Hearsay on Kitco from Rush Limbaugh "The Democrats have a plan to sieze/nationalize 401(k)'s and add them into a pool with Social Security"
Now I certainly don't respect the original source as a fount of truth, but considering the great theft of 1933 and the recent billions in transfers to elites, maybe it isn't too far from the truth.
Thoughts?
One hundred trillion Zimbabwe dollar note
jason4liberty: Hearsay on Kitco from Rush Limbaugh "The Democrats have a plan to sieze/nationalize 401(k)'s and add them into a pool with Social Security" Now I certainly don't respect the original source as a fount of truth, but considering the great theft of 1933 and the recent billions in transfers to elites, maybe it isn't too far from the truth. Thoughts?
Not far at all:http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f50/elimination-of-401ks-being-considered-by-congress-40013.html
"Powerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nation’s $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive. House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-California, and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, are looking at redirecting those tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute. A plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, contains elements that are being considered. She testified last week before Miller’s Education and Labor Committee on her proposal. . . . Under Ghilarducci’s plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year, adjusted for inflation. The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated. “I want to stop the federal subsidy of 401(k)s,” Ghilarducci said in an interview. “401(k)s can continue to exist, but they won’t have the benefit of the subsidy of the tax break.”
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Back when I was a little more naive and things were going better, 401(k)'s were good. Pre-tax money goes in, grows tax free, my company even matchs part. Flash forward to now, when now the money is "locked in" to the account and I can't claim it without a big penalty, and my choice of assets is relatively limited. And I have a potential threat of nationalization. It doesn't seem like such a good choice to me anymore.
However, the government planner/court intellectual that came up with the idea to get private money tied into electronic form and under threat - to use as a lever - certainly was a bright boy.
People save money without paying taxes! Of course the government cannot ignore it. Besides, they know that Social Security is almost bankrupt so they have to 'fix' it somehow without dreadful privatization.
Why not just nationalize 401(k)s? Think what you could do with extra $3 trillion!
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
Natalie: People save money without paying taxes! Of course the government cannot ignore it. Besides, they know that Social Security is almost bankrupt so they have to 'fix' it somehow without dreadful privatization. Why not just nationalize 401(k)s? Think what you could do with extra $3 trillion!
After reading the following article, I'm not going to be surprised by anything the Obama Admin. does to the economy, aside from realizing how historically screwed my generation is when I watch an announcement on msnbc, facepalming all the while:http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north663.html
... The game of politics has always been two-fold: (1) to redirect tax revenues and power to your group; (2) to pass costs to other groups. This will never change. We have seen how losses have been passed on to taxpayers. Anyway that is where politicians assume. But I am not so sure. Losses will also be passed along to holders of U.S. government debt. How? Through rising interest rates, which push down the market price of government bonds. Through increasing prices, which are the result of monetary expansion. Through cutting off Medicare and Social Security benefits by raising the retirement age and cutting payouts. Once the on-budget, official debt increases, the pool of IOUs does not distinguish one debt from another. Supposedly, the Treasury could make a profit on the bailout. Taxpayers will not see a dime in refunds. The Treasury will spend every dime of profit, and then borrow a dime more against future earnings. The grand game of politics in the next Administration will be to redirect the flow of funds to new constituencies. But there are limited funds at stake. Most of the money is already spoken for. Existing programs will absorb all of the revenue and then some. New programs will have to be funded by increased debt. The grand game of the Administration elected in 2012 will be to avoid the bills that will be coming due. That will be the grand game of every Administration thereafter.
The game of politics has always been two-fold: (1) to redirect tax revenues and power to your group; (2) to pass costs to other groups. This will never change.
We have seen how losses have been passed on to taxpayers. Anyway that is where politicians assume. But I am not so sure.
Losses will also be passed along to holders of U.S. government debt. How? Through rising interest rates, which push down the market price of government bonds. Through increasing prices, which are the result of monetary expansion. Through cutting off Medicare and Social Security benefits by raising the retirement age and cutting payouts.
Once the on-budget, official debt increases, the pool of IOUs does not distinguish one debt from another. Supposedly, the Treasury could make a profit on the bailout. Taxpayers will not see a dime in refunds. The Treasury will spend every dime of profit, and then borrow a dime more against future earnings.
The grand game of politics in the next Administration will be to redirect the flow of funds to new constituencies. But there are limited funds at stake. Most of the money is already spoken for. Existing programs will absorb all of the revenue and then some. New programs will have to be funded by increased debt. The grand game of the Administration elected in 2012 will be to avoid the bills that will be coming due. That will be the grand game of every Administration thereafter.
I have no doubt that if the time comes when the government needs a lot of money (be it another world war or a big economic meltdown) they won't have any qualms about taking over 401(k)s and other retirement savings.