Posted on 11/21/2012 10:37:47 AM PST by blam
Government Sets Its Sights on Private Retirement Accounts: “Giant Effort to Redistribute the Wealth of America’s Older Citizens”
Mac Slavo
November 20th, 2012
A new effort by the Obama administration, Congress, the Treasury Department and labor unions aims to fundamentally alter how Americans plan and save for retirement.
Warnings have been popping up over the last several years about the possibility of re-appropriating the $3.5 Trillion sitting in private retirement and spreading those funds around to Americans who are deemed less fortunate.
This couldn’t possibly happen in America, right? At one time, most Americans also believed heath care mandates that force Americans at the barrel of a gun to surrender portions of their earnings into a universal system for all would never happen. Well, it did.
And now, those who would control and regulate every aspect of our lives are making a new push; one whose efforts will ultimately end in the seizure and redistribution the personal retirement savings of every American who has ever put money into a 401(k) or IRA.
This is no longer in the realm of conspiracy, but rather, public record.
A recent hearing sponsored by the Treasury and Labor Departments marked the beginning of the Obama Administration’s effort to nationalize the nation’s pension system and to eliminate private retirement accounts including IRA’s and 401k plans, NSC is warning.
The hearing, held in the Labor Department’s main auditorium, was monitored by NSC staff and featured a line up of left-wing activists including one representative of the AFL-CIO who advocated for more government regulation over private retirement accounts and even the establishment of government-sponsored annuities that would take the place of 401k plans.
“This hearing was set up to explore why Americans are not saving as much for their retirement as they could,” explains National Seniors Council National Director Robert Crone, “However, it is clear that this is the first step towards a government takeover. It feels just like the beginning of the debate over health care and we all know how that ended up.”
…
A representative of the liberal Pension Rights Center, Rebecca Davis, testified that the government needs to get involved because 401k plans and IRAs are unfair to poor people. She demanded the Obama administration set up a “government-sponsored program administered by the PBGC (the governments’ Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation).”
…
Such “reforms” would effectively end private retirement accounts in America, Crone warns.
“These people want the government to require that ultimately all Americans buy these government annuities instead of saving or investing on their own. The Government could then take these trillions of dollars and redistribute it through this new national retirement system.”
…
“This effort ultimately is designed to grab the retirement nest eggs of America’s senior citizens. This new government annuity scheme, even if it is at first optional, will turn into a giant effort to redistribute the wealth of America’s older citizens,” explains Crone. “This scheme mirrors what I expect the President will try to do with Social Security. He wants to turn that program into a welfare program, too.”
Via: National Seniors Council
With the re-election of President Obama, a majority Democrat Senate and powerful organization and lobbying from labor unions, we can fully expect legislation that will shift private accounts into the public coffers to become reality in the not too distant future.
In fact, the push to mold the perceptions surrounding this issue is already on, as highlighted in a recent Market Watch article which claims to explain the 10 Things 401(k) Plans Won’t Tell You.
Did you know, for example, that 401(k) plans aren’t supposed to provide you with full retirement benefits, and that they were originally intended to be “mere supplements” to other plans, and that they only “benefit the rich?” Not only that, but according to the article, no one can really tell you how much money you’re going to need; all of those math formulas and expert calculations were all wrong. Additionally, there are so many hidden fees that you’re losing hundreds of thousands of dollars to Wall Street (most of us knew that one).
And all this time, the millions of Americans who contributed their money to these accounts over the last three decades were under the impression that their accounts would one day grow into a retirement nest egg from which retirees could spend their days in comfort and relaxation.
Nope. We had it all wrong. Private retirement accounts were never actually designed to ensure that you could retire! Only a government managed retirement plan can ensure that you will have the money you need when you turn 59 1/2. Only they will be able to ensure you don’t pay excessive, hidden fees (even though they could have created legislation to require firms to overtly disclose this information int he first place). And, only the government can provide 100% full retirement coverage, not just supplemental funds. Oh, and they also know WHEN you should retire, currently 65 years of age.
It’s on folks. They are going to hit Americans from all angles on this one.
First, the political hearings that will claim only the rich are benefiting from private retirement accounts.
Then they’ll point out how stock market crashes and volatility put your money at risk. In fact, if we do have another market crash, look for this to be a key reverberation.
Then they put the spin machine into action, so that you think you’re getting unbiased analysis and truth.
Then they open the guilt spigot and make those who have personal retirement savings wonder if they are being greedy, and those who don’t have savings will direct their anger not just at the rich, but anyone who has put any money away.
Finally, they will pass a bill, which we have to pass first in order to know what’s in it, and it’ll be a done deal.
The government of this country is coming for everything they can get their hands on.
Those who study the Constitution and its history can probably tell you that the states have never delegated to Congress the specific power to tax and spend for retirement and healthcare purposes. In other words, given that Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution says nothing about SS and healthcare, the 10th Amendment clarifies that such issues are automatically and uniquely state power issues.
In fact, the only reason that FDR's activist justices got away with approving SS and other constitutionally indefensible federal New Deal taxing and spending programs inspried by constituton-ignoring FDR is because of widespread ignorance of the Constitution.
If your house is in a non-sECEding state,
your house will be worthless anyway.
Nope.
Anything the feds want to do is de facto constitutional if anyone involved can imagine/invent even the most tenuous link to Interstate Commerce.
The Interstate Commerce Clause is the dagger by which liberal justices have offered the United States of America as blood sacrifice to the false gods of power.
In blam's case, I know he is sophisticated enough to understand what I am after here.
