Allan Sloan
Obama has a sweet retirement package. Will you?
May 1, 2013: 5:00 AM ETNo one says the President doesn't deserve his benefits. But it's hard to get past his plan to limit savers to half the value of what he'll walk away with.
FORTUNE -- President Obama's proposal to limit the value of 401(k)s, pensions, and other tax-favored retirement accounts to about $3.4 million certainly sounds reasonable. After all, at a time of big budget deficits, we shouldn't subsidize "the rich" with tax breaks, should we?
But when you look a little closer -- especially when you look at the value of President Obama's taxpayer-funded retirement benefits -- you might think a little differently about what "rich" means. For starters, the point at which Obama wants to eliminate your ability to deduct retirement account contributions isn't actually the $3.4 million in his budget proposal -- that's just an estimate. The real number is how much a couple age 62 would have to pay for an annuity that yields $205,000 a year. That $3.4 million -- which applies to the combined values of your pension and retirement accounts -- is subject to a sharp downward change in the future because annuity issuers charge significantly less for an annuity when interest rates are higher than they do today, with rates at rock-bottom levels.
MORE: What will cause the next financial crisis? Don't ask regulators.
I'll grant you that $205,000 a year -- the current IRS maximum for what a pension fund can pay a recipient -- is serious money in many places. But it doesn't buy you a rich retirement lifestyle in, say, Manhattan, N.Y., where 205K is equivalent to only 88K in Manhattan, Kans. The Manhattan-Manhattan distinction, from Money's cost-of-living comparator, is an example of the difference between being rich statistically and being rich in reality.
Second, I can't get past Obama wanting to limit savers to only about half the value of what he stands to get from his post-presidential package. Based on numbers from Vanguard Annuity Access, I value his package at more than $6.6 million. (My calculations are at the bottom of this piece.)
That's right, $6.6 million. And that doesn't include the IRAs in which Obama has been socking away the $50,000-a-year maximum, or the $18,000 (plus cost of living) a year he will get at age 62 for his service in the Illinois senate, or any other benefits he or his wife may realize from past or future jobs.
MORE: Apple proves that a lower corporate tax rate won't matter
Because Obama will be only 56 when he leaves office, his annual pension -- which by law equals the salary of a cabinet secretary, now $200,000 -- would be worth $3.86 million at today's annuity rates. The inflation adjustment -- when cabinet salaries rise, a President's pension rises -- is worth at least $770,000 more. His personnel allowance -- $150,000 a year for 2 1/2 years, then $96,000 for life -- is worth $1.98 million. Total: $6.6 million.
I'm not begrudging Obama his benefits, which are exactly the same as what other ex-Presidents get. I'm trying to put his retirement account proposal in perspective. If Obama feels so strongly about denying tax deductions to people like himself with "excess" benefits and to their employers, he can write checks to the IRS and Illinois for what he's saved by deducting his IRA contributions. But I won't hold my breath.
Yes, there are retirement account abuses. It's unconscionable that people like Mitt Romney -- remember him? -- end up with eight-digit retirement accounts by stuffing them with assets (such as stakes in leveraged buyouts) that have low starting values but massive upsides and are available only to the elite. But that abuse is easily solved. To set up a whole new bureaucracy to monitor the value of everyone's pension and 401(k) strikes me as a vast overreaction.
Although this proposal is unlikely to become law, I don't like the principle of it. We should be encouraging people to save more for retirement, as parts of Obama's budget propose, rather than penalizing "the rich" (as Obama defines them).
The White House declined comment. But to me, this is all really simple: Limiting tax-favored retirement assets of people who have saved all their lives to about half of what taxpayers will give Obama for eight years in office is just wrong. End of story.
-------------------------------------------------------
Reporter associate: Doris Burke
This story is from the May 20, 2013 issue of Fortune.
-
3 lessons for Apple's shareholders
The recent swings in Apple stock prove that a few simple rules of investing always hold true.
FORTUNE -- For most people, Apple mania means buying the company's products and playing with them. But for us financial voyeur types, the fun comes from watching the lunatic lurching of Apple's stock price.
You gotta love it. From the start of last year through its all-time closing high on Sept. 19, Wilshire Associate says, MORE
Allan Sloan, senior editor-at-large - Feb 6, 2013 5:00 AM ET -
The Fed's big dollar gamble
Ben Bernanke's low interest rate policy has driven down the dollar. America's trading partners aren't happy.
FORTUNE -- What do Rogaine and the Federal Reserve's economic-stimulus policies have in common? No, it doesn't involve Ben Bernanke's or Alan Greenspan's hairlines. Give up? The answer: side effects.
