http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/dems-target-private-retirement-accounts.html

Quote :

"Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers personal retirement accounts including 401(k)s and IRAs and convert them to accounts managed by the Social Security Administration. "

because SS has obviously worked so well.

Quote :

"Lauding GRAs as a way to effectively increase retirement savings, Ghilarducci wrote that savings incentives are unequal for rich and poor families because tax deferrals "provide a much larger carrot" to wealthy families than to middle-class families and none whatsoever for families too poor to owe taxes."

LOL

Quote :

"In a radio interview with Kirby Wilbur in Seattle on Oct. 27, 2008, Ghilarducci explained that her proposal doesnt eliminate the tax breaks, rather, "Im just rearranging the tax breaks that are available now for 401(k)s and spreading the wealth." "

sounds familiar

Quote :

"The majority of witness testimony during recent hearings before the House Committee on Education and Labor showed that congressional Democrats intend to address income and wealth inequality through redistribution. On July 31, 2008, Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, testified before the subcommittee on workforce protections that from the standpoint of equal treatment of people with different incomes, there is a fundamental flaw in tax code incentives because they are provided in the form of deductions, exemptions, and exclusions rather than in the form of refundable tax credits. Even people who dont pay taxes should get money from the government, paid for by higher-income Americans, he said. There is no obvious reason why lower-income taxpayers or people who do not file income taxes should get smaller incentives (or no tax incentives at all), Greenstein said. "

LOL x 2 - no reason? how about the fact that they already dont contribute to the public coffers?

Quote :

"Analysts point to another disturbing part of the plan. With a GRA, workers could bequeath only half of their account balances to their heirs, unlike full balances from existing 401(k) and IRA accounts. For workers who die after retiring, they could bequeath just their own contributions plus the interest but minus any benefits received and minus the employer contributions. "

:carlface:


to be fair, Obama has not publicly supported such a plan but these are the ideas being floated by the far left. Obama will have to respond to them in fashion and since he has carried the torch of inequalities in the class system and 'wealth redistribution' its not hard imaging his support of such a proposal.

[Edited on November 10, 2008 at 2:31 PM. Reason : . ]

11/10/2008 2:29:05 PM

down with the incentives for upward mobility... wait a damn minute.


What this will actually due is encourage no one to participate in this and instead just use regular brokerage accounts as opposed to any tax deferred accounts, because i'd still rather pay taxes on it then let an army of incompetent, corrupt jackasses manage my savings into someone elses pocket because they decided not to work as hard as i do.

[Edited on November 10, 2008 at 2:42 PM. Reason : a]

11/10/2008 2:39:51 PM

Why does this thread have Obama in the title?

11/10/2008 2:39:58 PM

You mean the stock market hasn't already done enough damage to my Roth IRA and my 401(k) this year?

11/10/2008 2:42:44 PM

Quote :

"Why does this thread have Obama in the title?"

probably unfairly.

however, a proposal like this stinks of the far left and a lot of Obama's ideology.

11/10/2008 2:45:16 PM

hmm

I think I said this last week and was told that this would never happen....
http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=547529&page=1

11/10/2008 2:51:27 PM

I skimmed your link and on the surface, I don't like the smell of it. However, I know many people near retirement had pretty big nest eggs they were sitting on that probably got halved this year and they aren't going to recover that money any time soon. Then, when you consider the past 13 years, the market has broken rank with its traditional and predictable rate of return over time, you have to wonder just how safe is our stock market. We've stopped producing things at home (US automakers and associated industries facing the prospect of losing another 2 million jobs) and when people aren't working they aren't buying. Say goodbye to the Chinese economy and cheap goods. Say goodbye to tech companies being able to sell all their gadgets and fun things we've been snapping up on the cheap lately. Where is the value in the stock market? If the country doesn't get back to a place of sound fiscal policy, 10 years from now we'll be talking about another asset bubble, more erasing of fake wealth, and a 401k right back where it started. Sounds like a great retirement!

