This stuff about Dems wanting to seize your 401k is disinformation.

I did some searching on the internet. I found out that the rumor started with Hugo Chavez wanting to seize their nation's 401K.

The claim is that Dems want to seize 401k accounts and put them in social security, in the name of spreading the wealth.

This is under the assumption that Obama is a socialist.

This is just another disinformation tactic by the Republican neocons.

What do you think about the neocons spreading this lie?

FYI, this is NOT a rumor. Here is the plan they are considering:
www.sharedprosperity.org...

If you already "did some searching on the internet" you should have been able to see plenty of apolitical reporting on what is actually being considered and the economic implications for all of us if this SOCIALIST idea becomes law.

www.investmentnews.com.../20081012/REG/310139971

Well actually it started, in America, with Rush Limbaugh. And all he has to go on is something a economic expert suggested.

"They're going to take your 401(k), put it in the Social Security trust fund, whatever the hell that is," Limbaugh woofed. "Trust fund, my rear end."

A slight problem with Limbaugh's report: Obama and the Democrats have proposed no such thing.

The proposal, in fact, emanated from a single economist, one of many experts testifying to a congressional committee.

Republican Response:
It's in the LA Times, how could you believe that!?
www.latimes.com...

Yes dear republican go back to your Rush Limbaugh, and when they don't take your 401k. We told you so.

[edit on 9-11-2008 by djpaec]

Maybe you might want to read another report. It sure doesn't seem to be a hoax!

www.carolinajournal.com...

Zindo

[edit on 11/9/2008 by ZindoDoone]

Not to mention the lady has written a whole book about it. Unless that is disinformation as well.

www.emich.edu...

I can see the government picking up on this and running with it.

The neocons are pretty desperate. How dare they spread this nasty lie that originated from of foreign origin? This is poor taste and so low.

reply to post by ZindoDoone


First thing I see wrong with that right off the bat, that's now what the hearing was about.

And in all actuality what she proposed was ending tax breaks for 401k's.
www.workforce.com...

At that hearing, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Peter Orszag, testified that some $2 trillion in retirement savings has been lost over the past 15 months.

Under Ghilarducci’s plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year, adjusted for inflation.

The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated.

“I want to stop the federal subsidy of 401(k)s,” Ghilarducci said in an interview. “401(k)s can continue to exist, but they won’t have the benefit of the subsidy of the tax break.”

Under the current 401(k) system, investors are charged relatively high retail fees, Ghilarducci said.

“I want to spend our nation’s dollar for retirement security better. Everybody would now be covered” if the plan were adopted, Ghilarducci said.

So where's the part where they confiscate our 401k, cause what I read there says "401(k)s can continue to exist, but they won't have the benefit" of tax breaks.

We got a 10trillion dollar debt here, 400 Billion dollar defiicit, and to pile on 850 Billion for the bailout, 80 billion for AIG, 25 billion for the auto industry etc etc.
We gotta get the money somewhere.

What it does is take any incentive to invest in 401K's and since very little else is tax free they are defacto confiscating the use of the product. You've already payed taxes on what you invest, if you can be taxed again and again on the same earnings why the hell would you bother???

Zindo

reply to post by ZindoDoone


I'm just saying that people who take this stuff on the net too seriously should be reevaluating these pieces of information. They may or may not be true.

reply to post by ZindoDoone

reply to post by ZindoDoone


Actually you don't pay taxes on money withheld for a 401k. Taxes are deferred. Which I've always thought was disinformation because you will probably pay taxes on that money at a much higher rate than if you just have it taken it out at the time.

Plus given the state of the economy over the last 8 years my 401k is pretty much worthless now anyway.

reply to post by zlots331


Right, but saying that Democrats are doing it is disinformation. It's the entire Government itself. Nothing to do with Democrats. It's our system. and the way it's set up.

This 401K development should make folks a little edgy, if not downright grumpy.

It's bad enough that I began contributing to the social security fund in relatively strong 1964 dollars, only to be reimbursed in heavily debased 2010 dollars.

Trader Dan Comments On The Nationalizing Of 401(k)s

May 4, 2010 at 8:03 pm

Dear CIGAs,

I have heard rumblings about this for more than a year but up until now, did not pay those rumors much attention as in this day and age, there are all manner of things floating around in cyberspace.

However, the fact that this is now drawing Congressional Republican interest plus a formal response, tells me that there might actually be some fire behind this smoke. I cannot think of anything that the socialist-leaning politicians who now are in control of this country might attempt that would create more havoc, stir up more anger and set this nation on a course of internal dissension than this ill-conceived plot. - Full Text

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
This is under the assumption that Obama is a socialist.

I really wish American's would stop using this word like they have any concept of what it means.

Just please stop.

