Dems Target Private Retirement Accounts

15 years ago

By Karen McMahan

November 04, 2008

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

The current retirement system, Ghilarducci said, exacerbates income and wealth inequalities because tax breaks for voluntary retirement accounts are skewed to the wealthy because it is easier for them to save, and because they receive bigger tax breaks when they do.

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.

GRAs would guarantee a fixed 3 percent annual rate of return, although later in her article Ghilarducci explained that participants would not earn a 3% real return in perpetuity. In place of tax breaks workers now receive for contributions and thus a lower tax rate, workers would receive $600 annually from the government, inflation-adjusted. For low-income workers whose annual contributions are less than $600, the government would deposit whatever amount it would take to equal the minimum $600 for all participants.

In a radio interview with Kirby Wilbur in Seattle on Oct. 27, 2008, Ghilarducci explained that her proposal doesn't eliminate the tax breaks, rather, I'm just rearranging the tax breaks that are available now for 401(k)s and spreading the wealth.

<_>

Dave here;

Clearly, whether these ideas are loony-bin "trial balloons" sent out explicitly to be shot down so that "lesser demons" will later be accepted (a "good cop, bad cop" kind of theory,)... or whether the new regime would actually go so far as to confiscate and "spread the wealth around" from the savings of those who were diligent enough to perservere and gather them over the years....

IN EITHER CASE, the writing is on the financial planning wall! NOW is the time to get your funds OUT of the jaws of any potential confiscation, and into protected accounts least likely to be unilaterally "modified" by legislators.

Now is the time to aggressively play defensively!

Dave Donhoff

Leverage Planner

Here is a link that might be useful: Dems Target Private Retirement Accounts

Sort by:Oldest

Comments (27)

qdognj
15 years ago
Confiscate? Nope, the thesis as laid out by Ghilarducci says SWAP,not confiscate...here is a link to her thoughts

nevertheless,something i don't support...

Here is a link that might be useful: swap not confiscate
jakkom
15 years ago
Since the 401k system has not been able to replace private pensions for the middle class, yes, something probably will need to be done. However, a white paper to a Congressional committee isn't going to achieve much, if anything, at a time when the Republicans have managed to run up huge deficits, cripple the financial system, entangle us in two wars which are impossible to win, and left the incoming administration with rising unemployment and a severe loss of tax revenues.

