The IRS is increasing the standard deductions for 2023 as inflation intensifies
npr.org
npr.org
Tax bracket thresholds, single:
Rate 2022 2023
35% $215,950 $231,250
32% $170,050 $182,100
24% $89,075 $95,375
22% $41,775 $44,725
12% $10,275 $11,000
Tax bracket thresholds, married filing jointly: Rate 2022 2023
35% $431,900 $462,500
32% $340,100 $364,200
24% $178,150 $190,750
22% $83,550 $89,450
12% $20,550 $22,000
Retirement account contribution limits [3] have also increased: 2022 2023
IRA $6,000 $6,500
401(k) $20,500 $22,500
Overall, IRS adjustments for 2023 are roughly: +6.9% standard deductions
+7.1% tax brackets
+8.3% IRA contribution limits
+9.8% 401(k) contribution limits
[1]: https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-provides-tax-inflation-adju...[2]: https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-provides-tax-inflation-adju...
[3]: https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/401k-limit-increases-to-22500-f...
* 20,500 -> 22,500 : 401K employee contribution limit changes
* 6,000 -> 6,500 : IRA contribution limit changes, for those under age 50
* 6,000 -> 7,500 : IRA contribution limit changes for those age 50 and older (includes $1000 catch-up)
2) in many cases there is a 1% + fee which absolutely obliterates your returns over the long run
3) your entire principal + capital gains are taxed as income when you take distributions whereas for an investment outside of 401k your principal gets taxed when you pay income taxes and then capital gains are taxed at a long term rate if you hold long enough, which is way lower than income rate. E.g. you actually kinda get fleeced on taxes too
4) your money is held hostage under threat of 10% penalty for a withdrawal and you have to practically beg for it it is so obnoxious to withdraw.
My 401k did like 4 % at a time when the s&p 500 did like 30. That's a straight up scam
The whole retirement process is usually presented with little useful guidance. Here's a packet of different investment offerings, many of which are opaque, and plenty are surprisingly inefficient (high fees, excessive turnover). How much should I be contributing? Here's a calculator with confusing and iffy assumptions baked right in! This all but guarantees the house will win in some way-- even if you get a "good" outcome, you're probably not doing absolute optimally and that margin bankrolls it.
Actually, I'd like to pull out a little. Investment in general is too complex for most people. My 401(k) using the default "2035 target date" plan I was offered is down 20% over the last year, but it's not like my self-directed investments are doing better. The only thing that's worked out bulletproof has been I-bonds, and I'm afraid I'm not going to get that far on that, with a 10k-per-annum cap.
TBH, what I want is a product where I can "prepay" retirement services and have someone else take the economic risks. In a way, defined benefit pensions were sort of like that, but I'd like to be even further decoupled from the dollar. Let me sign up to pay $x,000 per year during my working years, and when I'm 70, I get a paid-for-life furnished condo in (what will by then be) the palm-tree lined beachfront party town of Halifax, Nova Scotia.
If the counterparty to the deal is a brilliant dollar jockey and makes 70% a year compounded on my money, good for him and I don't see a cent of it. But if he bets it all on Meta and has to pick up dog droppings to pay for ramen, too bad, he's the one who's gotta pull a housing unit out of his ass in 2050. Put it behind some sort of state backing fund to ensure delivery of goods if you have to.
I also suspect the default 401(k) choices tend to reinforce our society's toxic relationship with the stock market. Yeah, there's probably something bond-centric or emerging-market somewhere in the Poorly Printed Menu of Confusing Investment Choices, but mostly, it leads to the narrative of "We have to keep pumping up the S&P 500, and make a bunch of flailing companies trade at a P/E of 73, because Grandpa's portfolio is fundamentally garbage but we feel a social duty to not make him work at McDonald's when he's 89."
This is why 401ks are a total shame. You get marginal, if any tax benefits (entirely possible you pay significantly more tax when all is said and done), your money is in jail for your entire fucjing life so if you have an investment opportunity you won't have the capital to maximize your profit, and to top it off, the investment selections are dogshit broad based funds that almost never even match the s&p 500 and you pay like a 1% management fee for the pleasure of all these lovely features. It's a complete sham and it would take an enormous amount of employer matching to make it worth doing. E.g. an amount that no employer would ever be willing to offer.
You'd probably be even less happy with the real-estate side, but I'm sure you can find someone to take the other side of that deal for the right price. (Hell, I'll do it for the right price, but you won't like that price either.)
Was listening to doomberg musing on energy policy last night and he made the observation that if we could just barely kind of get our shit together, we could be in an unbelievably dominant geopolitical position in the short term but instead we are almost certainly going to footgun ourselves and then wonder what happened.
I couldn't agree more
This article is not describing any kind of policy change or decision that was made by the IRS.
The size of the standard deduction is set by a federal law passed by Congress. That law fixed the deduction at $3,000 (for single filers) in 1988, and specified that it should be adjusted for inflation in future years by multiplying by the change in CPI, so that the real value of the deduction stays constant.
The IRS is just doing the arithmetic and updating the forms, as they're legally required to.
But if you were an economic planner the equations involved here are really simple. The more cash you push out to consumers, the harder it is to fight inflation. You could make an argument that it is neutral to inflation if you believe this would mean a cut in government spending that was proportional to the increase in consumer spending, but back here in reality, the government just spends what ever it's going to spend on deficit and prints debt so the meaningful metric is private sector liquidity.
Reducing taxes increases demand and works against the Federal Reserve here.
The US needs a credible tax policy otherwise no one will buy Federal Government Debt. How does the government source money? Via taxes or new debt issuances.
Without sufficient taxes you cannot issue more government debt. UK just had this issue, EU looks like it’s next. Maybe even the USD after that.