I read an article in The Wall Street Journal over the weekend that described the “rules” for accessing your money in an IRA.我看到周末在华尔街日报的文章，它描述了“规则访问的爱尔兰共和军在你的钱”。 [1] [1]
“The Internal Revenue Service does let you withdraw money from your individual retirement account, as long as you replace it within 60 days. “美国国税局也让你从你的个人退休帐户的钱，只要你在60天内取代它。 But if you miss the deadline, you have to pay income tax on the amount you took out.但是，如果你错过了最后期限，你必须支付的金额可以取出所得税。 (For folks under the age 59 ½, there is also a 10% penalty.)” （对于在59岁半，也有10％的罚款乡亲。）“
What's wrong with this picture?有什么问题与此图片？
Here's what: this system assumes that the government has a right to your money before you do.以下是：这个系统假定政府有权利对你的钱之前，你怎么做。
When you save money for the future you are buying yourself time, a living when you figure you will either be incapable of or won't want to earn that living anymore.当您保存为将来您买自己的时间，当你的生活数字你要么是没有能力或不愿意要赚钱的生活了。
So you decrease consumption now and save for later.所以，你现在减少消费后保存。
But if something (life for instance) happens and you need to access your money before you turn 59 ½, what right does the United States government have to lay a 10% penalty on you, as if they had been doing you a favor by “allowing” you to save your own money for retirement?但是，如果事情（例如寿命）发生的，你需要访问你的钱之前，你把59半，又有什么权力，美国政府不得不躺在你10％的罚金，因为如果他们做了你的忙了“让“您保存您自己的钱退休？
I'm not saying you shouldn't have to pay income tax on the money if you take it out early: the taxes were deferred initially and need to be paid.我不是说你不应该支付所得税的钱，如果你把它拿出来早：延期纳税起初，需要支付。
But it is your money and if you need it, the government should not be in the position of playing a financial needs judge and jury: when you need it, you need it, and it's none of their business why.但是， 你的钱，如果你需要，政府不应该在发挥财政需要法官和陪审团的位置是：当你需要它，你需要它，它是自己无关的原因。
The government exists to serve you, not the other way around.政府存在的为您服务，而不是相反。
You take it out, pay your income tax, and that's it.你把它拿出来，你的收入缴纳税款，就这么简单。
But a 10% penalty?但10％的罚金？
By what right?根据什么权利？
Well apparently the IRS believes it has a 1st-claim on the fruits of your labor and hence, if you don't follow their rules, they get to “penalize” you.那么显然，国税局认为，它有一个第一，要求对你的劳动成果，因此，如果你不遵守其规则，他们得到的“惩罚”你。
However, if you're below 59 ½ you're “allowed” take out up to $10,000 “penalty free” to make a down payment on the purchase of a first home or to pay for “qualified” higher education expenses.但是，如果低于59 ½你“让你”采取了最高一万元的“罚款自由”作出了关于第一次置业时所需支付或支付的“合格”的高等教育费用。
How thoughtful of them.他们如何周到。
[1] [1] Kelly Greene (August 9-10, 2008).凯利格林（8月9-10日）。 “Borrowing From Your IRA Is Allowed but Is Risky.” The Wall Street Journal, p. “借用你的允许，但爱尔兰共和军是有风险的。” 华尔街日报山口 B2. B2。
{ 12 comments… read them below or （12评论...阅读下面或他们 add one添加一个 } ）
You couldn't be more wrong on this.您可能是十分错误的这一点。 By using a tax-deferred account like an IRA you are taking advantage of a government sponsored opportunity to put off your tax debt into the future under conditions you agree to.通过使用税，像爱尔兰共和军你正在利用政府优势赞助的机会，推迟到未来的条件下您同意你的税务递延账户的债务。 When you choose to violate those terms you are subject to the rules you agreed to.当您选择违反这些条款，你必须遵守的规则您同意。
If there wasn't such a penalty then using an IRA or other tax deferred account would be a loophole that would allow you to defer paying your taxes with no consequences.如果没有这样一个刑罚，然后使用个人帐户或其他税务递延帐户将是一个漏洞，使你没有延迟支付的税收后果。
If the government charged the normal interest and penalties on the tax debt, which is being paid late because the income declaration has been deferred, the extra amount owed would easily exceed 10%.如果政府收取的正常利息税，债务和惩罚，这是因为被拖欠工资，申报入息已被推迟，额外的欠款，很容易超过10％。 So in reality the government is giving you a break by only assessing an extra 10%.因此，在现实中，政府是给你一个只休息评估一个额外的10％。
Don't put the money in an IRA.不要把个人帐户的钱。 Put it in a regular non-qualified account and you can access it anytime you want.把经常就非合格的帐户，您可以随时访问该你想要的。
