Supreme Court: Creditors Can't Seize IRAs

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that creditors may not seize Individual Retirement Accounts when people file for bankruptcy, giving protection to a nest egg relied upon by millions of Americans.

The unanimous decision sides with a bankrupt Arkansas couple fighting to keep more than $55,000 in retirement savings. As a result, IRAs now join pensions, 401(k)s, Social Security and other benefits tied to age, illness or disability that are afforded protection under bankruptcy law.

IRAs should not be treated any differently because the benefits are tied to people's age, the court said, citing a substantial tax penalty that is imposed for withdrawals before a person turns 60.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=4&u=/ap/20050404/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_bankruptcy

[ClevelandBronco]

You didn't mention whether you think this is a travesty that should be opposed by all right-thinking people or a victory that should be celebrated by all right thinking people. Now I know that you embrace the only opinion that right thinking people should ever be allowed to have and can readily provide a link that voices your opinion for you.

Can you take a stand one way or the other so I can dismiss the inevitable link to the article that you certainly would have written if someone else hadn't voiced your opinion earlier and better than your capable of doing?

Thanks for your cooperation.

------

Sorry for the smack on this one, LABF. My view from the right says that this looks like a good decision to me. Unsecured creditors ought to get slapped around a bit for all their whoring after every last dollar they can squeeze. This decision will allow folks who've fallen prey to the materialist siren song to protect some of their sense of worth after the house-built-on-sand inevitably falls. And it'll protect a bunch of working class folks from total dependence on the dole later on. Yes?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You didn't mention whether you think this is a travesty that should be opposed by all right-thinking people or a victory that should be celebrated by all right thinking people.

All of a sudden CB is interested in what I think about some issue or another?

???

Somebody better check his temperature.

Can you take a stand one way or the other so I can dismiss the inevitable link to the article that you certainly would have written if someone else hadn't voiced your opinion earlier and better than your capable of doing?

Thanks for your cooperation.

Looks like CB is having trouble with a piece of fundamental logic.

Let's see if we can help him out:

The truth or falsehood of a statement is independent of who makes it.

There - that should do it.

BTW, if the author made the case better than I could, then it just might be because that's his gig.

Sorry for the smack on this one, LABF. My view from the right says that this looks like a good decision to me. Unsecured creditors ought to get slapped around a bit for all their whoring after every last dollar they can squeeze. This decision will allow folks who've fallen prey to the materialist siren song to protect some of their sense of worth after the house-built-on-sand inevitably falls. And it'll protect a bunch of working class folks from total dependence on the dole later on. Yes?

Sound the conch shells and roll out the ticker tape!

I agree with CB's analysis here. :)

[Elway777]

I think the court made the right decision.

[kappys]

This is a good deciscion by the Court coming on the heels of congress' move to make bankrupcy claims harder to file for the ordinary person.

The tactics used by credit card companies these days amounts to criminal activity in my mind. Its a shame they get away with it.

[alkemical]

If you want rights these days, it's almost like you have to be a corporation. I'm glad they did this though. Good move.