This makes for a sensationalist headline, but I'd sincerely doubt it's high on the priority list of 2009 Obama government action items. Maybe as a voluntary program, but there'll be no big "money grab". Brazil did something very similar, I believe, a while back - I remember reading an article about it when they were discussing privatizing Social Security.
Related Discussions
Replace Firefox and Thunderbird with ? ?
Q
Comments (16)
Wake up, I and most religious groups of which I am not a member, have a right to express their views including support for a voter's proposition. As for Marriage, that "Term/Word" had a long standing definition, and it isn't any two or three or whatever can do whatever they want and call it Marriage. .If some what to do other than the traditional (long standing, how about a thousand years) meaning of the word Marriage, think up their own word. I don't lcare what they do. I am Married and I don't think I should have to explain what that means. I am not telling people what they can do I'm saying Marriage is already defined in practice and law. I am seeking an alternative to Mozilla due to that organization folding to those who would punish anyone who doesn't line up with their view, who, more than a few of us, believe the word Marriage is already in use and defined. Tax law and rights to inheritance and hospital visitor access, to mention a few, doesn't require the mutilation of the word Marriage.
...See More
Fed CSRS - Voluntary Retirement Account Question
Q
Comments (8)
colorcrazy- I'm retired under CSRS, and what I can tell you is that no one can answer your question with the info you've provided. You need some planning time with a retirement counselor or a private investment planner. When you retire, what will your expenses be, and what will your income be...over the long term? In my case, my annuity is sufficient that I have not had to drawdown my TSP or any of my other investments, and I doubt that I will ever have to. I made that determination before I put in my retirement papers. Maybe that will be your case, or maybe you'll have to work another 20 years. You won't know until you: 1) do a serious budget, 2) have a reliable estimate of your annuity, and 3) have an assessment of what you can expect from other investments, as well as the VRA...if you do it. And if you have the money to fund a VRA, you have money to do other things with it that may be just as good. Investing in a VRA might be a good idea, but it won't make the difference between being able to retire now or not. The one thing I can say with certainty is that, until you have a financial plan and it shows that you can retire and stay retired without having to take a job as a Wal-Mart greeter when you're 85, you'd best hold on to your job.
...See More
Retirement in Mexico
Q
Comments (18)
Hello, I stumbled across this forum while looking for some gardening information. I have lived in Playas de Rosarito (Rosarito Beach) in Baja California since 1986. From what I am reading, there are a lot of misconceptions regarding Mexico. Yes, there are currently problems with the "Narco Wars" and the border cities are experiencing more crime due to so many Mexican nationals being deported from the US. The "Narco Wars" are not something that Mexicans worry about in their daily life. Most of the persons getting knocked off are other bad guys. The average person is not being shot in the street. On the other hand, the US deported Mexicans, many who are criminals, are having an effect on life here along the border. We are experiencing more home burglaries; car thefts (which there were very few here until the late 90Âs); and, the occasional assault. Our police chiefs have a hard life as they are out to clean up the Narcos and the newly arrived criminals. Some of the chiefs get killed! Still, our crime rate here is well below that of San Diego, Los Angeles or any other medium to large size US city. We, who live here full-time, adjust our life to fact that this is the third world. What does that mean? We stay away from "crazy" tourist joints; make the communities where we live "hard targets" so that the petty thieves and burglars stay away from us; and, we heed the State Department advice of not driving around in the wee hours of the morning. The majority of visitors that have problems in Mexico make their own problems. They give the cops bribes instead of paying tickets at the station; they get drunk, disorderly and set themselves up for robbery or shakedowns; they do things that people living in third world countries would never do and because of their actions, these visitors experience problems. Before traveling from the first world to the third world, people need to know the difference between these worlds. ThatÂs how one stays safe. You are familiar with the rules in the US. A lot of them work the same here. People in the US that go to bars in rowdy areas and get drunk and disorderly get into fights and are sometimes rolled! People in the US experience burglaries; narco shootouts; gang drive-bys; dead people turning up in trunks of cars and bodies buried along the highway. They have school shootouts; postal employees going berserk and lots of other things. I donÂt know about you, but I donÂt frequent rowdy areas or bars in them; I donÂt get drunk; donÂt pay bribes to corrupt cops; stay out of narco or gang areas and try not to do things that might cause me to wind up dead in a car trunk or buried in a shallow grave off the road. The justice system here leaves a lot to be desired. Yes, the police can be corrupt. The district attorneys are mostly inept. On the other hand, if you get into difficulty on the street, people will respond to your cry for help. They donÂt just look out the window, they turn out in force! There are trade-offs. You make them every day in the states. We make them here in Mexico. Drive-by narco shootings affect us just about as much as drive-by shootings affect you in your cities. Burglaries and assaults bother us more than they bother most medium and big city dwellers in the states. We haven't been used to them. Prior to the past 7 years, most burglaries in my community were those that happened to unoccupied "weekender" houses that tend to be grouped together by the beach. Oddly, these folks never seem to put alarms into their houses. The pluses to living and/or retiring in Mexico are: 1. The tight knit communities; Mexican, American or mixed, you get to choose. 2. The slower pace of life in the majority of the country. Compared to most areas of Mexico, cities in the states are like clocks with their spring wound too tight. 3. Lower cost of living, although, the border cities are experiencing an upward push in prices. 4. Magnificent places to visit throughout the whole country. 5. If you live in the northern border region of Mexico, you can drive over the border and you have access to everything American.. 6. Most areas in Mexico are a gardenerÂs dream! 7. The Mexicans are friendly, gracious and have big hearts so long as you arenÂt an "ugly American" type of person. My point is that Mexico is by far a safer place for most people coming from any medium or large US city. Look at the Los Angeles newspapers; then look at the Tijuana newspapers; you will find that you are by far safer in Tijuana than L.A. DonÂt get caught up in the hype about Mexico that is printed in the US newspapers. I read US newspapers; watch US satellite TV; and, if I were to believe all the hype in the news about the US, I would be scared to death to set foot there. Read your newspapers and look at what you see from the viewpoint of a foreigner that might want to retire in the US. It would be scary, wouldnÂt it? I would be afraid to put my grandkid in school as he could be blown away by another student with an AK-47, a scenario that you wouldnÂt see here. If you are looking to retire down here, be discerning! DonÂt leave your brain at the border as many do. DonÂt flash your money; be overbearing; or, put people down because they donÂt have your financial wherewithal or education. Take the time to see how things are done down here. DonÂt believe what other "retirees" tell you about visas, bank trusts, rules, law and customs or confiscation of property. Most of them donÂt know much about any of that. If you rely on them and donÂt do your homework, you wonÂt find out that they donÂt know what they are talking about until it is too late to keep you out of problems you shouldnÂt be in to begin with. One case in point is Punta Banda in Ensenada, Baja California. The Americans blame everything regarding this problem on corrupt Mexicans. The problem was with the Americans. If they had done a little investigation, they would have easily found out that the land was in litigation. I donÂt know about you, but I wouldnÂt buy land in any country that was in litigation. See what I mean about some people leaving their brains at the border. I have lived outside the US for most of my 56 years. During that time I have lived in several countries. You can live well and be happy in most any country. Some are more difficult than others. Mexico is one of the easiest places in the world for Americans and Canadians to live in. Come down; check it out and enjoy. Now, back to gardening!
...See More
The Donner Party
Q
Comments (11)
It's not a book, but Ric Burns produced an excellent documentary for The American Experience public tv show in 1992 entitled, oddly enough, The Donner Party. The actual diaries and memories of the people involved are woven into the story with great effect. Really an amazing story - if it were fiction, no one would believe it! I believe it is readily available in the U.S., but I'm not sure about other places. I've been through the Donner Pass, which today has a highway going through it. I don't think anyone can travel by there without thinking of the nightmare that occurred there, and the more you learn about it, the more fascinating it becomes.
...See More
jlhug
15 years ago
What would such a swap from privately held 401k plans invested in stocks and mutual funds to a Federal held retirement plan invested in government bonds do to the stock market?

