Skip to comments.First the Health Care Mandate, Next a Retirement Benefit Mandate?
Posted on 09/21/2012 11:56:04 AM PDT by CharlesMartelsGhost
Businesses already feeling burdened by the weight of being required to offer employee health insurance beginning in 2014 under the Affordable Care Act now could have another government mandate to worry about.
Over the summer, Sen. Harkin (D-IA), chairman of Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, issued a white paper about a new proposal to require employers that do not offer a workplace retirement plan with automatic enrollment and a minimum level of employer contributions to automatically withhold a portion of their employees' pay and send such amounts to a USA Retirement Fund. In addition, these employers would be required to make "modest" contributions.
Thats the wrong approach. Workers retirement security must be protected, and employers ability to provide flexible and comprehensive compensation packages preserved. To achieve these goals, the private system must remain voluntary, flexible, and include incentives for saving. Any changes to the current system should focus on simplicity and innovationnot more heavy-handed government mandates.
The key element of the private retirement system is its voluntary nature. While there is widespread agreement on the importance of retirement savings and programs, not every employer is able to offer a retirement program. Employers with extremely small profit margins cannot afford mandatory benefits without losing employees. Concerns about liability and administrative burdens associated with retirement plans present additional obstacles.
The best way to bring these businesses into the fold is to encourage innovation in plan design that accommodates changing demographics and evolving workforce needs. No single plan design is perfect for every company or every worker. The freedom to innovate has enabled many employers to continue participating in the private retirement system and even offer more than one type of plan.
Moreover, a proposed overhaul of the current retirement system ignores its success. Today, 82 million households have defined benefit plans, defined contribution plans, or individual retirement accounts. These households have a combined $17.9 trillion earmarked for retirement. Income from defined benefit and defined contribution plans represented 19% of retiree income in 1975; by 2009, it accounted for 26% of retiree income. The number of retirees receiving retirement income from employment-based plans has also grown, from 20% of retirees in 1975 to 31% in 2009.
Lets build on the success of private retirement system not scrap it - by reducing unnecessary regulatory requirements, liability, and administrative burdens and requiring more predictability and consistency among the regulatory agencies.
Another Ponzi scheme for politicians to get their hands on wage earners' money.
This is the beginning of the confiscation of retirement plans. It will start with the requirement to offer the plans, with a small percentage being required to be invested in “safe” investments (i.e. government bonds). Then over time the percentage requirement will increase.
I also suspect they will revive their plan to nationalize all IRA and 401K holdings. That talk went away when they lost in 2010 but that does not mean they have given up on the notion.
To be followed shortly by the “absorption” of existing 401k plans, no doubt.
I thought we already had one of those. It’s called Social Security.
We already have one of those programs. It is called social security and its going broke.
You beat me by 8 seconds.
Thanks, Justice Roberts.
Brilliant minds think alike. ;)
Oooooo, what a wonderful idea! I mean Social Security has been soooooo successful?
In reality they are just looking a jumping point for their campaign to seize private retirement accounts like 401k’s.
Isn’t that what Social Security is?
great more paperwork and more accounting hours.....
As noted by Hillary’s ‘93 admonishment, regarding her HillaryCare plan:
If your business is too undercapitalized to fund their brand of socialism, you deserve to fail.
Social Security is nothing more than a tax, just like Obamacare and just like this hair brained idea of Demorat Harkins would be. Another way for the politicians in DC to get their hands on the citizens’ money.
“...Social Security benefits are not guaranteed.
They are not guaranteed legally because workers have no contractual or property rights to any benefits whatsoever. In two landmark cases, Flemming v. Nestor and Helvering v. Davis, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Social Security taxes are not contributions or savings, but simply taxes, and that Social Security benefits are simply a government spending program, no different than, say, farm price supports. Congress and the president may change, reduce, or even eliminate benefits at any time.
As a result, retirees must depend on the good will of 535 politicians to determine how much they will receive in retirement. And what could be less guaranteed than a politician’s promise?...”
Link to Social Security’s Sham Guarantee: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/social-securitys-sham-guarantee
If employers do not have a 401k option then the employees should be able to contribute to a personal 401k instead.
Already have a retirement mandate. It’s called social security and medicare.
Wake up people. The creators of phony so called “instruments” (paper called “collateral backed” but in reality not backed up by direct tangible collateral), are using the propaganda “responsibilty” speak, for anything now to support themselves, but not individual financial OWNERSHIP.
So no “their insurance” (not your own medical acct./ or pay as you go), then your “irresponsible”.
So no “their retirement” (not your own CDs, accts, etc.,), then your “irresponsible.”
So no “down payment” (not pay cash for), then cash for clunkers, with vehicle mandates. anything else your “irresponsible”
% down, refinance payments, “ownership” propaganda. In reality the fiancier owns. And no “insurance” = irresponsible.
Their retirement threshold (amt), anything else “irresponsible”
No child left behind “irresponsible”
Both big mandate parties.
They have a Constitutional mandate to create a budget ,too.
How many years now? 3-1/2 without one?
Thievin ,lyin bass turds. Harkin is a communist.
Where does it end?
Its obvious they want it all! If they actually would use it for what they said they would but for some reason they either rob the funds or redistribute it for theirnown interests. Get rid of all the lying, thieving b@st@rds
They can't have mine. I'm pulling every dime the first week in January - regardless of who is elected president. I'll take the penalty but that's all the government will get.
Isn’t that called an IRA?
A 401k has a $17,000 annual contribution limit, IRAs have a $5,000 limit, it is pretty hard to save for a retirement at $5,000 / year
I don't disagree. In the meantime, I'm keeping the tentacles of government off of as much of my money as possible. I'll quit my job if that's what it takes, we'll go gault and they can kiss off.
Why is it that the Federal Government thinks it has the right, much less responsibly to imposed upon we the people a “retirement system”?
Does vast amounts of unwritten text in the supposed 11 page Federal Constitution enumerate that as well?
At what point are we free to live & manage our lives as we choose again? What about my rights? What about my freedom?
As far as Washington’s concerned the Federal Constitution is just a piece of paper that says what ever they want it to say, and lets them do whatever they want to do.
There is no Constitutional law in Washington. Traitor John Joined the leftist to see to that.
Increase the cost of labor via more mandates, and that, of course, will lead to more unemployment and less government revenue. Brilliant.
Yet another human right?
I can’t help but wonder how many people are thinking like us right now.
And yes the government tentacles are tough to keep off.
Especially for us taxpayers.
I am currently trying to decide whether to keep my health insurance.
That’s a real tough one with the current law.