11/10/2008 2:54:04 PM

so? there has always been risk involved with the stock market. there is risk with any investment. is it the government's job to wipe our ass too?

11/10/2008 3:19:36 PM

Quote :

"to be fair, Obama has not publicly supported such a plan but these are the ideas being floated by the far left."

Quote :

"Obama to seize private retirement "

Does not compute

11/10/2008 3:25:39 PM

The Carolina Journal is not a reputable news source. They are basically the right's version of The Independent.

11/10/2008 3:36:42 PM

Quote :

"You mean the stock market hasn't already done enough damage to my Roth IRA and my 401(k) this year?"

11/10/2008 4:02:39 PM

this would never pass. not necessarily because they wouldn't want to do it but more so because they realize that they would never get elected back into office if they were to do such a bold move.

11/10/2008 4:08:51 PM

Quote :

"Does not compute "

like I said, probably an unfair title to the thread...can I change it?

however, you cant argue the premise behind the legislation fits his M.O.

Quote :

"The Carolina Journal is not a reputable news source. They are basically the right's version of The Independent."

I dont know the motivations of the writer, but are suggesting the writer is lying about the quotes? she is quoting reputable news sources. other than the source, do you like the idea?

11/10/2008 4:12:46 PM

Quote :

"so? there has always been risk involved with the stock market. there is risk with any investment. is it the government's job to wipe our ass too?"

Are you dense? That's exactly one of the main reasons this idea has come to the surface. It's a great feeling knowing you've been diligently saving all your life, investing in the stock market, only to realize the nest egg you were sitting only is suddenly worth half. Guess life just has to suck like that huh? That's where this program comes in. You have forced savings but a guaranteed rate of return. Sure, savy investors would rather roll the dice that they can return 10% a year, but I know there are plenty of folks that would be quite happy with 5% (or maybe it was 3%) inflation adjusted guaranteed.

Personally, I'd rather do my own investing, but I'm also a bit worried the capitalist have sold this country out in the short term, and maybe for good, so I suppose a guaranteed retirement might start to look a little more attractive.

11/10/2008 4:33:46 PM

Quote :

"I know many people near retirement had pretty big nest eggs they were sitting on that probably got halved this year "

Then you know dumb people. You dont sit in risky areas close to retirement age. I mean i'm in fairly high risk/reward funds in mine and i'm not down close to 50%, but you can bet your ass, when i get close to retirement I'm going to be moving into much safer/stable funds/bonds.

11/10/2008 4:36:39 PM

^^

they tried that, its called social security. its worked out great, perfectly well funded

11/10/2008 4:37:44 PM

Quote :

"You have forced savings but a guaranteed rate of return."

like SS?

Although id still rather have my money is a privatized account through SS.

Dems want to do this for one reason.. tax revenue. THey are pissed that you get to invest your money without paying your income tax on it initially.

11/10/2008 4:38:22 PM

i don't think anyone could actually say that they like the idea without being a complete partisan hack. but being against the idea begs consistency. why is this idea not okay but other forms of, as some people put it, "wealth distribution" are okay? i feel that it is, but at the same time i can acknowledge openly that its a grey area which puts the internal consistencies of one's beliefs to test.

11/10/2008 4:38:52 PM

Quote :

"Are you dense? That's exactly one of the main reasons this idea has come to the surface. It's a great feeling knowing you've been diligently saving all your life, investing in the stock market, only to realize the nest egg you were sitting only is suddenly worth half. Guess life just has to suck like that huh?"

yeah comrade.

thats why you do your homework and diversify your investments. if you are 70 years old and all of your money is in stocks, you are a dummy.

people can get guaranteed rates of returns in CD's and savings accounts with banks. I, for one, dont need the fucking government holding my hand. any self-respecting person would agree with me.