Your social security funds are already gone, there is more outgoing than ingoing. Medicaid is broke. The states are going broke. You will hit 100% GDP: Debt in mid 2011 and you are starting to see diminishing returns on every dollar you borrow from yourself.

You are paying for part of these EU bailouts. You've been paying constantly for bailouts for several years now and will be for the forseeable future.

Your deficit is massive and it's not going away any time in the next decade at least.

If you can't understand how dire your economic situation is or why the government would be wanting to tax anything they possibly can you've got some real issues.

Do not for a second think just because it's the USA that you can't suffer austerity measures or devaluation or that your government isn't going to significantly cut services and spending while raising taxes. They're already doing it right now.


Features of a banana republic

A collusion between the overweening state and certain favored monopolistic concerns, whereby the profits can be privatized and the debts socialized.

Devalued paper currency in the international community.

Kleptocracy -- those in positions of influence use their time in office to maximize their own gains, always ensuring that any shortfall is made up by those unfortunates whose daily life involves earning money rather than making it.

There must be no principle of accountability within the government so that the political corruption by which the banana republic operates is left unchecked. The members of the national legislature will be (a) largely for sale and (b) consulted only for ceremonial and rubber-stamp purposes some time after all the truly important decisions have already been made elsewhere.

...a money class fleeces the banking system while the very trunk of the national tree is permitted to rot and crash...
—Christopher Hitchens








[edit on 5-5-2010 by belial259]

[edit on 5-5-2010 by belial259]

If you *still* think that Obama is a socialist/communist, then you are poorly educated.

This is one topic I took a fair amount interest in, I thought I would share some information.


www.freerepublic.com...

Addressing a Democratic fund-raiser yesterday, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., told wealthy supporters the government will need to take money away from them for the "common good."

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Clinton said, according to the Associated Press. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you.

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Kerry and Clinton, Iverson said, are people who "believe the government knows how to spend your own money better than you do."

The Dems have held hearings over this since *before* the election. Since 2007, in fact. A briefing paper was submitted on how this could be done, and how to pull it off as "necessary" to save the economy.

The paper was submitted to the hearings, in which the writer participated.

www.sharedprosperity.org...


"On November 20, 2007, Dr. Ghilarducci participated in the Economic Policy Institute's latest "Agenda for Shared Prosperity" event in Washington, DC. At the event, she unveiled a briefing paper, Guaranteed Retirement Accounts, which outlines her vision for combining the best features of traditional defined-benefit pensions and 401(k)-style defined-contribution plans."

As of October, November, and December of 2008, they were talking about how seizing the accounts would net them nearly four trillion easily. Could this be the provocation behind the stimulus?

The claim is, it costs the government $80 billion a year in unpaid taxes on these accounts. How is it costing the government $80 billion in unpaid taxes, then on the other hand people are saying, "That money in your 401 wasn't really there, it was assumed income based on your earnings at retirement, and only your real dollars were there."

Is it digital dollars, or is it really a loss? The real answer comes after retirement as the funds are withdrawn, where they still get taxed. Sure, at a lesser rate, but that's the benefits *earned* by saving in these accounts.

I call it a percieved loss for the government, as it isn't tangible. They want your accounts, because when they seize them, it becomes tangible nearly $4 trillion plus payout.

After your 401 or IRA is seized, they would open an account for every American, and start it with $500.00. Spread the wealth, remember?

Every American, even those not working, because, that's only fair, right? The government will then automagically deduct %5 of your pay after tax to go to the account, and meet your deposit with only %3 annually. This is mandatory, too, by the way. Not voluntary like retirement accounts are now.

Why mandatory? Because they say, "People are not intelligent enough to save on their own, we must do it for them."

When you die, your family inherits only half the balance, the other half goes into the government coffers.

Half. Half of *your* money. So anything they give as "interest", is taken back, not to mention part of your *real* income, which was already taxed to hell, because it will be taxed under their plan, not pre-tax, like it is now.

For instance, if you have a balance of $200,000 in your 401, if you die before you retire, your family gets half. So, $100,000. So you lose $97,000 if you consider their co-pay of %3 as going back to them.

If you die after you retire, they get less than half, which is still stealing your money because you paid %5, matched to their %3. This is misleading because it is less than half. It is half plus %3. Isn't that kind of a death tax or something?

So they get half the balance, minus the %3 they put in, *and* a portion of what you paid in. It's a win win for them! That is, after they seize them, they pay you a measly %3 government interest as opposed to up to 6% now.

So lets see. $200,000 minus %3 off the top at $6,000, then halved.

Leaves your family $97,000.

So that would be $103,000 back to the government.

It's only somewhat beneficial if you die before you retire, where they would get back $100,000 skipping the %3. Your family gets an extra $3,000. Woo. Hoo.

