone will come up and ask what the other streams of tax-free income are despite having just gone over six different streams during the presentation. People tend to fixate on the LIRP and forget about the rest. The LIRP is great, but it has a narrow focus and doesn't do enough to generate a stream of tax-free income on its own. Typically, David recommends diversifying your tax-free streams of income because each one is unique and accomplishes different parts of the strategy. Getting to the zero percent tax bracket is like fitting pieces of a puzzle together. Only when you fit them all together does the zero percent tax bracket come into play for you. The first stream is the Roth IRA. If you're younger than 50, you can contribute $6000. If you're older than 50, you can contribute $7000. The thing that makes the Roth IRA unique besides being tax-free is that when you put money in, you can take money out right away. It's the only tax-free stream of income with that feature. The Roth 401(k) is unique because it's part of a company plan and they will often have inducements that go with it. The Secure Retirement Act 2.0 that is working its way through Congress will also allow you to direct that match to your tax-free bucket. This company match is free money and that's something you should always take advantage of. The Roth conversion is unique because it can be the workhorse for your retirement planning. It allows you to convert as much as you want to tax-free because there are no limits at the moment. If you have a lot of money in your IRA ($10 million+), it probably makes sense to convert all of that money before tax rates go up next year. Required Minimum Distributions are interesting in that they come from your tax-deferred bucket. The idea is that the balance in your IRA is low enough that your RMDs at age 72 are equal to your standard deduction and don't cause Social Security taxation. RMDs are the only strategy where you get a deduction on the front end, the money grows tax-deferred, and you can take it out tax-free, also known as the holy grail of financial planning. The LIRP has a lot of things going for it, but one thing that really stands out is the death benefit. Should you die prematurely, your heirs get a death benefit. With the right LIRP, you can also receive that death benefit in advance of your death for the purpose of paying for long-term care. This avoids the heartburn of paying for something you hope you never use. Social Security is the final stream of tax-free income. As long as your provisional income is below certain thresholds, it's tax-free and functions a lot like an annuity. It can help you mitigate longevity risk, inflation, and sequence of return risk. The longer you live, the better it gets. The Power of Zero approach is built around having multiple streams of tax-free income. This is also how you know whether an advisor is following the true Power of Zero plan. Each stream of tax-free income is unique in its own right and contributes something to your retirement plan that none of the others can do.

It looks like Joe Biden's landmark legislation is running into some challenges in Congress. Joe Manchin, one of the most powerful men in Congress right now, has pushed back on the $3.5 trillion bill and counter-offered with a more narrow $1.5 trillion plan. Progressive Democrats in the house are saying that it's too small to make their priorities a reality. Both sides of the aisle are pulling in opposite directions and don't seem to be able to come to a compromise. Joe Biden is making tax reform a major aspect of the Human Infrastructure plan. The increase of tax rates on those making more than $400,000 per year are the means for paying for part of the plan. If the bill fails to pass, the current tax law expires in 2026. If it does pass, the Trump tax cuts will still be in effect for another 8 years. The time difference could be the determining factor in shifting your money to tax-free without bumping into a higher tax bracket. Joe Biden is on the clock. If he can't get this bill passed relatively soon, he's going to convey the impression that his party is in disarray and they aren't going into the midterm elections in a unified way. Typically, the party in power needs to get their priorities done in the first two years. The stalemate in Congress runs the risk of pushing the legislation so far out into the future that nothing happens. The bill will end up somewhere between the two extremes. There are other Senators and Congress people saying that the $3.5 trillion is too small while others are saying $1.5 trillion is the maximum. Nancy Pelosi has recently abandoned the effort to tie the Infrastructure bill and Human Infrastructure bill together. The longer this bill takes to pass or fail, the more likely failure becomes as congresspeople won't want their name attached to it. This means that every day that goes by where this bill doesn't pass, the likelihood is that the current tax rates are going to expire in 2026. Mentioned in this Episode: A top House progressive says $1.5 trillion is not enough to pass social spending plan - npr.org/2021/10/03/1042862107/a-top-house-progressive-says-1-5-trillion-is-not-enough-to-pass-social-spending-?t=1633978400218&t=1634060208587

