Compliance July 22, 2019

SECURE Act Passage May Hinge on Budget, Debt Ceiling Negotiations

The House is scheduled to leave Washington on Friday and the Senate is expected to start its recess a week later, after which federal budget and debt ceiling negotiations will almost certainly take center stage.

Reported by

After passing the House of Representatives with 417 yea votes and just three nays, the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act, commonly referred to as the “SECURE Act,” remains stalled in the Senate.

Washington insiders point to several Republican senators as the main roadblocks to near-term Senate passage of SECURE, among them Texas’ Ted Cruz and Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey. The pair have placed what are called “holds” on the Senate leadership’s resolution to pass the bill under “unanimous consent,” which would allow the bill to be passed without the usual process of debate and amendment by the full Senate.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANSPONSOR NEWSDash daily newsletter.

According to one source familiar with the ongoing Congressional deliberations, Senator Cruz has openly explained his opposition to the SECURE Act. Among some other concerns, he dislikes that the final version of the House was amended to no longer include a provision that would allow people to use tax-advantaged savings in 529 college savings account to pay for home school expenses.

It is less clear what Senator Toomey’s issues with SECURE Act may be. He has said publicly that he would prefer the Senate to bring the bill—and others—to the floor and allow debate. In this way, it seems his objections are more about the process than the issues baked into the SECURE Act. However, after the publication last week of a much-discussed Wall Street Journal editorial that criticized a provision in the SECURE Act to require certain beneficiaries of unspent individual retirement accounts (IRAs) to take distributions within 10 years, Senator Toomey indicated publicly that disagrees with the changes to the “stretch” IRA. 

For context, under current law, if a retiree dies before IRA funds are spent, the remaining funds can be passed to named beneficiaries, who can then withdraw from the accounts over their life expectancies. In changing this standard, the SECURE Act still provides a number of exemptions to the 10-year rule, for example by allowing for tax-free distributions to continue for an account owner’s surviving spouse and child until they reach the age of 18.

Advocates for the SECURE Act say this change to the rules for the treatment of inherited IRAs was included in the final House version of the bill as a fiscally responsible measure to pay for provisions that will increase access to employer-provided retirement plans. They also point to the fact that Congress originally designed IRAs to deliver retirement income to the account owner—not to serve as a powerful estate planning tool for the wealthy.

With this debate hanging in the air, supporters of the SECURE Act bemoan the fact that one or two seemingly minor issues are holding up the most expansive retirement legislation in a decade that would make it easier for small businesses to pool together to offer workers a retirement plan. The bill also would expand access to lifetime income products within workplace retirement plans and require plans to provide workers with an illustration of how much monthly income their account would provide.

Looking forward, Congress is quickly headed toward its August recess, after which the nation’s (and lawmaker’s) focus will increasingly turn to the 2020 election cycle, making the passage of even popular legislation that much more challenging. The House is scheduled to leave Washington on Friday and the Senate is expected to start its recess next Friday. Meanwhile, Congress and the Trump Administration are trying to work out a budget deal and negotiate a new debt ceiling, leading SECURE Act advocates to push their Congressional allies and leadership to consider adding the SECURE Act to the must-pass budget/debt legislation.

Reader Responses July 19, 2019

SURVEY SAYS: Texting Versus Talking

NewsDash readers share whether they text more or talk more with family and friends.

Reported by

Last week, I asked NewsDash readers, “When it comes to friends and family, do you text more or talk more?”

 

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANSPONSOR NEWSDash daily newsletter.

With family, 41.2% of responding readers indicated they text more. Nearly four in 10 (39.2%) talk more, and 19.6% said they text and talk about the same amount.

 

With friends, nearly two-thirds (64.7%) of respondents reported they text more. Slightly more than 29% talk more and 5.9% say they text and talk about the same amount.