11/10/2008 4:47:10 PM

its also know that you recoup 80% of your losses in the first year of a bull market. (on average)

11/10/2008 4:48:21 PM

i think the entire concept of wealth redistribution is a crock of shit designed to get votes and make some jackasses fill good about themselves for helping 'the little people'. I think every one of the politicians and supports bank rolling these ideas should just give all their money to those that need to have wealth distributed to them and leave me alone.


If you want more money to retire on, save more and save smarter, if you need more money now, work more and work harder. End of story.


^^
Yea, and if i look at my 401k options, the low risk/low return funds that have averaged 3-3.5% return per year are still getting around 3% this year. They are the non-aggressive safe your about to retire options. You know, for people about to retire. (did i say that enough this round)

[Edited on November 10, 2008 at 4:56 PM. Reason : ^^]

11/10/2008 4:51:49 PM

While an interesting idea, this could so quickly become a mess that it might not be worth the trouble. How do you calculate how much a person gets out of their 401(k): do you calculate based on just their contribution, their and their employer's contribution, the current value of the 401(k)? How do you deal with the variety of folks ranging from those like my friend who recklessly threw his entire 401(k) against the company stock in an attempt to game the system versus another friend who played very conservative with money market and bond funds? What about their equivalents who may have played this game for decades and are currently on the edge of retirement?

Personally, I'm uncomfortable with this at very least because it's converting one relatively unreliable system to another that's pretty much on the brink of insolvency. It really does feel like its punishing those who accepted the personal discipline to feed their 401(k) versus those who might not have contributed anything at all to their retirement. Its one thing to help out 401(k) types who might have had their retirements gutted by the markets, but this feels more like looting them to cover those who didn't bother to save.

11/10/2008 5:10:53 PM

my 401k is in the in the shitter

11/10/2008 5:48:31 PM

Quote :

"however, you cant argue the premise behind the legislation fits his M.O. "

the only obvious MO here is yours:

-- take any moonbat proposal you can find
-- attach Obama's name to it
-- claim is somehow "fits" him, with no evidence whatsoever.


this is a retarded thread even for you.

11/10/2008 5:55:24 PM

11/10/2008 5:59:43 PM

Those who were fool enough to vote for Obama deserve what they get, but everyone else will be collateral damage. This idiot is starting to flop before he's inaugurated.

11/10/2008 6:18:08 PM

Quote :

"the only obvious MO here is yours: -- take any moonbat proposal you can find -- attach Obama's name to it -- claim is somehow "fits" him, with no evidence whatsoever. "

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080924-does-ideology-trump-facts-studies-say-it-often-does.html

Reminds me of this study that shows people read headlines and believe them, even if the headline is a retraction of what they believe.

Looks like DaBird is trying to confuse people for dishonest purposes

11/10/2008 6:32:56 PM

Quote :

""Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers personal retirement accounts including 401(k)s and IRAs and convert them to accounts managed by the Social Security Administration."

what an idiotic plan. I do not retire for forty fucking years. If anything the market bombing is money in my pocket.

11/10/2008 7:12:55 PM

Quote :

" -- take any moonbat proposal you can find -- attach Obama's name to it -- claim is somehow "fits" him, with no evidence whatsoever"

are you incapable of any kind of logical talk about your party's intentions over the next 4 years?

no doubt the dems quoted are 'moonbats.' however Obama is as left as they come. that is a FACT. he campaigned on wealth re-distribution and taking care of the less fortunate...wanting to even the playing field. I have already said that the title of the thread is unfair, but how you can argue that this has nothing at all do with him is utterly ridiculous.

11/10/2008 8:29:13 PM

Quote :

"Reminds me of this study that shows people read headlines and believe them, even if the headline is a retraction of what they believe. Looks like DaBird is trying to confuse people for dishonest purposes"

did you even read the article? do you want to offer any kind of discussion on it?

I think it represents the liberal mindset to a T. we are all just idiots who cannot take care of ourselves....the government should do it all for us.

