- Joined
- Apr 28, 2012
- Messages
- 21,004
- Reaction score
- 10,102
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
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.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?
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.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".
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.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.
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.
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.What she actually said was to allow people to "swap out" 401(k) plans for government bonds, exactly what I said.
I thought I did except for the part where it's supposed means confiscating people's 401ks. I am having trouble finding that section.Did you not understand what she advocated?
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.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.
That may all be true.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.
Still doesn't seem to be confiscating 401ks.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.
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.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....
If someone chooses toput their money in a different vehicle, has it been confiscated? No.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.
I don't think that a loss of tax benefits is the same as forcing. Obviously, ymmv.If law forced them through loss of tax benefits into that program do they have a choice? No.
Really not the same thing, ****ing or otherwise.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...
Not if you force them through legal changes to do it or lose their ROI.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.
Really? Right after she perjured herself stating there was a shrinkage in retirement planning she advocated for it. I read it right in her testimony.I thought I did except for the part where it's supposed means confiscating people's 401ks. I am having trouble finding that section.
Financial professionals have a legally binding fiduciary duty. If a complaintant can prove bad faith was exercised in replacing a plan there are fines, potential imprisonment, revocation of license, and possible civil lawsuits. In other words simply replacing one type of account for another to gain the selling party is ILLEGAL if the customer can incur a loss in finances or ROI.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.
It is.That may all be true.
Oh sure, "Do it or we'll tax your gains away" is perfectly voluntary. :roll:Still doesn't seem to be confiscating 401ks.
No, of course you don't see any of what I'm talking about. Nothing's wrong as long as a politician issues policy right? So if I told you, "invest in my product or I'll destroy your returns" or if I put a gun to your head and a pen in your hand it's perfectly fine, no coercion whatsoever. :roll: The government is advocating DESTROYING the ROI and advantages of retirement accounts UNLESS you go with their treasury bond scheme. Nothing wrong with that.:roll:If someone chooses toput their money in a different vehicle, has it been confiscated? 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.
Really not the same thing, ****ing or otherwise.
Nor is it the same thing as the govt seizing the accounts either.
There're all sorts of investment decisions which are made in part because of the legal structures we live with. But making those choices is still not the same thing as having your money confiscated.Not if you force them through legal changes to do it or lose their ROI.
Like I said, theire are other tools in the shed which are sharper than me. It'd really help if you could quote the language in question so I could find it more easily.Really? Right after she perjured herself stating there was a shrinkage in retirement planning she advocated for it. I read it right in her testimony.
So you're talking about facing charges for giving intentionally bad advice.Financial professionals have a legally binding fiduciary duty. If a complaintant can prove bad faith was exercised in replacing a plan there are fines, potential imprisonment, revocation of license, and possible civil lawsuits. In other words simply replacing one type of account for another to gain the selling party is ILLEGAL if the customer can incur a loss in finances or ROI.
Still seems that the folks who put their money in the different vehcile would have their money. Iirc, when a govt actually DOES confiscate your wealth, you don't have it anymore.Oh sure, "Do it or we'll tax your gains away" is perfectly voluntary. :roll:
AFAICT, I never said that there was nothing wrong with it. I said that 401ks won't be confiscated. :roll:Nothing wrong with that.:roll:
Um, locked into the treasury bond scheme, and all benefits of retirement accounts stricken by law is confiscation. Difference is no one is putting a gun to your head, just threatening your property(ROI).AFAICT, I never said that there was nothing wrong with it. I said that 401ks won't be confiscated. :roll:
Don't people speak English anymore?
Moderator's Warning: |
Enough with the personal attacks, the baiting and the flaming. This is your warning. |
Completely agree.How the heck is the AMT at $33,000?
Jesus. The AMT needs to die. It's an abomination.
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.
Completely agree.
The whole point of tax deferrment is to build up interest while you are working for retirement. It becomes income after you draw on it. A deferred account has the ability of accumulating more money with lower interest rates because the taxes come at the back end. So 4 percent is four percent, whereas you lose some returns in non qualified portfolios. Now, there were for a time ROIs of 13 and 14 percent, right now most plans are down BUT in an up market they will start producing better returns again. Under this bond lock down suggested you are in the program, period, you'll never make more or less on your money and you have no control over it. There are still retirement accounts producing good returns.Even in the worst case version of this, you aren't forgoing your rights and control over your savings.
The 401K is mostly about tax deferral. The ROTH IRA is a post-tax setup (I think).
The U.S. government has no business in financials, none, SS is 1% and realistically that is inflated, there is no actual money left in the trust, it's been gutted so the return is pretty much created off worker contributions. Sad thing is it operates just like a Ponzi scheme but has less than a fraction of the returns. That 3% is pathetic, again, you can get 4% in most stuff out there now, though some have dropped to 1.5 and 2.So, in the end, what if the USG got out of everything else (other than SS, a separate topic) and what we call a 401K is post-tax invested as you see fit?
Just puzzling this out....I get SS but everything else I have is just savings and I get less than 1% on those. 3% sounds delicious anymore (sad, huh?).
I'm not a fan of the income tax structure to begin with, but that's a different topic completely. The AMT in premise is based on a certain bit of logic, that of making it harder to gain advantage through tax shelters, only problem is it creates a situation where honest tax payers end up with a larger tax bill than without it, and 33K is way too low, you're right, the shelter schemes tend to come from much higher brackets.I get why it exists, and to a certain degree I agree with its premise, but it that can be solved by tax reform. And $33,000 is WAY too low. The necessarily shenanigans you need to get down to that level and still pay taxes after the AMT exemption is pretty absurd to the point where I doubt more then a handful of people are pulling this off. Having it hit such a low rate just makes regular folk have to deal with more crap. Taxes are already complicated. There is no reason to subject regular folks to having to do the AMT only to find out they are exempted by the large AMT exemption.
Both parties are playing chicken with our economy. Sadly with the slim margin of error the only thing new are the consequences.Obama is quite possibly an idiot. Besides them having apparently spent the same alleged medicare savings a couple different times already, Congress is not going to abdicate control of spending limits to the WH or anyone else.....
"Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner presented the House speaker, John A. Boehner, a detailed proposal on Thursday to avert the year-end fiscal crisis with $1.6 trillion in tax increases over 10 years, $50 billion in immediate stimulus spending, home mortgage refinancing and a permanent end to Congressional control over statutory borrowing limits.
"The proposal, loaded with Democratic priorities and short on detailed spending cuts, met strong Republican resistance. In exchange for locking in the $1.6 trillion in added revenues, President Obama embraced the goal of finding $400 billion in savings from Medicare and other social programs to be worked out next year, with no guarantees.
White House Plan on Fiscal Crisis Draws G.O.P. Ire - NYTimes.com