Financial advisers' No. 1 worry: A Democrat in the White House

Investment News ^ | January 14, 2008 | Aaron Siegel

[AmericanMade1776]

Nothing worries financial advisers more than the prospect of a Democrat's being elected president in November, according to a quarterly poll by Brinker Capital Inc.

The fourth-quarter edition of the Brinker Barometer, which polled 236 advisers in December, found that 22% indicated that a "Democrat in the White House" worried them more than all other economic or geopolitical concerns.

Rounding out the list of concerns was "global unrest" (15%), "U.S. economic growth" (15%), "a terrorist attack" (13%) and "a recession" (13%).

When asked what their greatest tax concern would be under a Democratic administration, 81% of advisers cited a potential increase in the capital gains tax, an income tax increase and heavier taxes on dividends.

[Pining_4_TX]

Exactly! What have our wonderful Republicans done but spend? And if the candidate is Huckabee...

[RetiredArmy]

With a Marxist’s in the White House and the Marxist’s running the Congress, WHO NEEDS A FINANCIAL ADVISOR?? They will set your tax rate at 50%. Who in the hell, with a 50% tax levy will have any money to invest any way??? No one. You will survive on the 50% that the Marxist’s ALLOW you to keep. They may even replace financial advisers with social welfare advisers, those who will tell us where, what, and when we can spend our money. They might require us to donate part of OUR 50% to social causes also.

[RetiredArmy]

I expect at some point in the future, these money grubbers will change the rules on Roth IRA’s, and we’ll be taxed on that money when its withdrawn.

Actually, remember, it was Hillary's idea for the 15% one time tax of what we all have in our retirement accounts now, and then tax us as we start to withdraw it also. So, if you have $100,000, she takes $15,000 now and you get taxed on your remaining $85,000 as you start to withdraw it. I fully expect them to really push the SS retirements up in age brackets more also. I think they will do away with the early 62 retirement, and move it to 65 or 66 and then move the full SS benefit to age 70 and NO early retirement. IF you retire BEFORE 70, you just do it without SS. If you live to 70, then you will get a REDUCED SS because you retired before 70 and was not paying into the kitty.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Social Security has been a current-accounts cash cow for the federal budget. Theoretically that money is "invested" in government bonds to pay for the Retirement Boom (now beginning) echo of the Baby Boom. But of course although you can write an IOU to yourself for a trillion dollars, you can't take it to the bank - and the government has painted itself into that very corner with the bonds in the SS Trust Fund. The socialist fantasy has it that the government's ability to print or, by taxes raise, money is unbounded; the 1970s show you what happens when it tries to prove it. Stagflation.

If the government tries to pay Social Security for the Retirement Boom by selling those bonds it will have to print the money to allow the economy to buy them - or else people will have to disinvest in the stock market to buy them. As the Carter Administration demonstrated, the tradeoff is then between stagnation and inflation. The Democrats still don't believe it, tho - so we are pretty much doomed to have another Democratic administration which will prove it again. I confess that I thought that the Clinton Administration would fall into that trap, but the Gingrich revolution prevented it. But it is just a matter of time until the Democrats get control of the presidency and the Congress again.

And if we don't nominate a conservative for president (and perhaps even if we do) it won't be a matter of much time.

[henkster]

“I expect at some point in the future, these money grubbers will change the rules on Roth IRA’s, and we’ll be taxed on that money when its withdrawn.”

You are absolutely correct. My parents bought gobs of war bonds on the promise that if you rolled them over when they matured, there would be no tax on the gain. Now, they were going to buy the bonds anyway. But sure enough, when the bonds matured in the 1970’s, and my parents went to roll them over, the rules had changed and all the interest was taxed as income.

Never make investments based on promises of present tax benefits extending to the future. Once there is a sufficient pile of money there, greedy politicians and bureaucrats just can’t keep their hands off it.

[Non-Sequitur]

I don’t think they like it any time the same party controls both the White House and Congress.

[dearolddad]

Yes.. I was in the Congo line living Massachusetts... speaking of Taxachusetts, How about the “big dig” project.. 14 Billion dollars of Federal tax money and it has leaks and falling panels. Prime example of what Democrats can do with your tax dollars.

Relax!! It's only our money, if it was something important I'd get excited about it. /s

[Centurion2000]

I expect at some point in the future, these money grubbers will change the rules on Roth IRA’s, and we’ll be taxed on that money when its withdrawn.

Actually expect your 401K's to get swiped as well.