Plus, the proposed plan sounds like every worker who didn't have a 401k or similar plan would be required to put 5% of their pay into the government plan. If people can't afford to put money into a 401k or IRA plan now, what is going to change to allow them to afford to make that mandatory contribution?

I don't want the government messing with my retirement money.
dave_donhoff
Original Author
15 years ago
Qdog,

Thanks for the link.

This lady is loony...

To wit;

High-income earners get a much higher subsidy than anyone else because they are more likely to have a 401(k) and contribute more. This design has shocking results: 6% of taxpayers with incomes over $100,000 per year get 50% of the tax subsidies.

"Shocking"???? Really????

Question; What percentage of the actual TAXES are paid by the 6% of taxpayers with incomes over $100k?

If one group PAYS more than other groups, then wouldn't make no-brainer common sense that the same group gets an equivalent in tax breaks, when breaks are available?

You can't drive a parked car... and you can only get tax breaks to the degree you actually PAY taxes.

And, for all this effort, the nation gets no extra savings and workers no extra retirement security (see Appendix).

The nation is in extremely deep DEBT... none of our politicians have even WHISPERED any hope of cutting back real spending below revenues to the point where we can even get OUT of debt, let alone accumulate SAVINGS as a nation.

As for the actual WORKERS... we all have as much savings as we've been committed to having. Nothing any government can actually do about that.

She goes on & on majestically describing the benefits of a Life Annuity. FINE! If you are REALLY hellbent on annuities, do it with a company that is answerable to its shareholders, a publically traded life insurance company. The danger in this author's proposals is the idea of letting the POLITICIANS mind the till of the funds for the annuities.

We can't even get the Federal Reserve to honestly disclose RIGHT NOW how they are spending our so-called "bailout money" we've authorized for them.....

HOW ON GODS GREEN EARTH are we to expect Congress-Critters to disclose the full management of the accumulated annuity funding? That cookie jar is just WAY to massively tempting to the larsenous thieves we send to Capital Hill.

Once again, you can't "legislate" good habits for the unwashed drabble. The people who do not have the desire to build themselves a secure nest egg will not respect any system that forcefully does it for them, and the costs of their disrespect (which will be far greater than just the monetary deposits) will be wrongfully shouldered by those who ARE self-respectful....

... At least until the self-respectful "get the name of the game" and learn to circumvent the legislated lunacy... as has always been the ultimate results.

You can't fight the laws of economics any more successfully than you can fight the law of gravity. Everything eventually reverts to its natural cycles.

Cheers,
Dave
mnk716
15 years ago
as stated above this was a white paper mostly dealing with the issues of inequality with the tax subsidies of 401ks.

why do workers with 401ks get to put in $15.5k a year but only $5k in an IRA which is usually the only option for poor workers. some will mention variable annuities & other life insurance "savings" but these are very expensive for the features it provides.

there is no way that any admin or congress would force the removal of subsidies of 401ks or force workers to invest in new govt retirement plan unless social security is completely changed.

with companies either removing or not offering pensions there is going to be a real issue in the next 15-20 years on what to do with those who never saved or have minimal savings for retirement not including social security.

i do believe there should be a system of matched savings for those making under a certain salary (
tishtoshnm Zone 6/NM
15 years ago
jlhug, I believe that many can afford to save for retirement but it would also mean they would have less money for other things (which of course would further dampen the economy). Dh works for our state government and as a condition of employment, 7% of your paycheck goes to the pension fund. Because it is not negotiable and we never see the money, we live on what is leftover. In a way it is almost like a tax. There are plenty of ways we could spend that money but we don't get that choice.

I also would not like the government controlling my retirement money that way. It makes me very wary of the amount of money we contribute to the pension fund and what our benefits will actually be when he retires in several years. I do wish that there were more ways to encourage retirement savings. Perhaps part of that would be to decide what they are going to do with Social Security so that people have a better idea of what they can expect when they retire.
jlhug
15 years ago
Tish, I understand what you are saying. Military allotments are the same way. You never see the money, so on some strange level, you sort of forget that you have it.

My concern is the people who are already living paycheck to paycheck barely making utility payments, car payments and rent. What happens when Uncle Sam says "In addition to the taxes that are being withheld from your paycheck, we are going to take an extra 5% for retirement." How do those people who have alrealdy tightened their belts survive?

I think everyone should be saving for retirement, but am realistic enough that, unfortunately, there are many who simply don't have any extra money to do so.
dave_donhoff
Original Author
15 years ago
Hi mnk,

why do workers with 401ks get to put in $15.5k a year but only $5k in an IRA which is usually the only option for poor workers.

Great question... the "WHY" questions typically spin into endless spirals....

Example;
If we know that one law of economics is that whatever gets taxed gets repressed....
THEN,
WHY do we tax savings (at all, at ANY amount???)

WHY not allow people to shelter against taxation entirely by doing what we (as society) *WANT* them to do; Save for their own personal security?

Why, WHY, WHYYYYY!!!

some will mention variable annuities & other life insurance "savings" but these are very expensive for the features it provides.

"Very expensive" is relative I suppose... are insured-principal strategies (cash value life (tax free) and annuities (tax deferred),) which incur the insurance premium fees themselves REALLY more expensive than trying to get the same results with the government managing the insurance coverage? I suspect not.

AGAIN, we simply have to decide what we REALLY want, as a society, and simply APPLY the laws of economics;

TAX what you wish to repress,
SUBSIDIZE what you wish to increase.

Not all that incredibly complicated, really. The problem occurs when people decide they want to use taxation as a "fairness" and a "redistribution" weapon on the population. That's where the corruption of economics occurs.

Cheers,
Dave
raee_gw zone 5b-6a Ohio
15 years ago
When higher income tax-payers have saved/invested in 401ks, and start pulling out their earnings, is that not treated as income and taxed, and at a certain level reduces their SS payment? If so, I would call that one way that the system re-balances. As much as you can balance a Ponzi scheme like Social Security, anyway.
marys1000
15 years ago
All my money is in TSP which every administration and politician has been slavering to borrow from. Now that we have run up a huge debt, gotten rid of all our jobs and socialized banks and industry and are still short with every company and state running to the govt for a bailout (latest is Ohio wanting a govt bailout for unemployment) I doubt anyone will be able to stave off the govt "borrowing" my govt 401k money. Course my "pension" is tiny. Don't know what will happen or what to do.
eal51
15 years ago
Now I have a different question on this topic.

Who says the government has any right to either swap or take away 401's, Roths's and IRA's? Are not these items considered private property?

It's my money in those accounts. No one else put any of their money in. Therefore, I consider them like my savings and checking accounts - private property - MINE! The government can't take my checking and savings accounts unless I'm sued or something. There has to be due process and legal recourse. I would think the same would occur in this scenario.

So Ghilarducci may be throwing up a smoke screen, but the thought of the government taking something that is not theirs is a bad sign of things to come.

Enjoy the journey.
eal51 in western CT
jakkom
15 years ago
Again, this is a white paper. The suggestions simply won't fly in the real political world, so there's no need to get excited over what is Dave's rather sensationalist title, but in the end will be a non-issue.

Like privatization of SS accounts, anything like this will only come into being on a voluntary basis. In the end, you would still be responsible for making the decisions about your own retirement.

There are some people who would no doubt feel better if they got a guaranteed government return, as opposed to gambling in equities. Why else were panicked people buying Treasuries when short-term rates were .31%?
mulchmamma
15 years ago
Interesting, I can see many constitutional challenges in the next few years. Surely, it has to be a smoke screen for some other foolishness-just talk of raiding another massive trustfund in order to distribute the "wealth". Since when was the concept of sacrifice and saving become so unpatriotic? Has massive debt been better?

We will never be able to compete globally with this mindset.
bill_h
15 years ago
good reason to shoot the politicians 1st, the lawyers 2nd, and the preachers 3rd.
ladytexan
15 years ago
What would be wrong with telling people the truth - you and you alone are responsible for your retirement. If you want to have money for that, then save it. It's up to you. No tax breaks, no tax credits.

I also don't understand the concept of not taxing some income. If we are going to pay taxes on earned monies, should it matter if that money is earned through our labor, savings accounts, capital gains, etc? I don't think so.

In other words, get the government out of it altogether - no 'incentives' no 'subsidies'. Just get out and let people do their own thing.

I do understand we cannot allow people to simply starve if they haven't provided for themselves. What I do think, though, is that people need to understand they won't be living a very easy life when they get old, if they haven't provided for themselves.

It would take a total reeducation of the people of this country, but that's the only fair way.

Couple that with about a 75% reduction in government, and government involvement in every aspect of our lives and I don't think it would be so hard for people to save.
bill_h
15 years ago
hide your money soon! b-4 our new marxist regime takes over.
jakkom
15 years ago
>>b-4 our new marxist regime takes over.Inflammatory and inaccurate.
bill_h
15 years ago
Inflammatory and inaccurate.
if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, well then, ITS A DUCK!
western_pa_luann
15 years ago
Okay... but a duck is not a Marxist regime.
mnk716
15 years ago
"b-4 our new marxist regime takes over."

must be the 45% that believe the Mcain commercials.
lets be serious, there is no way that is ever going to happen.

a marxist regime would entail the government being in charge of all means of production. central planning for what, when & where things should be produced.

i do believe taxes will have to be raised at some point to pay back all the govt debt that will be needed to get us out of this mess.
jakkom
15 years ago
>>b-4 our new marxist regime takes overConsidering the fact that the Republicans have done their darndest to spend taxpayer funds on socialism for the rich, I fail to see how the middleclass would be any worse off under the Democrats - even assuming I believed Obama to be a Marxist, which I don't.

My father was a long-time Socialist and voted for Eugene Debbs every election. Amazing how people throw around words like "Marxist" and "Socialist" without really understanding what that means. The Republicans have been fighting Medicare for decades as a "Socialist" program - which one can argue that it is....but would you like to be without it in your old age?

