I read an article in The Wall Street Journal over the weekend that described the “rules” for accessing your money in an IRA.我讀了一篇文章， 華爾街日報在上週末所描述的“規則”訪問你的錢在愛爾蘭共和軍。 [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. “美國國稅局不提錢，讓您從您的個人退休帳戶，只要你取代它在60天內。 But if you miss the deadline, you have to pay income tax on the amount you took out.但是，如果你錯過了最後期限，你必須繳納所得稅的金額就可以取出。 (For folks under the age 59 ½, there is also a 10% penalty.)” （讓大眾在59歲半，也有10％的罰款。）“
What's wrong with this picture?有什麼問題與此圖片？
Here's what: this system assumes that the government has a right to your money before you do.以下是：這個系統假定，政府有權你的錢之前，你怎麼做。
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.當您節省資金為將來您買自己的時間，當你的生活數字你要么是無法或不希望獲得的生活了。
So you decrease consumption now and save for later.所以，你現在減少消費後保存。
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（生活實例）發生的，你需要訪問你的錢之前，你把59半，憑什麼美國政府已經奠定了10％的懲罰你，就好像他們已經做了你的忙“讓“您保存您自己的錢退休？
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.我不是說你不應該繳納所得稅的獎金，如果你把它拿出來早：延期納稅起初，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， 你的錢，如果你需要，政府不應該在的位置發揮財政需要法官和陪審團：當你需要它，你需要它，它是他們無關的原因。
The government exists to serve you, not the other way around.政府存在的為您服務，而不是相反。
You take it out, pay your income tax, and that's it.你把它拿出來，你的收入繳納稅款，就這麼簡單。
But a 10% penalty?但10％的罰金？
By what right?根據什麼權利？
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.那麼顯然，國稅局認為，它有一個第一，要求對您的勞動成果，因此，如果你不遵守其規則，他們得到的“懲罰”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.不過，如果你低於59 ½你是“允許”採取了最高一萬元的“罰款自由”作出了付款購買的第一個家庭或支付“合格”的高等教育費用。
How thoughtful of them.他們如何周到。
[1] [1] Kelly Greene (August 9-10, 2008).凱利格林（8月9-10日）。 “Borrowing From Your IRA Is Allowed but Is Risky.” The Wall Street Journal, p. “借用你的允許，但愛爾蘭共和軍是有風險的。” 華爾街日報山口 B2. B2。
{ 12 comments… read them below or （12評論...閱讀下面或 add one添加一個 } ）
You couldn't be more wrong on this.您可能是十分錯誤的這一點。 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.通過使用延稅帳戶像愛爾蘭共和軍你充分利用政府資助的一個機會，你的稅推遲到未來債務的條件下，您同意。 When you choose to violate those terms you are subject to the rules you agreed to.當您選擇違反這些條件，你必須遵守的規則您同意。
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.如果沒有這樣一個刑罰，然後使用個人帳戶或其他稅務遞延帳戶將是一個漏洞，使你的稅延遲繳納的任何後果。
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和罰金的稅收債務，這是因為被拖欠工資，申報入息已被推遲，額外的欠款，很容易超過10％。 So in reality the government is giving you a break by only assessing an extra 10%.因此，在現實中，政府是給你一個只休息評估一個額外的10％。
Don't put the money in an IRA.不要把錢的愛爾蘭共和軍。 Put it in a regular non-qualified account and you can access it anytime you want.把它放在普通非合格的帳戶，您可以隨時訪問該你想要的。
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：你一個協議，然後嘗試辜負它。 You don't like the IRA restrictions, then don't put money in an IRA.你不喜歡愛爾蘭共和軍的限制，就沒有投入資金的愛爾蘭共和軍。 Stop whining about how you made a contract and now don't like the contract.停止抱怨你如何訂立的合同，現在不喜歡合同。
What happens if you withdraw your money overseas?會發生什麼，如果你收回你的錢在海外？
Let's say you're out of the country for a year or more; doesn't the “income” from your IRA fall below the ~$80k minimum non-taxable level?比方說，你出該國一年或以上;沒有“收入”從你的愛爾蘭共和軍低於$ 80,000〜最低非徵稅水平？
“Government sponsored opportunity” to save my own money! “政府贊助的機會，”保存自己的錢！ As if I came into the world with a debt to the IRS.好像我來到世間的債務國稅局。 Give me a break.別逗了。 You guys are all missing the point.你們都是切中要害。 This post is not about what the rules are; it is about what the rules ought to be and why.這個職位不知道什麼是規則，它是什麼規則應該和原因。 With respect to this idea of “agreeing to the rules” or a “contract” in place, you really don't have a choice.關於這個概念的“同意規則”或“合同”的地方，你真的沒有選擇。 Either you do it their way or you don't get to keep your money or defer taxes.要么你做他們的方式或你不會讓您的錢或拖延稅。 My point: the whole system assumes the IRS has a right to your money before you do.我的觀點：整個系統假定國稅局有權你的錢之前，你怎麼做。 Now, do you believe that underlying assumption is valid or not?現在，你認為背後的假設是有效？
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，你沒有來到這個世界的債務向美國人民（誰，國稅局正在收集代表），但你決定繼續生活在這個國家，你正享受著各種福利和稅收是如何將這些好處支付。
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.這些利益是與（美國是最偉大的國家在世界上就我個人而言）的充分支付我的納稅人的錢，不要說我將來索賠勞動力代表我們的赤字。 But the principle in question is: who owns the fruit of an individual's labor?但是，原則問題是：誰擁有水果一個人的勞動？ The individual or the state?個人或國家的？ 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.二戰之前沒有一個與股份制，人接受他們的薪金，然後派稅英寸這是恰當的方式去做。 The reason living in America has benefits is because our political and economic systems, more than others, value the individual over the state.原因已在美國生活的好處是因為我們的政治和經濟制度，比其他的價值，個人對國家的。 If we lose that, we lose our advantage over other nations.如果我們輸了，我們失去我們的優勢超過其他國家。
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.如果您採取任何種撤出一延稅帳戶，並派往海外收益的金融機構必須保留顯著數量（我相信它的30％）和直接發送到國稅局。 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.您可以嘗試有錢發送到國內銀行，然後轉到海外，而這可能被視為洗錢所以你最好不要再回來規劃到美國，而不必處理了很多麻煩。
You guys talk about this like the govt has any right to take your money at all period.你們談論這所官立有任何權利，你的錢在所有時期。
Taxes=Slavery稅金=奴隸制
Arguing against that just makes you a good little slave.在反對的只是讓你一個很好的小奴隸。
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.我同意這是世界上最蠢的稅收規則上的書籍，按照權利，哦，所有其他收入所得稅制度。 It's your money.這是你的金錢。 The government has no right to tell you how you may or may not spend it.政府沒有權利告訴你如何可能會或可能不會花錢。 Forcing those who are “too young” to pay an extra 10% penalty is just plain stupid.迫使這些誰是“太年輕”，多付10％的罰款簡直愚蠢的。
PS~Agree with Jeffrey that taxes=slavery.私人秘書〜同意杰弗裡，稅收=奴役。
Coralie,科拉莉，
WTF do you mean you think I'm wrong, it is…….跆拳道，你說你覺得我錯了，這是... ...。
Oh wait, you agree?噢等等，您同意嗎？
How refreshing真是令人耳目一新