401k

[HowardRoark]

From what I understand, a number of you are hording baked beans in anticipation of the big "martial law" thingy or whatever. Well, if I were you, I would make sure you also stockpile a few rolls of toilet paper. Because soon, it would seem, we will have highly efficient government employees wiping our asses for us. Maybe that's what Barack is talking about with his government "service" project thing. Wipe assses for a year and get your college tuition paid.

At any rate, let's see; Education, Healthcare, Home buying, Mortgages, 1st tier of retirement saving (Social Security), Now it would seem we are too dumb for those complex 401ks...........and what are we going to do with all those cars that we (taxpayers) make?


Congress mulls major 401(k) changes
By Sara Hansard
October 7, 2008
A wide range of sweeping changes to the 401(k) system were proposed Tuesday at a hearing on how the market crisis has devastated retirement savings plans.
Chief among them was eliminating $80 billion in tax savings for higher-income people enrolled in 401(k) retirement savings plans.

This was suggested by the chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor.

“With respect to the 401(k), it appears to be a plan that is not really well-devised for the changes in the market,” Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., said.

“We’ve invested $80 billion into subsidizing this activity,” he said, referring to tax breaks allowed for 401(k) contributions and savings.

With savings rates going down, “what do we have to start to think about in Congress of whether or not we want to continue and invest that $80 billion for a policy that is not generating what we … say it should?” Mr. Miller said.

Congress should let workers trade their 401(k) assets for guaranteed retirement accounts made up of government bonds, suggested Teresa Ghilarducci, an economics professor at The New School for Social Research in New York.

When workers collected Social Security, the guaranteed retirement account would pay an inflation-adjusted annuity under her plan.

“The way the government now encourages 401(k) plans is to spend $80 billion in tax breaks,” which goes to the highest-income earners, Ms. Ghilarducci said.

That simply results in transferring money from taxed savings accounts to untaxed accounts, she said.

“If we implement automatic [individual retirement accounts] or if we expand the 401(k) system, all we’re doing is adding to this inefficiency,” Ms. Ghilarducci said.

Rep. Robert Andrews, D-N.J., raised the issue of which investment advisers are allowed to offer workers investment advice.

The Department of Labor is considering “loopholes” that would allow advisers to offer “conflicted investment advice if the advisers work for subsidiaries of financial services companies that sell the investments,” he said.

With American workers facing $2 trillion in losses from retirement plans over the past year and Democrats expected to gain seats in the House and the Senate, actions being contemplated by the committee are an important harbinger of what could come out of Congress next year.

[bobblehead]

I cashed out my 401k when reich (clinton guy) suggested gov't needed to take control of these vehicles so the evil corporations wouldn't screw us. That was '98 I believe, but I haven't funded any form of gov't retirement since.

Trust me when I tell you this. Dems can't wait to use our retirement savings against us...or better yet to "borrow" it, or change the plan to be gov't garaunteed. You get the picture. This isn't new, it has just been hushed up through the bush years.

[Bretsky]

no surprises from me at all on this; we're open game for a bunch of changes. What is that old adage ? We made our bed; now we have to sleep in it ? Something like that.

[mraynrand]

“We’ve invested $80 billion into subsidizing this activity,” he said, referring to tax breaks allowed for 401(k) contributions and savings.
-------------
I love how tax breaks are 'investments' by the government and tax increases for governmental programs are 'investments.' The govt. doesn't seem all that skilled 'investing' the people's money (see FICA). But that doesn't stop them from trying.

[falco]

i don't get this - so you could no longer contribute pretax dollars to the 401k? what about a ROTH IRA? that is already taxed.

don't most people even working at walmart have access to a 401k? And the matching funds that go with it? one of the best savings decisions a person can make.

FWIW, I don't see this happening...too good of a program and too many people beneftting

[HowardRoark]

i don't get this - so you could no longer contribute pretax dollars to the 401k? what about a ROTH IRA? that is already taxed.

don't most people even working at walmart have access to a 401k? And the matching funds that go with it? one of the best savings decisions a person can make.