Here is how it works: you make an agreement and then you try to live up to it.下面是它的工作原理：你一个协议，然后尝试辜负它。 You don't like the IRA restrictions, then don't put money in an IRA.你不喜欢爱尔兰共和军的限制的话，那么不要放在个人退休帐户的钱。 Stop whining about how you made a contract and now don't like the contract.你如何停止了合同，现在抱怨不喜欢的合同。
What happens if you withdraw your money overseas?会发生什么，如果你收回你的钱在海外？
Let's say you're out of the country for a year or more; doesn't the “income” from your IRA fall below the ~$80k minimum non-taxable level?比方说，你是国家为一年或一年以上，没有“收入从低于〜$ 80,000最低非征税水平爱尔兰共和军下降”？
“Government sponsored opportunity” to save my own money! “政府赞助的机会，”保存自己的钱！ As if I came into the world with a debt to the IRS.好像我来到世间，以美国国税局的债务。 Give me a break.别逗了。 You guys are all missing the point.你们都是切中要害。 This post is not about what the rules are; it is about what the rules ought to be and why.这个职位不知道什么是规则，它是什么规则应该和原因。 With respect to this idea of “agreeing to the rules” or a “contract” in place, you really don't have a choice.关于在地方，这种“同意规则”或“合同”的想法，你真的没有选择。 Either you do it their way or you don't get to keep your money or defer taxes.要么你做他们的方式或你不会让您的钱或拖延税。 My point: the whole system assumes the IRS has a right to your money before you do.我的观点：整个系统假定美国国税局有一个正确的之前，你的钱你怎么做。 Now, do you believe that underlying assumption is valid or not?现在，你认为背后的假设是有效？
No, you did not come into this world with a debt to the American people (who the IRS is collecting on behalf of), but as you decided to continue living in this country, you are enjoying various benefits and taxes are how those benefits are paid for.不，你没有来到这个世界，以美国人民的债务（谁，国税局正在收集代表），但你决定继续在这个国家生活，你正享受着各种福利和税收是如何将这些好处支付。
Yes and those benefits (America is the greatest country in the world as far as I am concerned) are amply paid for with my tax money, not to mention the claim on my future labor represented by our deficit.这些利益是与（美国是世界上最伟大的国家，据我来说）的充分支付我的纳税人的钱，不要说我今后我们的赤字，劳动索赔。 But the principle in question is: who owns the fruit of an individual's labor?但问题的原则是：谁拥有一个人的劳动成果？ The individual or the state?个人或国家的？ Prior to WWII there was not a with-holding system, people received their pay, and then sent their taxes in. That is the appropriate way to do it.二战之前没有一个与股份制，人接受他们的薪金，然后派税英寸这是恰当的方式去做。 The reason living in America has benefits is because our political and economic systems, more than others, value the individual over the state.因为在美国生活了好处，是因为我们的政治和经济制度，比其他人更加重视对国家的个人。 If we lose that, we lose our advantage over other nations.如果我们输了，我们失去对其他国家的优势。
Re: anontrol回复：anontrol
If you take any kind of withdrawal from a tax-deferred account and have the proceeds sent overseas the financial institution is required to withhold a significant amount (I believe it's 30%) and send that directly to the IRS.如果你从一延税帐户中的任何一种，并退出了所得派往海外的金融机构必须保留显着数量（我相信它的30％）和直接发送到国税局。 You could try to have the money sent to a domestic bank and then transferred overseas but this may be viewed as money laundering so you better not be planning on coming back to the USA without having to deal with a lot of trouble.您可以尝试有钱发送到国内银行，然后转到海外，而这可能被视为洗钱等回来的美国你最好不要再规划，而不必处理了很多麻烦。
You guys talk about this like the govt has any right to take your money at all period.你们对像官印这次谈话有任何有权采取一切期间你的钱。
Taxes=Slavery税金=奴隶制
Arguing against that just makes you a good little slave.在反对的只是让你一个很好的小奴隶。
I agree that this is one of the silliest tax rules on the book–right in line with, oh, all of the other income tax rules.我同意这是一个关于书的最蠢的税收规定，按照权利，哦，其他所得税的所有规则。 It's your money.这是你的钱。 The government has no right to tell you how you may or may not spend it.政府没有权利告诉你如何可能会或可能不会花钱。 Forcing those who are “too young” to pay an extra 10% penalty is just plain stupid.迫使这些谁是“太年轻”，多付10％的罚款简直愚蠢的。
PS~Agree with Jeffrey that taxes=slavery.私人秘书〜与杰弗里同意，税收=奴役。
Coralie,科拉莉，
WTF do you mean you think I'm wrong, it is…….跆拳道，你说你觉得我错了，这是... ...。
Oh wait, you agree?噢等等，您同意吗？
How refreshing真是令人耳目一新