|
||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
![]() |
| In the fall of 2007, when the U.S. economy first seemed in peril, I began answering reader queries here on the Business Desk. I still do so, but this page has expanded to include posts from eminent economists, "far-flung correspondents," and a variety of voices that have intriguing and/or useful things to say about economics, broadly defined. Please feel encouraged to respond to any and all of them. |
« Previous Entry | Main | Next Entry » Using a Retirement Account to Buy a Home, Plus a Paul Krugman Round-Up
Our web-exclusive interviews with Paul Krugman, accompanied by conservative critiques, and one with his wife, Robin Wells, have garnered so much attention that all five ranked among the nine "Most Watched Videos" at pbs.org/newshour. Since none of them aired on the broadcast, we thought we'd provide an archive here for those who haven't yet seen them.
Now, I'm going to take the liberty of responding to Krugman's take on Mutual Assured Destruction myself. (Video and transcript below.) First, Krugman's notion of debt repayment as "mutual destruction." This was an idea that plagued English economist John Maynard Keynes, who explained its dangers and propounded the "paradox of thrift" during the global Great Depression of the 1930s. We explored the paradox at length on the NewsHour in 2009. The result is online at, among other places, the Council for Economic Education's "econedlink," a site for teachers of economics (Many of our other stories are there as well, with suggested questions for students.) The second key insight in today's Krugman morsel is the "Wile E. Coyote Moment." One of the great conundrums in human life is not that we don't know we're on an unsustainable path, but that the timing of the W.E.C. Moment seems impossible to predict. President Richard Nixon's esteemed economist, the late Herb Stein, lives on for an observation of his that has become known as "Stein's Law": "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop." But when will it stop? That is the question every investor, every soldier, every human being would like to know, but just can't. Human systems simply have too many moving parts, constantly reacting to each other, just as complex physical systems do. I once asked the late Harvard philosopher Nelson Goodman how economics could pose as a science, given how off-base its predictions so consistently are. He responded that the identical charge could be leveled at physics. "We know all the forces that affect a leaf falling from a tree," he said," but we can never tell exactly -- or sometimes even approximately -- where any given leaf will land." And on Dec. 30, 1999, I asked Jim Cramer, five years before he began to floridly flaunt his money madness on CNBC: Paul Solman: Are you subscribing to what has been called the "greater fool theory," that is, that there is a greater fool who is going to buy the stock at these inflated prices? Jim Cramer: I said to two of my investors that I can play the greater fool theory better than anyone else, so to tell you right now a lie that I'm not playing it would be wrong. I'm a trader by nature. The NASDAQ composite index was above 4000 that day. A year later, it was at 2400. The Wile E. Coyote moment didn't come exactly when even Jim Cramer expected it to. As it so often doesn't for any of us.
Meanwhile, I answer (again) a reader's question about using retirement funds to pay for a home and sheepishly beg your pardon for repeating myself from Wednesday. Problem is, the answer was lopped off in the middle, undoubtedly by me, somewhere between the initial gleam in my eye and electronic transmission. Below is my answer in full. Name: Terry Coleman Question: I want to take some money out of my 401(k) to purchase a home. How do I go about this? Paul Solman: Take out the money and pay for the home. Your 401(k) is an account. You withdraw from it as you would any other. There are only two rubs. One, if you're less than 59 and a half, you will be required to pay a 10 percent penalty on the amount for early withdrawal. Second, no matter your age, you'll have to pay taxes on the withdrawal just as if it were regular income. The advantages of a 401(k), IRA or similar "tax-deferred" account are that you don't have to pay taxes on its growth -- assuming there is growth. But that's only until you withdraw money from the account, at which point you have to pay taxes. Should you or shouldn't you? The decision depends on a number of factors, and I have a Q-and-A coming up on this subject soon. But one factor is the tax rate now, compared to the tax rate at the time of withdrawal. It is assumed that people will earn less in retirement than while working, and so their marginal tax rate -- the highest rate they pay -- will go down. But what if tax rates go up between now and the day you hit 59 and a half? By the way, there is another alternative to withdrawing while still accessing your retirement money: to borrow from your retirement account. Yes, you have to pay interest. But the beauty of it is, you pay back the interest to the account, i.e., to yourself. I did this once to buy a new house before getting the money from selling the old one. Worked like a charm. This entry is cross-posted on the Rundown- NewsHour's blog of news and insight.
-- Posted June 28, 2012 | Comments ( ) | Permalink
TrackBacksListed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Using a Retirement Account to Buy a Home, Plus a Paul Krugman Round-Up. TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/14128 Comments |
||
![]() |
![]() |
| |||||
|
|||||
| |||||
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | |||||