11/10/2008 8:31:17 PM

Quote :

"Obama will have to respond to them in fashion and since he has carried the torch of inequalities in the class system and 'wealth redistribution' its not hard imaging his support of such a proposal"

He doesn't have to respond to anything. The redistribution talk is much ado about nothing. That our system does and should redistribute income is almost completely uncontroversial.

I have talked tax policy with John Hood over at Locke and he, like just about everyone, is in favor of a redistributionist system.

John has pushed on more than one occassion a flat consumption tax, which is redistributionist since the rich consume vastly more than the poor.

To undo redistribution you would have to replace all taxes with user fees and/or head taxes that charge all citizens exactly the same tax. Who is really pushing for this?

11/10/2008 8:44:59 PM

Quote :

"Sure, savy investors would rather roll the dice that they can return 10% a year, but I know there are plenty of folks that would be quite happy with 5% (or maybe it was 3%) inflation adjusted guaranteed."

Then they should invest in different investments:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/products/prod_ibonds_glance.htm

Quote :

"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

11/10/2008 8:56:30 PM

^

I was getting ready to say there is no way you can get 3% on TIPS but I see the interest rate has surged recently. That is insane. I can't believe I haven't heard more about this.

[Edited on November 10, 2008 at 9:16 PM. Reason : .]

11/10/2008 9:05:09 PM

trying to nationalize people's retirement will hasten Obama's downfall quicker than anyone could hope.

11/10/2008 9:12:15 PM

You haven't clicked on a link yet. Stop being so ignorant you partisan hack.

11/10/2008 9:24:38 PM

This thread is ridiculous.

The article is based on testimony before Congress by a single person. Not a bill. Not a proposal by an elected official. Not a proposal by any party official. Not a proposal from a recent candidate. From the article, it sounds as if the GRA proposal testimony was balanced by other viewpoints.

The 'link' to Obama is based on a radio station interview from 2001--6 years before the GRA proposal was written.

Has anyone actually looked at the GRA proposal? The link is in the article. Employees and employers would be required to pay a combined 5% of your salary. The government pays $600 in the form of a tax credit and guarantees at least a 3% return. The account pays out as an annuity when you reach retirement age. The only mention of confiscating retirement accounts is made by the author of the article. The actual proposal says:

Quote :

"These plans will not be abolished, but under the Guaranteed Retirement Account plan additional contributions will no longer be tax exempt. We expect that many 401(k) plans will survive because high-income employees appreciate the automatic savings feature and the possibility of an employer match. Accumulations in 401(k) plans and other retirement plans that exist before the bill goes into effect will be treated under the old tax rules."

In other words, the GRA doesn’t take away your current retirement accounts, and it doesn’t prohibit you from continuing to invest on your own. It does remove tax breaks associated with 401(k) and IRAs.

I don’t like the GRA proposal but, for fuck’s sake, if you’re going to argue against it, argue against the actual proposal and not the incendiary tripe in the article.

11/10/2008 9:28:02 PM

Thats all the Republicans (ok, not all of them) on this board have been doing since it became clear Obama was going to be elected. Anything that smells slightly left leaning or different or tax raise-ish (even if it really isn't) and they add their stupid "he's gonna fuck the country up" 2 cents without being informed one bit. It's exactly why I'm not taking the time to entertain them on a cordial level and I hope I won't be faulted for that.

11/10/2008 9:38:43 PM

Because you and the Democrats (ok not all of them) on this board blindly defend anything Obama does without even listening to debate or another point of view. Anybody with a different opinion than yours is apparently a partisan hack.

11/10/2008 9:44:55 PM

Right, because when I said TWICE in this thread I didn't like the smell of this, it was clearly me trying to cover up my exuberance for Chariman Obama so you guys wouldn't think me a dolt.

11/10/2008 9:49:13 PM

yeah you did and then you've defended it in your following statements

Quote :

"I'm also a bit worried the capitalist have sold this country out in the short term, and maybe for good, so I suppose a guaranteed retirement might start to look a little more attractive."