Rogaine, as you may know, was originally developed as a blood pressure medication but was "repurposed" because it had the side effect of promoting hair growth. MORE
Allan Sloan, senior editor-at-large - Jan 16, 2013 5:00 AM ET -
Goodbye, and many thanks, to my favorite mutual fund ever
If you want to take advantage of the Royce Select Fund's uniquely fair fees - sorry - that ship has sailed.
FORTUNE -- There are times when an innovative and brilliantly designed product takes the world by storm and makes a fortune for its creators and marketers. Think iPhone. And then there are times when an innovative and brilliantly designed product just doesn't catch on. Think of the Royce Select Fund.
Never MORE
Allan Sloan, senior editor-at-large - Oct 10, 2012 5:00 AM ET -
Who's better for stocks: Obama or Romney?
Wall Street loves a Republican president, right? Not so fast. With history as our judge, the answer is not so clear.
FORTUNE -- One of the questions I get asked these days is whether a win by Mitt Romney or by Barack Obama would be better for the stock market. To which the only honest answer is "I have no earthly idea." Any competent and dispassionate market analyst will tell you MORE
Allan Sloan, senior editor-at-large - Sep 19, 2012 5:00 AM ET -
The 5 myths of the great financial meltdown
Five years after the U.S. economy teetered on collapse, here are five reasons why we need to stop pointing fingers and fix the problems that nearly sank us.
FORTUNE -- It's hard to believe, but it's been five years and a day since the U.S. financial system's problems surfaced, and we're still not even remotely close to being able to feel good about the economy. My admittedly arbitrary start date is MORE
Allan Sloan, senior editor-at-large - Jun 13, 2012 5:00 AM ETPosted in: Allan Sloan, bailout, Banking, bear stearns, big banks, financial crisis, Great Recession, Lehman Brothers -
United Technologies' $1 billion employee college plan
Looking for a corporate feel-good story? UTC's Employee Scholar Program just hit a major milestone.
FORTUNE -- Sometimes big companies do good things for their employees during bad times. And keep on doing it, quietly, without making a fuss. That's the thought that crossed my mind when I heard that United Technologies Corp., a hard-nosed industrial conglomerate that makes things like aircraft engines and elevators and helicopters and is No. 48 MORE
Allan Sloan, senior editor-at-large - May 2, 2012 5:00 AM ET -
Why you shouldn't buy bonds anytime soon
You'd have to be a psychic to know where stocks are headed, but you don't need a crystal ball to know that corporate bonds are a bad bet.
FORTUNE -- It's one of those eternal truths. Just as you can be sure that daffodils and forsythia will blossom this time of year, you can be sure that mutual fund investors will collectively act like blooming idiots by doing the wrong thing MORE
Allan Sloan, senior editor-at-large - Apr 11, 2012 5:00 AM ET -
Ben Bernanke is just doing his job, folks
Love them or hate them, the Fed crew are the rare breed in Washington that aren't just looking out for Number One.
FORTUNE -- We have an unfortunate tendency in this country to treat people as either heroes or villains, with no gradations in between. Take Fed chairman Ben Bernanke. He's being called exceptionally vicious names by right-wing types for supposedly undermining our currency and planting the seeds for future inflation -- MORE
Allan Sloan, senior editor-at-large - Mar 21, 2012 5:00 AM ETPosted in: aig, Allan Sloan, Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve, interest rates, Macro, mortgage crisis, stress tests -
Cut Social Security for the rich? We already have.
It's an old trope: Tap the nation's wealthy to help the less fortunate in their autumn years. Too bad they're already tapped out.
FORTUNE -- It's almost time for one of Washington's rites of spring: the arrival of the new Social Security trustees' report. The report, which is usually issued in April, will show Social Security's finances deteriorating because of a higher-than-projected inflation adjustment for 2012. This is likely to touch MORE
Allan Sloan, senior editor-at-large - Feb 29, 2012 5:00 AM ET
| Yahoo must learn from past merger mistakes | ||
| Tesla's fight with America's car dealers | ||
| Amateur investors tap 401(k)s to buy homes | ||
| Death cross brewing in bond market | ||
| Merger Monday on Wall Street |
Allan Sloan, who has been writing about business for more than 40 years, joined Fortune in July of 2007. Before that, he was the Wall Street editor for Newsweek for 12 years. His work also appears in The Washington Post. Allan is a seven-time winner of the Loeb Award, business journalism's highest honor, receiving awards in four different categories for five different employers. He is a graduate of Brooklyn College and has a master's degree in journalism from Columbia University. He and his wife live in New Jersey. They have three grown children.
