Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 127

Thread: ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Could Put Millions of Taxpayers Into ‘AMT Shock’ [W:66]

  1. #51
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,927

    re: ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Could Put Millions of Taxpayers Into ‘AMT Shock’ [W:66]

    Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
    I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
    Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.

  2. #52
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    re: ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Could Put Millions of Taxpayers Into ‘AMT Shock’ [W:66]

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    here's her actual testimony
    in case anyone is interested.

    - THE IMPACT OF THE FINANCIAL CRISIS ON WORKERS' RETIREMENT SECURITY

    Doesn't seem that she actually said what it's said she said.

    Funny thing that. How does that keep happening?
    What she actually said was to allow people to "swap out" 401(k) plans for government bonds, exactly what I said. Her plan was to guarantee bonds at 3% and make it a permanent shift, this empowers government over a formerly private retirement account. Did you not understand what she advocated? Now, if I sold someone a product that hurt their bottom line purposefully when I sold, IOW if they were making 5+ percent, and I sold them a bond at less for any gain, I would be in prison for multiple ethical and SEC violations. This woman is two things, a statist, and an IDIOT, unfortunately she isn't a criminal because this was an opinion, if those Democrats that liked her proposal pass a law allowing that crap they are protected by government, and either way former 401(k) holders would get ****ed.

    The way the Democrats want to get people on to the system is to take away tax benefits of the programs, if that doesn't work some have advocated mandating the switch. See, she advocated what I said she did, read the transcript again.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  3. #53
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    re: ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Could Put Millions of Taxpayers Into ‘AMT Shock’ [W:66]

    Quote Originally Posted by specklebang View Post
    Skimming the articles, I think the notion of "grabbing 401ks" is a bit excessive. Apparently, there are some modifications to the system that MIGHT be initiated but nothing indicates that your present 401K wil;l be tampered with or "grabbed".
    Nope, they want the plans surrendered in lieu of Treasury bonds at less of a percentage. IOW they want you out of the market and buying into government IOUs.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  4. #54
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,964
    Blog Entries
    5

    re: ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Could Put Millions of Taxpayers Into ‘AMT Shock’ [W:66]

    These don't mention confiscating people 401ks either.

    Dang! Don't that beat all? Who'da thunkit?

    It must be a really deep conspiracy to steal everyone 401ks. So deep that there's no record of it. That's the scariest kind of conspiracy right there.
    I may be wrong.

  5. #55
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,927

    re: ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Could Put Millions of Taxpayers Into ‘AMT Shock’ [W:66]

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    These don't mention confiscating people 401ks either.

    Dang! Don't that beat all? Who'da thunkit?

    It must be a really deep conspiracy to steal everyone 401ks. So deep that there's no record of it. That's the scariest kind of conspiracy right there.
    Please see post 57. Please reread the article you provided. - THE IMPACT OF THE FINANCIAL CRISIS ON WORKERS' RETIREMENT SECURITY
    Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
    I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
    Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.

  6. #56
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    re: ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Could Put Millions of Taxpayers Into ‘AMT Shock’ [W:66]

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    These don't mention confiscating people 401ks either.

    Dang! Don't that beat all? Who'da thunkit?

    It must be a really deep conspiracy to steal everyone 401ks. So deep that there's no record of it. That's the scariest kind of conspiracy right there.
    Okay, if people would forfeit their retirement accounts to be permanently enrolled in a "bond issuance", would they still have the 401(k) plans? No. If law forced them through loss of tax benefits into that program do they have a choice? No.

    So, are government agents putting a gun to their head for not cooperating? No, but it's the same ****ing thing if the right economics are FORCING them into the lesser program, and guess who pockets the difference........the government.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  7. #57
    Discount Philosopher
    specklebang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Last Seen
    06-05-14 @ 08:26 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,524

    re: ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Could Put Millions of Taxpayers Into ‘AMT Shock’ [W:66]

    Yecch. I hate to say it but maybe that's not the worst idea. The biggest problem I see are those crappy interest rates.

    My own brilliant concept was the Mandatory Savings Account and it would indeed be primarily long term bonds with maybe a portion open to limited funds.