So, you don't like the smell of it? But it could be a good thing? Which is it?

11/10/2008 9:56:40 PM

Oh wait. I forgot that we all immediately know all the details of how this thing will work (never mind it isn't even a "thing"), and we've vetted it all out for ourselves right here in this very thread and we've all taken an absolute position on this thing based on the sliver of info we have from some podunk website. That's what you guys do right? If it doesn't immediately strike you as well in good then it must be bad, and anyone who doesn't share this exact view of yours (regardless of what their view is), must be for it and sitting on the other side of the fence from you, right?

Now I can see why you voted for Bush. I bet when he was saying that "if you're not with us you're against us" stuff you jizzed yourself with glee at the absolutism of it all didn't you boy?

11/10/2008 10:06:43 PM

Quote :

" however Obama is as left as they come. that is a FACT. he campaigned on wealth re-distribution and taking care of the less fortunate...wanting to even the playing field. "

Haha, obama isn't unusually left for a democrat, and he certainly didn't campaign on "wealth redistribution." This was political bullshit manufactured by the McCain side to try and win an election, and you bought in to it.

11/10/2008 10:25:54 PM

IM GONNA GET RICH BECAUSE OBAMA IS GONNA GIVE ME RICH PEOPLES MONEY!!!!!!!!

YEEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

11/10/2008 10:45:15 PM

Honest question. Everyone says Obama isn't "THAT LEFT" and yet that publication (can't think of the name) that rates senators voting performance calls Obama the most liberal (or 2nd most) senator based on votes.

Who's lying here? Or does voting record not correlate to policy, b/c it seems like it does to me.

11/10/2008 11:18:55 PM

Or, here's another thought you didn't comprehend. Both sides have been pulled towards the center in the past decade+. So, he could be the most left of everyone in the center, and still not be that left.

I know it's tough to put the critical thinking cap on, but you should try it out sometime, you might like it.

11/10/2008 11:25:27 PM

Step 1. Pick your position.
Step 2. Craft ranking criteria to achieve position.
Step 3. Publish widely-promulgated article claiming the enemy party's candidate is the most liberal.
Step 4. Smoke cigar while mindless minions repeat your propaganda (shoutout to TKE-Teg).

--------
Example:

I have created ranking of politicians that have benefited the most from nepotism against all odds!

Survey:

__ Cocaine addiction in youth
__ Got through yale somehow(^)
__ Stationed in Texas during vietnam war
__ Deserted military post
__ DUI when 40 years old
__ Wife killed 2 people
__ Managed major league franchise poorly

AHA! According to our scientific ranking, George W Bush is the politician who has benefited the most from nepotism. No one else even came close!!!

[Edited on November 10, 2008 at 11:39 PM. Reason : .]

11/10/2008 11:29:32 PM

Laura Bush killed 2 people??

11/10/2008 11:48:37 PM

Quote :

"Employees and employers would be required to pay a combined 5% of your salary. The government pays $600 in the form of a tax credit and guarantees at least a 3% return. The account pays out as an annuity when you reach retirement age."

Such a system suffers the same problem as SS. Where is that 3% return coming from? As it is a government program, I suspect future annuity payments will come out of the tax rolls of the present. As such, the system will fail as the population continues to age, just like SS, will it not?

11/11/2008 12:03:03 AM

^^I don't know about 2, but I think she killed someone while driving drunk or something like that.

11/11/2008 12:11:18 AM

one person, her friend, was killed when she crashed her car into his while going through a country road intersection, in the dark. it was ruled an accident and no one was charged. they were both seniors in H.S. there was no alcohol involved, and no evidence of a coverup.

no matter how much some might want to make a conspiracy out of it, theres really no way this could remotely be considered intentional, or even criminal neglect. it was a tragic accident involving inexperienced teenager drivers.

i dont think it's at all meaningful to dig this issue up.




[Edited on November 11, 2008 at 12:44 AM. Reason : ]

11/11/2008 12:43:10 AM