No I don't think it is false information or disinformation. If they choose this proposal, or even parts of it, you can kiss your 401(k)'s goodbye, if you have much of one left.

Originally posted by djpaec
reply to post by ZindoDoone

 

First thing I see wrong with that right off the bat, that's now what the hearing was about.

And in all actuality what she proposed was ending tax breaks for 401k's.
www.workforce.com...

She proposed mandatory Government Retirement Accounts for every single person in the US. With a mandatory opening payment of $500.00. Where are they going to get that money but from seizing the balances currently held? Thats $500.00 for every man, woman, and child. Mandatory.

She proposed pooling all the funds with Union Labor retirement plans, which are mostly failing right now.

There are two things. Firstly, the entirety of her plan was not disclosed. I urge you to read the .pdf I posted in my previous post to find out the details. The article only lightly touches on the plan, really.

(On a side note, the $500.00 appears to have been changed to $600.00, and the text of the seizure of the funds appears to have been removed.)
It does appear the plan has changed over time. Here is an extremely good writeup of some the changes of note:
Here.

The Democrats' Plan To Highjack Your 401(k)

Also, in my message, she was at a different hearing. Please note that. Please particularly note the name of the hearing. It is important in the scheme of things.

www.nd.edu...

"On November 20, 2007, Dr. Ghilarducci participated in the Economic Policy Institute's latest "Agenda for Shared Prosperity" event in Washington, DC.

Agenda for shared prosperity. Whats yours is mine is his is theirs..

Here is one of the laughables in her "proposal":

The Social Security Administration has a proven track
record of efficient management.

Moreover, estimates by the Social Security trustees and the Congressional Budget Office predict that the Social Security trust fund will
be solvent until 2040 (trustees) or 2052 (CBO), even if Congress does nothing.

Really?!

At that hearing, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Peter Orszag, testified that some $2 trillion in retirement savings has been lost over the past 15 months.

Under Ghilarducci’s plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year, adjusted for inflation.

The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated.

“I want to stop the federal subsidy of 401(k)s,” Ghilarducci said in an interview. “401(k)s can continue to exist, but they won’t have the benefit of the subsidy of the tax break.”

Under the current 401(k) system, investors are charged relatively high retail fees, Ghilarducci said.

“I want to spend our nation’s dollar for retirement security better. Everybody would now be covered” if the plan were adopted, Ghilarducci said.

I added a bold to that statement, just because.

So where's the part where they confiscate our 401k, cause what I read there says "401(k)s can continue to exist, but they won't have the benefit" of tax breaks.

We got a 10trillion dollar debt here, 400 Billion dollar defiicit, and to pile on 850 Billion for the bailout, 80 billion for AIG, 25 billion for the auto industry etc etc.
We gotta get the money somewhere.

Exactly, and the part of "the plan" that appears to now not be being brought out is the seizure of 401(k)'s and IRA's. The text in my previous article was a writeup I did on my blog in 2008, having read the proposal and then putting it into my own words. You can choose to believe me, or not, but that is the truth.

Why is it being hidden now? Because they know what a hornets nest it would be. Remember, the proposal was made the first time before Obama got elected. A lot has changed in the time since then. Now, Biden is coming out in full support of GRA's. It is no longer a proposal, but a probable plan in the working. The other place "seizure" comes from is that it is what Argentina did, and it appears some of the modeling stems from that.

You said it yourself, the money has to come from somewhere. They cannot just open an account for every person without the money. The benefit being, they get to use the excess.

www.wallstreetsurvivor.com...

Dems Target Private Retirement Accounts
Democratic leaders in the U.S. House discuss confiscating 401(k)s, IRAs

And if you want an almost exact writeup of Obama's plans, please do read this. He is following this plan almost verbatim, and it is an eye opener to what the future will hold under this administration.

www.peri.umass.edu...

A PROGRESSIVE PROGRAM FOR ECONOMIC RECOVERY & FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION

(Sorry for the caps, it is how the title is printed)

Supporting links:
www.humanevents.com...

Republicans Sound Alarm on Administration Plan to Seize 401(k)s
by Connie Hair 05/04/2010

gatewaypundit.firstthings.com...

The radical solution most favored by Big Labor is the seizure of private 401(k) plans for government disbursement

Seizure also appears to be used synonymously with "government takeover".

They will be "allowed to exist"? Really?

As someone with a considerable amount of money in a 401k account, I will definitely keep my eye on this. I am not giving up my 401k to come out with just $500. Someone please let me know a few days before it's too late to withdrawal.

If this were to happen, I would see this as the straw to break the camel's back. I know way too many people who would never give up their 401k. I kind of doubt this could happen, but once again, I will keep my eye on the development of this idea. A few of you here have convincing evidence, as opposed to the OP's statement with no evidence.