    My reasoning was that if over the years, I had bought a bond each time I had $1000 accumulated, my Social Security account would have been pretty healthy.

    So, I guess I have mixed emotions about this but I'm pretty sure they won't confiscate your money. They might quit the 401K approach and energize the IRA type thingies.

    Still, I doubt anything will get done for the next 4 years....


    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Nope, they want the plans surrendered in lieu of Treasury bonds at less of a percentage. IOW they want you out of the market and buying into government IOUs.

  8. #58
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,964
    Blog Entries
    5

    re: ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Could Put Millions of Taxpayers Into ‘AMT Shock’ [W:66]

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    What she actually said was to allow people to "swap out" 401(k) plans for government bonds, exactly what I said.
    I didn't do to well in school. I had to go to summer school twice and I graduated with just over a 2 point. But to me, allowing someone the choice of doing something with their money is different than confiscating that money.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Did you not understand what she advocated?
    I thought I did except for the part where it's supposed means confiscating people's 401ks. I am having trouble finding that section.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Now, if I sold someone a product that hurt their bottom line purposefully when I sold, IOW if they were making 5+ percent, and I sold them a bond at less for any gain, I would be in prison for multiple ethical and SEC violations.
    On what charges? Did you lie about the yield or something and thereby commit fraud? To me, selling someone something is different than fraud and is different than confiscating.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    This woman is two things, a statist, and an IDIOT, unfortunately she isn't a criminal because this was an opinion, if those Democrats that liked her proposal pass a law allowing that crap they are protected by government, and either way former 401(k) holders would get ****ed.
    That may all be true.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    The way the Democrats want to get people on to the system is to take away tax benefits of the programs, if that doesn't work some have advocated mandating the switch. See, she advocated what I said she did, read the transcript again.
    Still doesn't seem to be confiscating 401ks.
    I may be wrong.

  9. #59
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    re: ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Could Put Millions of Taxpayers Into ‘AMT Shock’ [W:66]

    Quote Originally Posted by specklebang View Post
    Yecch. I hate to say it but maybe that's not the worst idea. The biggest problem I see are those crappy interest rates.

    My own brilliant concept was the Mandatory Savings Account and it would indeed be primarily long term bonds with maybe a portion open to limited funds.

    My reasoning was that if over the years, I had bought a bond each time I had $1000 accumulated, my Social Security account would have been pretty healthy.

    So, I guess I have mixed emotions about this but I'm pretty sure they won't confiscate your money. They might quit the 401K approach and energize the IRA type thingies.

    Still, I doubt anything will get done for the next 4 years....
    It's THE worst idea. Anyone who takes the "guaranteed" three percent is locked into the scheme, there is no moving funds as you see fit, you forego your retirement planning decisions. Now, think about this, 1% return on SSI programs, 3% return on bonds, no other choices. You now have a combined 4% return, you can get that in an annuity, you can get that on a stock portfolio, and you can get that on a 401(k) in moderately bad markets. Not to mention if you stay active with your planner you can get better percentages when markets are good and go safe when things cool down, always making more for the fishing pole days. With this plan you get nothing of real value and no options.

    EDIT- the worst idea being the 401K grab. Mandatory savings are fine, but really do we want to further empower government morons to force people into their concepts of what's good for them. Plain and simple, the government is arrogant, run by idiots, and they are effecting real people. They need less power, not more programs and stupid ideas.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  10. #60
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,964
    Blog Entries
    5

    re: ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Could Put Millions of Taxpayers Into ‘AMT Shock’ [W:66]

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Okay, if people would forfeit their retirement accounts to be permanently enrolled in a "bond issuance", would they still have the 401(k) plans? No.
    If someone chooses toput their money in a different vehicle, has it been confiscated? No.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    If law forced them through loss of tax benefits into that program do they have a choice? No.
    I don't think that a loss of tax benefits is the same as forcing. Obviously, ymmv.
    The govt still wouldn't be confiscating the 401ks.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    So, are government agents putting a gun to their head for not cooperating? No, but it's the same ****ing thing if the right economics are FORCING them into the lesser program...
    Really not the same thing, ****ing or otherwise.
    Nor is it the same thing as the govt seizing the accounts either.
    I may be wrong.

Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •