FalcFans Forums

I feel fine, it seems that you have problems being wrong and even bigger problems admitting you are wrong - and by the way, you are wrong.

The original article has been debunked. http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/a ... g_ira.html

Reak shocker the article was bs

wease-1
gus-0

well, that'll teach me to drink the kool aid.



I could make a weak argument defending the article, but fact check is good enough for me.

I guess it all boils down to what one considers 'coercion'. After discussing this with my
FA, she explained that the things necessary to happen for this to occcur probably will not
happen.....But, to be safe, I still removed my funds from the market and cleared out my 401K.

I will still keep my IRA becuase it's maxed out, but I've put the rest of the $$$ elsewhere.

We will know who is really correct about this in the 3rd finacial quarter of 2009.

Will it happen? Probably not. Could it happen? You bet your sweet a** it can.

Look back at most of the tax increases levied. Almost all were due to war or a
'crisis'. It's history.

Caesar Augustus instituted the first progressive inheritance tax to provide retirement
funds for the military during his reign as 'First Citizen' . Even though he is considered
the father of political science and the harbinger of Pax Romana, we all know how that turned
out Beware of the Ides of march!

With kool-aid I generally say the redder the better...not so true with finance. As far as what will or has happened...my father is a retired and highly respected econ prof who travels the world giving his opinions about this and that. The economic meltdown, etc., caught him totally be surprise. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise...it's a wiggly world.

http://www.dol.gov/federalregister/PdfD ... ocId=23512

*ahem*

Key Word= Proposal

From the Republican's own letter to the Department of Labor:
Similarly, and more recently, the Departments of Labor and Treasury have jointly issued a “Request for Information” regarding the “annuitization” of 401(k) plans through “Lifetime Income Options.” While we appreciate the Departments’ seeking guidance and information from all parties and stakeholders in advance of regulatory activity, we strongly urge that the Departments not proceed with any regulation in this area before they have carefully and thoroughly considered all of the information received.

You are worried about something that hasn't even gone to any committee yet...


Since you took all your money out, what are you worried about??? Now is a good time to stop the Wall street manipulation of the 401K's and put them in a more secure framework..most of the people who lost big money last year would be retroactively for such a plan.

However we both know that this is just another attempt to further your agenda. There are many plans out there that are so much better than 401K's anyway...you just have to do a little research and diversify.



Stop being paranoid, it isn't good for your blood pressure.

Ok. Let me see if I have this correct.

I posted that Teresa Ghilarducci testified before a subcommittee on her idea to eliminate the preferential tax treatment of the popular retirement plans http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/capit ... plans.html to which I was roundly told that it was bogus, and that having someone 'testify' does not a law make. Fair enough.

Then in 2009, one of the nation's largest labor unions, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), was promoting a plan that will centralize all retirement plans for American workers, including private 401(k) plans, under one new "retirement system" for the United States.

http://moneynews.com/StreetTalk/unions- ... /id/328862

Now, does the SEIU have our presidents ear? I think so.



Or, we could just look at what the VP 'proposed'. "Vice President Joe Biden floated the idea, called “Guaranteed Retirement Accounts” (GRAs), in the February “Middle Class” report.

So let me see. There are GOP AND Democrat pols that have suggested ending the tax free status on 401k's...A professor at the New School of Social Research suggest to Congress to do it in 2008. Then in 2009, the SEIU suggests it. Then in early 2010, the freekin VP proposes it!

But, I'm just 'being paranoid'. Okay.

You will note the links I provided were from non partisian sources. You will also note that I have stated that at least 2 GOP's have suggested ending the tax free status, or at least taxing a portion of it.

That being said, I believe it's unlikely to pass. Such a measure would surely get covered not only by the biased press corps, but mostly through blogs and tea party type organizations. This move would be hugely unpopular with the public and given the current WH admin's inability to sway public opinion on other bills like Health Care and the growing amount of backlash coming in a mid-term election such a bill would not see the light of day until sometime in 2011 - and even then that is too close to POTUS re-election to try and advance a stand alone bill.

Now, Congress may try to slip this into a different bill at the 11th hour and slide it under the radar, or, if they have to, bring it to the floor right after the POTUS election to avoid the anger of the populace. Plus, the vested interests would fight this tooth and nail with alot of resources during elections with dire results.

But to suggest that it's 'crazy' to imagine this happening?

Fine, I'll wear the foil hat.

You misunderstood what I meant by paranoid. Not about the possibility that it could happen. Anything COULD happen. But your reaction about it being a bad thing IF it happened is where I wonder if you are being a little paranoid. As I stated, it would be better for the the retirement , small investor, small business type person to have more consistency in the markets that have their funds at their disposal.

Also these types of ideas have been around long before IRA's and 401k's came to be. Anything that is passed quite possibly would look much different than the final draft. We need more regulation in the business sector, not less.

Your Paranoia that somehow people would lose their money if the new measures were passed is just crying fire in a crowded theater.

regulation does not include a federal entity denying you an opportunity to set aside a portion of your income tax free for the purpose of retirement, and that's what were talking about here. The 'proposals' on the table and being openly discussed are 'regulating' the private sector by taking away the tax free benefit.

I looked at the RFI from the Labor and Treasury Depts. It *seems* harmless, unless you know the code. The ENTIRE publication is assuming that "Lifetime annuity payments" are better than and individuals right to control, and responsibility for, their own retirement. (If that is your argument, which it appears it is, it's a weak one. However, feel free to think this is a 'good idea'. I disagree.)The entire thing is "worrying" about ways to get more companies, or the government, to offer guaranteed lifetime payments, and how to encourage people to choose them..... However, if you follow the link and read the pdf, pay attention to "questions" 21-23. They talk about your annual/periodic 401K report, listing "what you would be paid monthly at your current rate of investment, if you retire at x years old..." These are EXACTLY the things that are on your periodic Social Security statement. Talking about my PERSONAL retirement, using the SAME terms as social Security, is a red flag the size of Texas, as far as I'm concerned. Maybe that doesn't worry you, but dont call me 'paranoid', please.

I got my funds out, and I feel that I'm diversified enough. My occupation does not pay in. The problem is my wife's job pays into her 401k, and that money is figured into her contract, and it's next to impossible to get it out, or pay dearly. If it looks like on the horizon that the tax free benefit is going away, or getting replaces with T bills or GRA's, you bet your sweet a** she will pay the penalty and get her $$ out , too.

Anybody with half a brain has known for a long time that the profligate gov't spending over the past 2 decades means there's no way 401K funds could remain exempt from taxation, particularly when the bulk of the baby boomers start making withdrawals and essentially stop paying taxes on the bulk of their income.

The Dems and Republicans, desperate for some way to avert an economic calamity that bankrupts SS and Medicare, will smack their lips at the prospect of getting their hands on all those 401K dollars.

It may not happen next year, as you say 'anything CAN happen', but it's going to happen. NOw the argument changed from 'that's just crazy talk, no way that's ever going to happen' to 'so what if it happens? it's a good idea! why are you so paranoid'?

weak.

I never said it wasn't going to happen, and so far ....nothing has happened. I'm not paranoid, because I have no dog in the fight. My point is wait until something concrete comes down the pike, before going ape-s*** about it. The tone of your post is filled with panic over nothing. If you had good financial planning, there would be no panic. I'm not really up on the current limits of a 401K, but isn't it something like 16 K??? That really isn't something to get all upset about. And ieven in your worst case scenario, the money going into a t-bill of some other program would be basically the same thing in the long run. Also a roth is much better than a 401K...






I guess you wouldn't like my plan for America either..lol