Movement to Scrap 401(k)s Gains Traction

[futurebeachbum]

Movement to Scrap 401(k)s Gains Traction

Be afraid, be very afraid. The government's been wanting to get at the money in qualified plans for years. This could be their chance.

First, they could tax the $ transferred from the 401k's. That would be a phenomenal windfall to be spent buying votes.

Second, they'd have this huge reserve of cash which they could factor into their budgets to declare the budget balanced (much like they've done with the SS balance)

Third, they can easily guarantee the return because anytime it isn't met, all they have to do is use that as a justification to raise taxes to make up for the shortfall. "Hi there, we're from the government and we're taxing you so we can pay you a guaranteed return."

Imagine how much more interested, talented and engaged the government will be in looking after our future than we could ever be doing it ourselves. After all, people can't be trusted with something as important as their future.

Imagine what liquidating all 401ks will do to investment in American business and the stock market. It will be a self fulfilling prophecy. "See, we told you investing in business was unsafe and the complete collapse of the stock market when we liquidated your 401ks proves it."

This will dovetail nicely with the mindset of "let's share the wealth" (but not the risk, the opportunity or the effort)

 

[beachmouse]

From my reading of the article, it's the academic and private sector policy wonks that are getting into the idea. The author could not find a single legislator who thought it was a good idea.

 

[tsutcli]

From my reading of the article, it's the academic and private sector policy wonks that are getting into the idea. The author could not find a single legislator who thought it was a good idea.

Yet!!!!!!!!! It's early. Give them a chance after the election and I'm sure this one will get a hearing. SS Part Deux

 

[chrisv]

From my reading of the article, it's the academic and private sector policy wonks that are getting into the idea. The author could not find a single legislator who thought it was a good idea.

You state that as if the author had expressed it. He didn't. This plan was presented to Rep. George Miller's, D-CA, and Rep. Jim McDermott's, D-WA Subcommittee On Income Security and Family Support this month:

“I want to spend our nation’s dollar for retirement security better. Everybody would now be covered” if the plan were adopted, Ghilarducci said.

She has been in contact with Miller and McDermott about her plan, and they are interested in pursuing it, she said.

“This [plan] certainly is intriguing,” said Mike DeCesare, press secretary for McDermott.

“That is part of the discussion,” he said.

While Miller stopped short of calling for Ghilarducci’s plan at the hearing last week, he was clearly against continuing tax breaks as they currently exist.

http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/25/83/58.php

It's much more real than many would like to let on.

 

[BeachSiO2]

Just from a process standpoint, I would not necessarily agree that it is much further along than expected. I am involved with a few groups that are often asked to participate in fact-finding presentations on Capitol Hill. These fact-finding missions are typically held on the House side and are good for legislators as they open up opportunities to publicly air some interesting possibilities to address current issues. However, the majority of them stop after the first round or two of subcommittee testimony. Specifically related to this discussion, it is taking place at the subcommittee level of the house also.

For it to become law, it would have to be reported out of subcommittee to full committee. Then it would have to gain the support of full committee and would likely be amended if it was able to even do that. Then be scheduled for a vote at the Full House level and gain full House support. Keep in mind that the Dems didn't want to touch the bailout bill and Pelosi didn't want to bring it to a vote without Repub support and this would be much more controversial. Moreover, I doubt this would have the support of many Repubs OR Blue Dog Democrats, who when added together could defeat the bill.

Not to mention, there would have to be a companion Senate bill that would have to be passed through similar steps. While I believe it is prudent to be concerned with any radical changes to our federal system, especially in regards to taxes and retirement, I believe it is too early in the process to get too worked up. If you want to begin to work against it, the best first step will be to see if there is any desire in the Senate for such a bill. Currently, I have not seen any.

 

[John R]

First, they could tax the $ transferred from the 401k's. That would be a phenomenal windfall to be spent buying votes.

Buying votes for what? Who? How did you come to this conclusion?

 

[scooterbug44]

Buying votes for what? Who? How did you come to this conclusion?

Stop looking behind the curtain!

Obviously (because it is close to an election) the fact that an economist has a new idea and has presented it to Congress means we are all in great danger, the government is coming to take our money, and we must all run for our lives clutching our bankbooks!!!! :roll:

 

[futurebeachbum]

Buying votes for what? Who? How did you come to this conclusion?

Votes are purchased with entitlements (that's why they exist) and entitlements are funded with taxes.

 

[John R]

Votes are purchased with entitlements (that's why they exist) and entitlements are funded with taxes.

Maybe you can show me an example.

 

[30ashopper]

Stop looking behind the curtain!

Obviously (because it is close to an election) the fact that an economist has a new idea and has presented it to Congress means we are all in great danger, the government is coming to take our money, and we must all run for our lives clutching our bankbooks!!!! :roll:

Can you hook me up with a personal gaurantee this won't blossom into the real thing scoot, like, maybe paying my share if you're wrong?