As a member of the Socialist Party of America said about Obama, "He's not a Socialist. No Socialist would hang around with Warren Buffett!"
bill_h
15 years ago
i see little diff. between the rep. or dem. party, both a bunch of hacks. i have nothing but contempt for washington politicians.
edselpdx
15 years ago
>>b-4 our new marxist regime takes over.Ummmmm. Last I checked it was the BUSH administration putting the government in the business of bank ownership? And it's the BUSH administration and the rest of the Republocrats handing over OUR tax $$$ to a bunch of their cronies like GM and Citibank whose firms are going to go bankrupt because of their poor foresight and inability to meet market demands while paying their CEO's billions?

And lets see, it's the BUSH administration took a budget surplus in 2000 and turned it into a record-breaking deficit, while creating the biggest government and government debt in history, including an entire new cabinet-level beaurocracy (Dept of "Homeland Security") to suck billions of dollars towards creating an atmosphere of fear? Are you safer now than you were in 2000? Think again.

And the NEXT guys are the "marxists" and crooks who will create big government and mishandle our tax dollars? What planet are you on?

I'm just glad BUSHCO didn't get their hands on privatizing my Social Security. At least the money I'm losing in my 403b isn't my social security for the future, just my own damn money. Perhap I'll have something to live on in my old age, thanks to FDR.

I hope that Obama can provide us with the "Next Deal" to get us out of the Great Depression II that Bush has pushed us into. World War I was just known as the "Great War" until World War II came along. Now we'll have the "Depression I" and the "Depression II" to tell our grandkids about.
tishtoshnm Zone 6/NM
15 years ago
ED,I certainly don't find Obama to be Marxist and I'll save any discussions over what will happen with the bailout etc under him for the hot topics forum but last time I checked, the money that comes out of my paycheck for social security and medicare is indeed, my own d***d money as you so succintly put it. You are correct that Bush did not privatize Social Security so without a doubt, every paycheck I still continue to lose my money.econdary

Perhaps I am a bit on the cynical side, but I am not overly confident that when I retire that I can count on that money and hope for a secure future, irregardless of who is in office during the next 30-40 years. I highly suspect that benefits will be reduced during that time or taxes will go up significantly (again taking MY money).
jakkom
15 years ago
>>when I retire that I can count on that money and hope for a secure futureI'm not sure everyone is aware of this, but Social Security was ALWAYS designed as a pay-as-you-go system, not as a government oversight of what individual monies you paid into the system. This is why a declining birthrate worries economists so much.

I think the system will end up in slightly better shape than people think - the birthrate amongst my younger friends/co-workers is noticeably higher than in the Boomer generation. I worked at a dot-com for three years, and at one point more than 25 employees were expecting their first or second child (the company only had 300 people max at its highest count).

Remember that we Boomers were told back in the '70's that overpopulation was the biggest evil that would use up resources: everyone was advised to have no more than one kid, two at the most.
bill_h
15 years ago
well i didnt have any kids, so i should get a bigger share of the pie. none of my spawn sucking up resources.
arielitas_mom
15 years ago
"...none of my spawn sucking up resources."

yes, bill, and no kids to contribute to the system either.

Dems Target Private Retirement Accounts

Comments (27)

qdognj

jakkom

Related Discussions

jlhug

dave_donhoff
Original Author

mnk716

tishtoshnm Zone 6/NM

jlhug

dave_donhoff
Original Author

raee_gw zone 5b-6a Ohio

marys1000

eal51

jakkom

mulchmamma

bill_h

ladytexan

bill_h

jakkom

bill_h

western_pa_luann

mnk716

jakkom

bill_h

edselpdx

tishtoshnm Zone 6/NM

jakkom

bill_h

arielitas_mom

COMPANY

BUSINESS SERVICES

GET HELP

CONNECT WITH US

Dems Target Private Retirement Accounts

Comments (27)

Related Discussions

dave_donhoffOriginal Author

dave_donhoffOriginal Author

COMPANY

BUSINESS SERVICES

GET HELP

CONNECT WITH US

dave_donhoff
Original Author

dave_donhoff
Original Author