;-)
Posted on 09/01/2010 5:56:28 PM PDT by Orange1998
On August 26, the US Department of Labor issued a news release It lists the agenda for the joint hearings being held with the Department of Treasury September 14-15, 2010 on what is euphemistically called “lifetime income options for retirement plans.” The hearings are being conducted by the Labor Department’s Employee Benefits Security Administration.
I don’t like speaking in tabloid-style terms, but the unstated agenda of these hearings, as I understand it, is to push for the US government to eventually nationalize (confiscate) all assets in private Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) and 401K plans!
The US government is desperate to get its hands on private assets to help cover soaring budget deficits and debts, and this is simply the largest and easiest piggy bank that could be seized. The Investment Company Institute estimates that at the end of 2008 that there were $3.613 trillion of assets in IRAs and $2.350 trillion of assets in 401K plans.
For more than the past ten years, I have warned readers that the US government was eventually going to go after private retirement accounts. I considered that as the most important reason to avoid establishing precious metals IRAs. Very few other writers (Ron Holland being one) have picked up on this issue as early as I did. In fact, the mainstream media pretty much ignored the subject even after a House Committee held hearings on the issue in October 2008.
Obviously, an outright seizure of assets would meet stiff resistance from the public. So the confiscation will never be described as such by government officials. Expect to see terms such as “retirement income protection” thrown around. It is highly likely that such a program would be implemented in steps to help overcome public opposition.
The US government plan is to eventually take ownership of all assets in IRAs and 401K accounts and replace them with US government “Treasury Retirement Bonds.” In the October 2008 hearings, it was proposed that these bonds pay a 3% interest rate. Another major change is that, upon retirement, the individual’s retirement account would be converted into an annuity. Once the individual is deceased, the individual’s heirs would not inherit anything (similar to what happens now with Social Security “accounts”).
EXCERPT
http://news.coinupdate.com/us-departments-of-labor-and-treasury-schedule-hearing-on-confiscation-of-private-retirement-accounts-0431/
“I cannot think of a policy that will more quickly induce people to quit investing in IRA’s and other retirement accounts.”
They don’t care about that. All they care about is the $6 trillion in those accounts that they could use to buy more votes and keep them in power just a little bit longer.
The Supreme Court ruled Social Security income is considered Welfare and not guaranteed. It ruled the 14% withheld is legal under powers vested in the Federal Tax Code.
Larger Minority Role Sought In Managing Retirement Funds
(jesse Jackson 2002)article here:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/j/jesse_l_jackson/index.html?offset=75&s=newest
Indeed.
And the removal of the right to inherit is right up their alley, for the social justice crowd. This is exactly the type of plan that would redistribute wealth from the producer class to the parasite class. There are few things these leftists hate more than allowing people to pass their money to their heirs. (Unless it’s their money and their heirs) They have a fundamental belief that this furthers wealth inequality.
So a move like this is a two-fer, for them. It fills a financial gap and furthers their social justice agenda.
I'm a few years away from retirement, and I'm not the least bit worried about this.
What I am worried about is that the government will restrict further contributions to Roth IRA(s). I expect that to happen in the next decade or so, but I'd like to move as much as possible from my regular IRA to my Roth IRA.
I need to spread that out over as many years as possible after I retire (until age 70), to keep the marginal (and average) tax rate as low as possible.
That is correct. When you tell people that, they’ll argue that the right to SS is guaranteed until blue in the face.
But you are one million percent correct, it’s not guaranteed.
They only got away with that because the GM bondholders (as a group) didn't use the political power at their disposal to stop it.
The ironic part is that some of the largest GM bondholders were public pension funds for teachers, police, and other state and municipal employees. If those pension funds had mobilized their beneficiaries rather than trying to fight it in court, they would have stopped Obama in his tracks.
I'll tell you what's FAIR, Senator - YOU FIRST. Give up that cushy gov't pension and try to live on SS. Surrender that free healthcare and get in line for Medicaid with the rest of us.
“They try that crap and I fear a lot of people are going to get killed!”
I think you are mistaken.
There aren’t enough people with significant amounts of money in Retirement Accounts to cause a big enough stink. The socialists believe they can get away with it because there will be a few incidents where people cause trouble but most people won’t really care because it won’t affect them.
And I will come out of retirement making tar pots, bulk packages of feathers, and guillotines.
I cannot think of a policy that will more quickly induce people to buy Guns and Ammo.
Or worse!
ITS STEALING ...NO MATTER WHAT THEY CALL IT.
I “think” you are right about this. Little doubt that nobama and his socialist cronies have a lot of Sky Is Falling folks worried.
Now, if the dems somehow hold onto 1 Party Rule after November, all bets are off as the dems will really think they can get away with murder.
If the Federal Government did this - basically STEALING our 401K’s and IRA’s from us - the FIRST thing I’d do is NEVER pay another red cent to them. PERIOD. I’d change my w-4 form to no withholdings and never file taxes again. That’s just for starters.
THEN I’d DARE the Feds to come and get it. And I DOUBT I’d have to stand alone at that point. Am I wrong?! I think this would be a DIRECT ROUTE to IMMEDIATE revolt by “WE THE PEOPLE.”
Tell me where I’m wrong...? I’m sorry — but stealing is still stealing — and that violates God’s commandments and the Constitution about six ways from Sunday — and I just won’t stand for it. If I die defending my principles, my few possessions and my people — so be it... Where, pray tell, am I wrong — and HOW am I different from the Founders were THIS to come to pass?!
Riiiiggghhht. "Annuities" are quite possibly the worst 'investment vehicle' in the history of mankind. Anyone can buy an annuity now. All you need do is contact almost any licensed Insurance Agent for details.
That however, is not what's being discussed by these people.
Variable annuities certainly are -- the only people that benefit are the ones that collect the fees. But, fixed annuities are a good way to reduce risk, if you are willing to settle for a lower return.
Anyone can buy an annuity now. All you need do is contact almost any licensed Insurance Agent for details.
Yup, that's what I've been trying to tell everyone. The concept isn't new.
That however, is not what's being discussed by these people.
That's not what is being discussed by this blogger, who is trying to alarm everyone so that he can convince them to buy what he is selling.
But, it is what is being discussed by the government. I've read the original request for information/proposal (don't remember the exact name) from the Department of Labor. What they requested was feedback on imposing additional responsibilities for 401(k) administrators.
Right now, a few administrators offer an option to convert 401(k)'s into a lifetime annuity. If I were interested, I'd be a little hesitant to take that option without shopping around. But, the government is considering requiring administrators to offer that option to people that are cashing out their 401(k) or rolling it over to an IRA when they retire.
Another part of the proposal that I found interesting was the requirement to add more information to the quarterly 401(k) statement: an estimate of the lifetime monthly income that would be generated by your current 401(k) balance. I think there was also a proposal to project the monthly amount if you continued to contribute at the same level, until normal retirement age.
The point of this proposal was to make retirement planning easier for 401(k) account holders: they could tell whether they are on track to have enough income in retirement, or if they needed to save more.
Why would they need to sieze anyone’s accounts when they print it up by the pallet load at their leisure, or wire transfer it to themselves ? It’s just a fiat currency, I am more concerned with siezing of real assets such as Gold/Silver/Private Property (?).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.