FWIW, I don't see this happening...too good of a program and too many people beneftting

Just stay alert. The times they are a changin.

[Patler]

“We’ve invested $80 billion into subsidizing this activity,” he said, referring to tax breaks allowed for 401(k) contributions and savings.
-------------
I love how tax breaks are 'investments' by the government and tax increases for governmental programs are 'investments.' The govt. doesn't seem all that skilled 'investing' the people's money (see FICA). But that doesn't stop them from trying.

Invested?
Subsidizing?

Since when is our money that we don't pay to the government in the way of taxes an "investment" or a "subsidy" by the government?

I look at it just the opposite, the taxes that I do pay are an investment in the government. I am subsidizing the governments activities worldwide, not vice versa. I think it is time that we look at how well that is working.

After all, the money is mine to start out with, not theirs. I am entitled to all of it, unless I, through my representative government, obligate myself to dedicating some of it to others. There seems to be a view by some that all of what I earn belongs to the government unless the choose in their kindness to let me keep some of it.

[mraynrand]

. There seems to be a view by some that all of what I earn belongs to the government .

Welcome the the 21st Century. We're glad you are here. We need our monies.

[Kyle.McCarroll]

Wait! 401K's still exist?

[bobblehead]

“We’ve invested $80 billion into subsidizing this activity,” he said, referring to tax breaks allowed for 401(k) contributions and savings.
-------------
I love how tax breaks are 'investments' by the government and tax increases for governmental programs are 'investments.' The govt. doesn't seem all that skilled 'investing' the people's money (see FICA). But that doesn't stop them from trying.

Invested?
Subsidizing?

Since when is our money that we don't pay to the government in the way of taxes an "investment" or a "subsidy" by the government?

I look at it just the opposite, the taxes that I do pay are an investment in the government. I am subsidizing the governments activities worldwide, not vice versa. I think it is time that we look at how well that is working.

After all, the money is mine to start out with, not theirs. I am entitled to all of it, unless I, through my representative government, obligate myself to dedicating some of it to others. There seems to be a view by some that all of what I earn belongs to the government unless the choose in their kindness to let me keep some of it.

Patler in the RR...don't see that too much. I love the post with one exception. I do understand that gov't has some vital roles in keeping a country stable and prosperous and therefore needs some funding. But fuck they are getting carried away with it. Also, it is ALL of our duties to fund said gov't as we ALL benefit from it...exempting 40% of the populations from paying taxes while the "more fortunate" have to carry the load is kinda BS. I don't mind taxes, if they are reasonable and gov't is using the money wisely...they aren't.

We basically agree, I guess I just want to make it clear to liberals that most of us understand SOME taxes can be a net benefit, but that is not where our gov't is.

[retailguy]

FWIW, I don't see this happening...too good of a program and too many people beneftting


:D We'll see. The "politics" of class division don't have boundaries. Did you miss the part in the article where he says the "tax benefits" benefit the "wealthy"?

Yep, times are a'changin. That Roth IRA? It'll be taxed yet, just wait.

[Fosco33]

We will pay our tax on the 401k when it's withdrawn. We could also pay an excise tax if we withdraw before a certain age (59.5?).

I think that's enough - especialy when 401(k)'s have pre-tax maximum contributions (meaning I'll pay income tax if I save too much in that account).

Glad the gov't doesn't encourage me to save more - we have to support the economy and all. I'll be really glad when the gov't is there to take care of my every whim and lifestyle in the golden years. :roll:

Gotta 'love' double taxation proposals.

[mraynrand]

We will pay our tax on the 401k when it's withdrawn. We could also pay an excise tax if we withdraw before a certain age (59.5?).

I think that's enough - especialy when 401(k)'s have pre-tax maximum contributions (meaning I'll pay income tax if I save too much in that account).

Glad the gov't doesn't encourage me to save more - we have to support the economy and all. I'll be really glad when the gov't is there to take care of my every whim and lifestyle in the golden years. :roll:

Gotta 'love' double taxation proposals.