 

Readers who chose to leave comments were split between those who prefer texting and those who prefer conversation. Those who prefer texting cited convenience and the ability to text multiple people at once, among other things, as reasons. Those who prefer talking say it’s more personal and rewarding, and that the tone in texts can be misconstrued. Editor’s Choice goes to the reader who said: “Some things just take more time to work through than I’m willing to spend typing a text.”

 

Thanks to all who participated in the survey!

 

Verbatim

I get very tired of texting and will cut it off and say “just call me!” Some people must not realize that cell phones can also be used to make phone calls!

Texting is convenient when a conversation isn’t necessary or possible, but conversations are definitely more gratifying.

A lot can be lost in the context of a text, but the convenience of texting is so valuable with everyone’s different time constraints.

Remember, your romantic partner deserves the best treatment.

The only time I text when in the same house is when I am on the 3rd floor and he is on the 2nd or 1st. Those stairs can be a killer!!

I find texting my adult children gets a quick response, and I can send messages to all 6 of them at once. We try to get together often, so we talk then.

Text more unless it is just easier to get on the dang phone. Some things just take more time to work through than I’m willing to spend typing a text.

Except for short messages, I hate texting. I’d much rather talk on the phone.

In defense of texting, to respond to the text is on my time. A call usually dictates an immediate conversation (if so willing to accept the call). I love and prefer texting.

In 1st question, I talk more than text with immediate family (spouse & kids). Extended family, such as my siblings & in-laws, I text with more often than speak with. I find that when a relationship devolves to only communicating by text, it becomes superficial. Like many social media “friendships”.

Read “1984”. It addresses the dumbing down of the populous through simplification of the words they are capable of using and understanding. LOL

Our immediate family now lives in 5 different states, so our conversations are on video chat – Whats App, Signal, Skype. I would text if I just need an answer to a question.

Texting is quick and simple. I can send a message put the phone down and move on to other items. It’s a learned multitasker behavior.

Texting is too impersonal – I prefer to talk.

Can text a quick update or message without the back and forth of calling

Texting is used way too much and should not be used unless talking is not possible or convenient for one or both of the parties – and it’s important a message needs to get delivered. It’s become an excuse for not talking, and it’s too often used when it shouldn’t be (driving!). It’s really disheartening to see a family gathered at a restaurant and many a family member focused on their own phone – texting, emailing, trolling social media or web surfing. And those who aren’t are sitting there in silence. What’s the point of gathering together for a meal?

It is a shame that people are not looking into the eyes of their loved ones. They are missing out & expressions say a lot. I am guessing those that only text do not hug either.

Do not call me. That is not what my phone is for. lol

I prefer text because it doesn’t seem as intrusive – they can get back to me when it’s convenient. Depending on the message, there are times when calling is better – you have to “know your audience”.

My wife will text me from upstairs when she needs something

My kids’ lives are far busier than mine was as a teenager. We talk when we’re together, but texting maintains that personal connection even when we’re apart.

You know they are going to see the text eventually. Most people don’t check their voice mail as often so they might miss your message. Texting allows you to send the same message to multiple people at the same time.

We also text the kids while in the house but separate rooms. It’s nicer than yelling upstairs or downstairs that dinner is ready 🙂

We live in separate cities, so it’s nice to keep that line of communication going with just a quick text to let them know something or that I am thinking of them. Talking is always better, but it is still a touch of communication and at least it is open…

Sometimes you just don’t want to talk to the person!!

Sometimes a quick text is more convenient, but cannot always replace the personal interaction.

There isn’t any tone in texting, I’m the sarcastic type, that doesn’t text well. Reeaaally!

It’s faster, period.

I talk more with my parents but text more with my kids and sibling. I have been known to text from the other room on a rare occasion!!

Really? In the very same room? Only when we’re being snarky about another family member…

Texting is more impersonal, but more convenient for both sender and recipient as each can do on his/her own time.

 

NOTE: Responses reflect the opinions of individual readers and not necessarily the stance of Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) or its affiliates.

«