This is an issue on which I have some continuing professional involvement. But in order to pursue it effectively, we need some evidence of current activity on the part of the Liberals--we don't have that.
The hearing referenced occurred some time ago--before the last adjournment. And it wasn't really much of a live hearing--it was a submission of written testimony by interested parties. I did not then (nor did anyone else) see the fingerprints of the Administration on the effort.
As to the policy argument, the people making the fairness argument are the extreme fringe of the Liberal community. Dr. Jim McDermott, member of Congress from Washington state has had a bill in both of the last sessions (McDermott is in fact a member of the extreme left wing fringe but the philosophical argument is not why he has the bill in).
At some point, it is conceivable that the Liberals might mount an effective effort to appropriate the assets in the tax shelter retirement plans (IRA; 401plans; etc.) but no such effort is apparent from anything that is in process at present. Such an effort, if it materialized, would be to reach the asset value to support the federal budget.
If there were any kind of credible effort on the part of the Liberals to support legislation, the professional tax community would respond. Such an effort is not presently apparent. So if you, Blam, or anyone else has any evidence of such an effort, please tell me where to find it--feel free to PM me or post it.
This is one issue I have the ability to do something about but it takes something more than a bunch of press releases by these Liberal Interest groups to construct a real threat.
I read there is $17T of retirement savings, pensions and other assets.
So the government just prints $17T. Done.
They’ve done essentially the same thing as steal your money, but they can blame the ensuing inflation on “greedy big business” and “the rich”.
It’s too easy to print, and nationalizing retirement accounts risks the guillotine.
They like the idea of taking your retirement money a bit better because they can punish “rich people” more directly, but in the end, they’ll value their lives (which would be at substantial risk) more than “other peoples money” and will simply print any amount they wish to pursue whatever socialist policies they want.
The outrage should be the same, but for some reason, it won’t be.
Why wouldn’t I just cash out now, take the huge penalty and go on a nice long vacation? After all, if the gubmint is going to steal it, what difference does it make?
Borrow as much as you can on your 401K and stash it. They take repayments out of your future contributions, so at least you'll have something. Whenever you can, borrow more and keep borrowing so the least amount is at risk.
Forget paying the penalties—or the taxes on your 401k. Just quit your job, setup an IRA outside the former employer, roll your 401k into your IRA and withdraw the money in “substantially equal payments” (an annuity) spread over 1 or more tax years. Mortgage all your assets to the hilt and bury the money where no one can find it. Don’t file your tax returns until the IRS comes knockin’ then don’t pay the taxes. They won’t be able to collect because all your assets are mortgaged. If just 10 million or so do this we’d break the beast’s back. Of course we might not like what rushes in to fill the void, but that’s another story.
To be fair oldies have, thanks to the fact that they are the voting bloc that most reliably votes, for decades rerouted the wealth if the working youth (or relative youth) into their pockets. It’s probably out of proportion to the perennial tax on savings, and certainly won’t stand with taxes to come given the hole we’re digging. Since oldies are statistically the richest group they will be hit, oh yes. I’m only saying thine hands are unclean.
“I converted all to what is essentially a cash fund...I don’t see a reasoning to have my retirement funds in the market any longer”
You may lose your shirt speculating on stocks, etc. You WILL lose saving in cash. Look who controls the money supply.
“I’ll fight to the death before they steal my retirement”
No one fought to the death to stop the Federal Reserve Act or SS, let alone the myriad other taxes that take away from your golden years. It rings false to imagine people dying for something as prosaic as 401ks, especially when they can get your money anyway.
I am selling all of my equities due to capital gains and dividend tax rate increases for next year, and I’m looking at a GIUL, it offers many advantages and is unlikely to get raided by the feds.
You don’t think they’ll squeeze property owners as well as retirement accounts? States are going bankrupt faster than fedguv, given their lack of central banks. They’ll raise consumption and vat taxes, surely, but the most popular target is always “unearned” income. I wouldn’t be surprised if “Progress and Poverty” suddenly gets assigned in schools again.
Failing that there’s eminent domain.
Stop it man. Your killin' me.
Stop it man. Your killin' me.
“receive unemployment...That essentially verifies you’re out if service”
What is the State’s obsession with unemployment welfare equaling unemployment? Okay, it’s the most “officia” indicator. But I’ve been unemployed several times ad never taken welfare.Does that mean it was all a dream.
That time we warned them “Don’t make us come back armed”.
I my book, you only get warned once.
“The only reason that FDR’s activist justices got away with...”
Actually, it wasn’t FDR’s fellas but the “switch in time that saved nine” which finally sunk the republic. The Civil War obviously remived the states’ as a legitimate threats, and anyway peogressives had infiltrated them, too. Congress and the presidency went black for good in 32, if not before, with heavy precedent from the two previous big wars.
The so-called “four horsemen” plus here and there the two miderates held strong through the early New Deal by striking down the AAA, NIRA, etc. They weren’t uniformly strong, however, and did sin in the Gold Clause cases, Home Building and Loan Association, etc. But to ask a orogressive tgey were all but “economic dictators” preventing government from doing anything to control the anarchy (such wild altrrnations of tyranny and negligence are common to the addled brains of leftism). Then one of them died and one of the centrists flopped to the New Deal side. And the flood followed.
I’ve yet to hear adequate explanation. History had it that they were cowed by FDR ‘s court-packing scheme. But that had already failed. Whatever the reason it gave us such horrors as Helvering, Wickard, Carolene Products, Penn Central Station, Korematsu, etc.
We love beating up on SCOTUS, and with good reason. Just remember that however bad it’s gotten they were the last castle to fall.
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.