Wanna try for three? See if your family gets any of your monies when you croak. Count on the % death tax going up and the threshold going down. We want our monies and we're going to get them.

[falco]

there is nothing here to even substantiate this as remotely legitimate... when there is, i'll be concerned.

[Patler]

there is nothing here to even substantiate this as remotely legitimate... when there is, i'll be concerned.

I'm old enough to remember we there were no 401ks or IRAs for that matter. I also remember when the marginal tax rate was as high as 55%. These "benefits" came quickly, and can leave quickly, too.

[falco]

there is nothing here to even substantiate this as remotely legitimate... when there is, i'll be concerned.

I'm old enough to remember we there were no 401ks or IRAs for that matter. I also remember when the marginal tax rate was as high as 55%. These "benefits" came quickly, and can leave quickly, too.

certainly with the democratic congress there is a strong chance for many benefits to the wealthy being rolled back...but the 401k system benefits more than just the wealthy - in fact, the middle class would seem to have the most to lose from it being rolled back...it would take a lot of political capital to do so.

[HowardRoark]

there is nothing here to even substantiate this as remotely legitimate... when there is, i'll be concerned.

I'm old enough to remember we there were no 401ks or IRAs for that matter. I also remember when the marginal tax rate was as high as 55%. These "benefits" came quickly, and can leave quickly, too.

certainly with the democratic congress there is a strong chance for many benefits to the wealthy being rolled back...but the 401k system benefits more than just the wealthy - in fact, the middle class would seem to have the most to lose from it being rolled back...it would take a lot of political capital to do so.

Thursday, around noon, the market started coming apart. Dig into it. Find out what was going on behind closed doors in DC. That "enlightened" New School was holding court.

[Patler]

I love the post with one exception. I do understand that gov't has some vital roles in keeping a country stable and prosperous and therefore needs some funding. But fuck they are getting carried away with it. Also, it is ALL of our duties to fund said gov't as we ALL benefit from it...exempting 40% of the populations from paying taxes while the "more fortunate" have to carry the load is kinda BS. I don't mind taxes, if they are reasonable and gov't is using the money wisely...they aren't.

We basically agree, I guess I just want to make it clear to liberals that most of us understand SOME taxes can be a net benefit, but that is not where our gov't is.

I think we all understand that we have to pay something to have services for the common good. I never meant to imply anything different. I hope you didn't take it that way.

It just really irks me when those in government, or tied to the government, act as if they are being generous simply because they do not take 100% of what I earn. The questions should, whose money is it? and where does the "giving" start? The money is ors, and the giving starts with us. The government has nothing to "give" us. Maybe they can "return" money to us, but terms like "investing" and "subsidizing" do not apply in any way shape or form to a tax credit, deduction or exemption that a tax payer uses. If we allow that kind of thinking, we are already losing the battle.

[falco]

there is nothing here to even substantiate this as remotely legitimate... when there is, i'll be concerned.

I'm old enough to remember we there were no 401ks or IRAs for that matter. I also remember when the marginal tax rate was as high as 55%. These "benefits" came quickly, and can leave quickly, too.

certainly with the democratic congress there is a strong chance for many benefits to the wealthy being rolled back...but the 401k system benefits more than just the wealthy - in fact, the middle class would seem to have the most to lose from it being rolled back...it would take a lot of political capital to do so.

Thursday, around noon, the market started coming apart. Dig into it. Find out what was going on behind closed doors in DC. That "enlightened" New School was holding court.

i've got a better idea - you do it, then start a worthless thread about it.

[falco]

I love the post with one exception. I do understand that gov't has some vital roles in keeping a country stable and prosperous and therefore needs some funding. But fuck they are getting carried away with it. Also, it is ALL of our duties to fund said gov't as we ALL benefit from it...exempting 40% of the populations from paying taxes while the "more fortunate" have to carry the load is kinda BS. I don't mind taxes, if they are reasonable and gov't is using the money wisely...they aren't.