The increase on taxes on the rich with the Human Infrastructure plan is rumored to cost the average American nothing, but that's not quite the full story. The long-term implications of the cost of the plan say differently. Fiscal insanity has been a bi-partisan venture, and it has been for at least the last 20 years. Debt goes up under Republican administrations just as much as Democrats. Under Donald Trump's administration, the debt rose by an average of $2 trillion per year. Historically, the debt rose by $1 trillion driven primarily by Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid as Baby Boomers begin to retire. Broken down, this means that there is an extra $23,500 in federal debt for every person in the country. Only two other presidents have come close to spending as much, George W. Bush and Abraham Lincoln, both of whom oversaw extraordinary circumstances during their presidencies. One of the things that drove up the debt was the Covid-19 crisis, but the debt had already soared to grave levels prior to the pandemic. Trump cut taxes but didn't do anything to cut spending, and this caused debt to soar to unprecedented levels. The national debt is now at the point where it's higher than it was at the conclusion of World War 2. The difference is that we could demobilize after WW2 but we can't avoid the primary expenses looming over the nation now. A common myth that many people believe is that we can grow our way out of the national debt. The debt is growing at an extraordinary rate and there is no way for revenue to grow in comparison. The tariffs Trump introduced were believed to help eliminate the budget deficit and pay down the national debt, but that was not the case. The Trump tax cuts were primary drivers of increasing the debt, when combined with a lack of cuts to spending. The tariffs also had a minimal impact on the debt once it had been allocated. The fiscal gap and the national debt are so large that the idea of taxing the rich pales in comparison. Taxing the rich, even at 100% levels, it's only enough to pay the interest on the debt and fund a couple of programs for a few weeks. There are huge fiscal unsustainabilities in the scope of the federal government's budget. By early 2019, Trump was telling the American public that the national debt was a grave threat to economic and societal prosperity. Other officials began sounding the alarm as well. Historically, we have racked up debt but with good excuses for doing so. This time we accumulated debt when the stock market was booming. When every other country was getting their house in order, we continue to pile debt onto the national credit card. We are currently at 130% debt-to-GDP and for most economists, alarm bells are going off. The reason why now is different from WW2 when we had similar levels of debt is we are now funding social programs that are slated to grow dramatically in the near future. The real issue is the cost of the interest on the debt. Most of the debt has been financed in the short term and will have to be refinanced. If interest rates go up in the interim, the cost of that interest is going to skyrocket and consume the federal budget. Low-interest rates are manageable now, but if and when that changes in time, the risk becomes greater. Blame can be laid on both sides of the aisle, but if you're a Republican you need to acknowledge that the Trump administration accumulated a record amount of debt in a short time period. If you're a Democrat, you need to insist your representatives show some leadership regarding the fiscal future of the country. Social programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are driving the debt and unless something is changed the problem will only escalate. This will only increase the likelihood and magnitude of higher tax rates in the future. Mentioned in this Episode: Donald Trump Built a National Debt So Big (Even Before the Pandemic) That It'll Weigh Down the Economy for Years - https://www.propublica.org/article/national-debt-trump

Dr. Larry Kotlikoff is the foremost expert in the world on fiscal gap accounting and has done a great job transforming how we should be thinking about a nation's debt. Dr. Kotlikoff recently stated during an interview that most retirement planning is wrong. According to Dr. Kotlikoff, the basic problem with financial planning is that the goal of our life is not to accumulate wealth so that people can charge us fees on our assets. It's about having the best lifestyle we can, given our resources, so we don't end up on the street if the market crashes or we live to be 100 years old. You don't necessarily need to pay someone to manage your assets, but it can be worthwhile to have someone help you stick to your objectives. Most people without a financial advisor participate in emotionally driven investing, which is why the average investor's returns suffer. Saving for retirement is a requirement in consumption smoothing, but there is an optimal amount to save. Once you know what you have, you know what you can spend. Part of the job of a good financial planner is helping you reverse engineer what you need to create the lifestyle you want in retirement. This is where the Power of Zero paradigm deviates from mainstream financial planning. You have to get the tax part of the equation right. It's not enough to know what you should be saving, because if you execute that plan in your tax-deferred bucket and