Posted on 11/21/2012 10:37:47 AM PST by blam
The Obamacare ruling contradicts you, and it would seem the tax/spend power exceeds the commerce power. Then again, stealing your retirement won’t be regulation of nonexistent actioj, so the power will apply. But so would the taxing power. Baker’s choice.
Agree, they will do it before they announce it.
However, 50% - 55% is more what you will wind up with after taxes and penalties.
Little known IRS rule- if you are eligible to retire at your employer and you are in the year you turn 55, you can take out your 401K funds without a penalty. It’s the only time you can do this other then being 59 1/2. My years and my age make me eligible in two years to do this...I am thinking about do this...
Two words. Henry Bowman. Just sayin’.
***** “The COMMIES have taken over everything in this country, everything!!” ******
Not everything... I refuse to participate in ZeroCare and I will not pay the Fine so... I’m fixing to live in a Prison Cell but... I will have my own Number, they can change it... redistribute it, but what ever number they assign to me at that moment in time will be MINE.
TT
In my case, I think it’s our financial guy in CYA mode.
If you go on unemployment, then there’s documentation, from a government agency that essentially can’t be faked (at least not by the company).
The IRS sets a lot of the rules on 401(k)s, and even if this particular circumstance really doesn’t apply, nobody wants to argue with the IRS, even if they’re right.
I accept all of that as perfectly true. It’s the bigger identification of unemployment with receiving benefits of which this is only a part that gets to me. Unemployment figures, for instance, as you know are measured by who’s on the rolls, so that they can pretend the self-supporting (or family-supported, or whatever) unemployed aren’t actually unemployed.
Thanks for the various responses to my question.
I've known Henry for about 20 years.
"[C]annot happen by executive order?" We thought that Obama could not force major components of the "Dream Act" --which was rejected by Congress-- on an unwilling nation by fiat executive order. Not constitutionally, anyway.
But he did.
By who? The over 65 crowd? If we didn’t have a civil war by now I doubt we’ll have one because of this.
If he did there WILL be a revolution.
http://www.aitegroup.com/Reports/ReportDetail.aspx?recordItemID=560
http://www.aitegroup.com/Reports/ReportDetail.aspx?recordItemID=699
David,
These links point to two reports written in 2009 and 2010. They show that there is indeed a plan to transform private retirement savings into a government program. The first bit involves creating access to retirement saving, very benign. The second part is to funnel all the savings into government securities that provide retirement income, but are not liquid, and have below market yields. (in exchange for reliability?)
There have been bills in both houses related to this effort.
The third step is talked about, but not yet in the bills - converting existing retirement savings into the government program. It would be lots easier to do than the government confiscation of gold, which could serve as a blueprint.
There is no other reason to follow the convoluted approach of these bills than to have government control of retirement savings - future, present, and finally past.
There have been bills in both houses related to this effort.
The third step is talked about, but not yet in the bills - converting existing retirement savings into the government program. It would be lots easier to do than the government confiscation of gold, which could serve as a blueprint.
There is no other reason to follow the convoluted approach of these bills than to have government control of retirement savings - future, present, and finally past.
I read the reports. I agree with your fundamental premise--there is a strong center of gravity among the extreme Liberal fringe in this direction.
But it's a fringe issue at this point. Congress isn't going to do anything with the issue in any kind of current time frame. Having had two shots at the assembled center of gravity of several thousand members of the private technical tax community, for the most part, no one thinks it is a threat.
We know about the bills, we have read all of them. One reason people are not concerned is that the bills are all over the map. The Liberals are disorganized and don't have a concerted effort together. Doesn't mean they won't get there but coupled with the small number of interests involved on the other side and the fact that the other side so far is primarily motivated by a philosophical objective as opposed to a fiscal objective, they don't seem very threatening.
My own view is that it is a threat--but probably several years out unless we get the country turned around in the interim which I do not expect to happen.
If I could make a case in the professional tax community that it is an imminent threat, I could generate some real enthusiasm for an effort to respond. But many of us are intensely involved in legislative tax policy at the moment and don't see this as a clear and present threat.
I believe those links are to just the marketing pages for the reports...
The issue is not covered widely in the financial services industry.
According to Obama the elderly are a drain upon society.
Almost sounds like America will become like what Logans Run was all about.
I need a bumper sticker that says, “Have you kicked a Communist today?”
I agree there is no imminent threat. People that post it is imminent and we need to cash in our retirement accounts right away and take the penalty are ignorant or kooks.
David, I really appreciate you keeping up with this, thank you. One of my concerns as I told you before, is that I worked with a public emploee union for some time and was chairman of their pension committee and they really, really want their hands on private retirement accounts. They claim that poor misguided people that save for themselves just aren’t smart enough to invest and that poor people don’t voluntarily save so it is not “fair”. I believe the real reason is they want to pad their own underfunded plans because in the end they are guaranteed payment and non union people are not.
This study that some sites are picking up on is dated Nov 2012 http://obs.rc.fas.harvard.edu/chetty/crowdout.pdf
“Government employees have to live amongst us... they may experience short life spans if they try to steal our life’s hard earned retirement funds.”
You should look around at who’s on the barricades with you before you start saying things like that. :)
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.