We basically agree, I guess I just want to make it clear to liberals that most of us understand SOME taxes can be a net benefit, but that is not where our gov't is.

I think we all understand that we have to pay something to have services for the common good. I never meant to imply anything different. I hope you didn't take it that way.

It just really irks me when those in government, or tied to the government, act as if they are being generous simply because they do not take 100% of what I earn. The questions should, whose money is it? and where does the "giving" start? The money is ors, and the giving starts with us. The government has nothing to "give" us. Maybe they can "return" money to us, but terms like "investing" and "subsidizing" do not apply in any way shape or form to a tax credit, deduction or exemption that a tax payer uses. If we allow that kind of thinking, we are already losing the battle.

patler - i agree 100%

[HowardRoark]

there is nothing here to even substantiate this as remotely legitimate... when there is, i'll be concerned.

I'm old enough to remember we there were no 401ks or IRAs for that matter. I also remember when the marginal tax rate was as high as 55%. These "benefits" came quickly, and can leave quickly, too.

certainly with the democratic congress there is a strong chance for many benefits to the wealthy being rolled back...but the 401k system benefits more than just the wealthy - in fact, the middle class would seem to have the most to lose from it being rolled back...it would take a lot of political capital to do so.

Thursday, around noon, the market started coming apart. Dig into it. Find out what was going on behind closed doors in DC. That "enlightened" New School was holding court.

i've got a better idea - you do it, then start a worthless thread about it.

I'll wake you when I see the whites of their eyes.

[Patler]

certainly with the democratic congress there is a strong chance for many benefits to the wealthy being rolled back...but the 401k system benefits more than just the wealthy - in fact, the middle class would seem to have the most to lose from it being rolled back...it would take a lot of political capital to do so.

For individuals, there really are not that many benefits for the so-called wealthy anymore, except that the marginal tax rates are not as oppressive as they were at one time. Most of the common tax advantages applicable to individuals begin phasing out at incomes between about $100K and $160K, depending on the particular program, and they phase out relatively quickly. Even very basic things, like itemized deductions, are limited; and I'm not talking about ultra high deductions, or individuals with mega-incomes. You don't have to be rich to be excluded from Roth IRAs, or from the tax advantages applicable to student loans.

I could argue that the truly wealthy really do not benefit that much from 401ks or IRAs because of the maximum contribution limits applicable to them. I know very typical families who can max out on those.

[bobblehead]

I love the post with one exception. I do understand that gov't has some vital roles in keeping a country stable and prosperous and therefore needs some funding. But fuck they are getting carried away with it. Also, it is ALL of our duties to fund said gov't as we ALL benefit from it...exempting 40% of the populations from paying taxes while the "more fortunate" have to carry the load is kinda BS. I don't mind taxes, if they are reasonable and gov't is using the money wisely...they aren't.

We basically agree, I guess I just want to make it clear to liberals that most of us understand SOME taxes can be a net benefit, but that is not where our gov't is.

I think we all understand that we have to pay something to have services for the common good. I never meant to imply anything different. I hope you didn't take it that way.

It just really irks me when those in government, or tied to the government, act as if they are being generous simply because they do not take 100% of what I earn. The questions should, whose money is it? and where does the "giving" start? The money is ors, and the giving starts with us. The government has nothing to "give" us. Maybe they can "return" money to us, but terms like "investing" and "subsidizing" do not apply in any way shape or form to a tax credit, deduction or exemption that a tax payer uses. If we allow that kind of thinking, we are already losing the battle.

patler - i agree 100%

me too, I guess I just am always fighting the lefts "greedy pig" comparisons.

[bobblehead]

there is nothing here to even substantiate this as remotely legitimate... when there is, i'll be concerned.

you have never heard the lefts favorite politicians use the term "means testing"????

[falco]

there is nothing here to even substantiate this as remotely legitimate... when there is, i'll be concerned.

you have never heard the lefts favorite politicians use the term "means testing"????

yes, in welfare programs, not retirement vehicles