watch as tax rates rise over time, you'll find that your financial plan only delivers about half what your lifestyle needs. You need to contribute the right amount of money into the right kinds of accounts. Dr. Kotlikoff feels the stock market is overvalued and dependent on the Federal Reserve's support to maintain its levels. Market timing is tricky at the best of times. Statistically, it's nearly impossible to do. Over the course of a given year, that 80% of the rise in the market occurred on 6-8 days and you have to predict exactly which days those are going to be. If you can guarantee your lifestyle expenses with your Social Security, pension, and/or a guaranteed lifetime income annuity, you can take much more risk in the market. A good rule of thumb if you need to dip into your assets during a down year is to take money out of your LIRP instead of your stock market portfolio. Dr. Kotlikoff recommends that you push off taking Social Security for as long as you can to mitigate longevity risk. The key here is predicting how long you are going to live. The worst thing that can happen to you is push it off until age 70, and then die at age 71. The best way to predict how long you are going to live is to go through the LIRP underwriting process. When an underwriter accepts you, they are basically betting that you are going to live a long, healthy life, and you can use that to push Social Security off as long as possible. Is paying off your mortgage early smart? The question we should be asking is whether we "should take money that could be invested in the stock market or pay off a mortgage early?" When you look at the arbitrage between the market and your mortgage, the math doesn't add up. Converting money to an IRA has to be done over a period of time to avoid paying more taxes than necessary. We are in a rising tax rate environment, so it makes sense to take advantage of today's historically low tax rates, but it has to be done systematically. You shouldn't be drawing Social Security during your conversion period because it will cause Social Security taxation and lock you into a lower amount. There are secrets to all stages of the life cycle. When you're young, stay home to save on housing costs and don't borrow for college if there is a reasonable likelihood you might drop out. Invest more in stocks as you age in retirement, especially if you have your lifestyle needs guaranteed already. Mentioned in this Episode: Medicine's Golden Age Is Dawning. 10 Stocks to Play the Latest Innovations. - barrons.com/articles/medicine-healthcare-stocks-roundtable-51632527474

Most of the changes of the two infrastructure bills working their way through Congress right now will mainly affect high-income earners, but the details may change as time goes on. There are seven major takeaways from the recent house tax bill. The first is that personal income tax rates are going up, but only for roughly 2% of households that make more than $400,000 per year. Joe Biden campaigned on not raising taxes on the middle class, and the current form of the bill seems to reflect that. Takeaway #2 is that capital gains rates are going up, but not as much as Biden originally proposed, which is primarily going to affect high-income earners. This is a retroactive bill which if it comes into effect retroactively to the date of Sept 13. If you sold anything after that date you will be affected by the higher capital gains tax rate. Takeaway #3 is that the bill brings back the marriage penalty. This bill will become somewhat punitive for married people when compared to single people. Takeaway #4 is that the Roth conversion is going away for the wealthy. Whether the Roth conversion is applied to the limit is a question right now, but if that's the case it will be a major roadblock for any Power of Zero planning. The effective date of this provision is December 31, 2031. It's speculated that by delaying the start date it will create a buy-now mentality. The IRA and the Roth conversion are two of the only things in the world that Americans like and the government likes. The government gets revenue today, and Americans get to insulate themselves against the impact of higher tax rates down the road. Takeaway #5 is that the backdoor Roth conversion is going away. Takeaway #6 is that there will no longer be any IRA or Roth contributions for the rich, basically anyone making more than $400,000 or anyone with more than $10 million in retirement accounts. The intent is to prevent extremely wealthy people from taking advantage of the tax code, but the end result is generally pretty minimal. Takeaway #7 will have a particularly large impact on people with large amounts of money in their Roth IRA. This is largely inspired by Peter Thiel who recently revealed that he had over $5 billion in his Roth IRA. People in the higher income bracket and who have over $10 million in their Roth IRA would be required to distribute 50% of the excess of $10 million. If your balance exceeds $20 million, you would have to distribute 100% of the excess over the $20 million mark. As it's written right now, if you're a married couple that earns under the $450,000 per year income amount, the rule won't apply to you. Earn one dollar more though and you will have a massive RMD coming your way. Mentioned in this Episode: Jeff Levine, Twitter: @CPAPlanner