(11-30-2012 09:22 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So one nobody at a think tank speculates on one particular scenario for the future of 401(k)'s back in September, and in 16 posts, we already have Obama freezing your money from you.

You just gotta love how the con mind works.

I don't think it will happen, but with gov'ts need for $$ you never know. We're just discussing it and what would happen. It's like a financial doomsday preppers without the bunkers and guns.

(11-30-2012 09:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-30-2012 09:22 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So one nobody at a think tank speculates on one particular scenario for the future of 401(k)'s back in September, and in 16 posts, we already have Obama freezing your money from you.

You just gotta love how the con mind works.

It's not "one nobody at a think tank" speculating. That's not how the game gets played. It doesn't get past the think tank talk police that way. It was a trial balloon, and we can all hope that it brought about a sufficiently negative reaction to kill it.

One question, RedTom, forget the deflections, how do YOU feel about the proposal? Would you support it or oppose it? Is it one of those things that you say you would oppose today, but if the words came out of your Messiah's mouth you'd change tunes and support it?

I'd have to see a few more specifics first. The paragraph in the OP is confusing, talking about an 18% tax credit and then an unspecified tax, the combination of which somehow increases total taxes received by the treasury.

I'm fine with new options for retirement being added...I just see no way possible that the 401(k) goes away when the investment lobby is so heavily ensconced in it currently.

But what does Jesus have to do with this anyway?

I think they're testing this out by leaking this. Once they don't see the outrage they'll begin to openly discuss it, and the class warriors among us will champion the idea because it disproportionately hurts the top 20%. Chairman Maobama can do no wrong.

BY READING THIS POST YOU RECOGNIZE THAT IMATY IS THE LAST GREAT CRUSADER FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE SO HELP YOU GOD.

(11-29-2012 02:24 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

Quote:One idea was suggested to the U.S. Senate Finance Committee last September by William Gale, the director of the Retirement Security Project at the Brookings Institute. Gale’s plan is to replace pre-tax and tax deductible retirement plan contributions by both employers and employees with a flat 18% tax credit that would be deposited directly into the person’s retirement account. Roth accounts and existing pre-tax retirement account balances would be unaffected. This means that you’d have to pay a tax on any income you or your employer contributed to a pre-tax retirement account, essentially ending these accounts as we know them. As a result of these changes, the plan is projected to increase government revenues by $458 billion over the next 10 years.

Why end it you might ask... Because it's not "fair"

Quote:Gale argues that those in the lower income brackets need more of an incentive to save while those in the upper income brackets are likely to save anyway and simply shift that saving from taxable accounts to tax-sheltered accounts.

401k's were invented so that companies would no longer have to provide a pension for their workers.

In the 50's and 60's, most companies would compensate their workers with a pension for their years of service to the companies.

In true corporate fashion however, they wanted to cut cost so they put the burden of retirement squarely on the worker and forced them to contribute to their own retirement with the company only matching a small percentage.

401k's are a scam.

(11-30-2012 05:04 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-29-2012 02:24 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

Quote:One idea was suggested to the U.S. Senate Finance Committee last September by William Gale, the director of the Retirement Security Project at the Brookings Institute. Gale’s plan is to replace pre-tax and tax deductible retirement plan contributions by both employers and employees with a flat 18% tax credit that would be deposited directly into the person’s retirement account. Roth accounts and existing pre-tax retirement account balances would be unaffected. This means that you’d have to pay a tax on any income you or your employer contributed to a pre-tax retirement account, essentially ending these accounts as we know them. As a result of these changes, the plan is projected to increase government revenues by $458 billion over the next 10 years.

Why end it you might ask... Because it's not "fair"

Quote:Gale argues that those in the lower income brackets need more of an incentive to save while those in the upper income brackets are likely to save anyway and simply shift that saving from taxable accounts to tax-sheltered accounts.

401k's were invented so that companies would no longer have to provide a pension for their workers.

In the 50's and 60's, most companies would compensate their workers with a pension for their years of service to the companies.

In true corporate fashion however, they wanted to cut cost so they put the burden of retirement squarely on the worker and forced them to contribute to their own retirement with the company only matching a small percentage.

401k's are a scam.

LOL. It's a "scam" for people to invest their own money, with employers usually giving them what amounts to extra pay for doing so?

(11-30-2012 05:07 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(11-30-2012 05:04 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-29-2012 02:24 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

Quote:One idea was suggested to the U.S. Senate Finance Committee last September by William Gale, the director of the Retirement Security Project at the Brookings Institute. Gale’s plan is to replace pre-tax and tax deductible retirement plan contributions by both employers and employees with a flat 18% tax credit that would be deposited directly into the person’s retirement account. Roth accounts and existing pre-tax retirement account balances would be unaffected. This means that you’d have to pay a tax on any income you or your employer contributed to a pre-tax retirement account, essentially ending these accounts as we know them. As a result of these changes, the plan is projected to increase government revenues by $458 billion over the next 10 years.

Why end it you might ask... Because it's not "fair"

Quote:Gale argues that those in the lower income brackets need more of an incentive to save while those in the upper income brackets are likely to save anyway and simply shift that saving from taxable accounts to tax-sheltered accounts.

401k's were invented so that companies would no longer have to provide a pension for their workers.

In the 50's and 60's, most companies would compensate their workers with a pension for their years of service to the companies.

In true corporate fashion however, they wanted to cut cost so they put the burden of retirement squarely on the worker and forced them to contribute to their own retirement with the company only matching a small percentage.

401k's are a scam.

LOL. It's a "scam" for people to invest their own money, with employers usually giving them what amounts to extra pay for doing so?

Yes it is a scam and I will tell you why. Matching a few percentage points on your 401k is pennies on the dollar compared to what companies used to compensate you when you got a pension for loyalty to the company.

Now the vast majority of your retirement doesn't come from the company but from your own hard earned money. In addition to that, you have to invest it in the stock market which in and of it self is a shell game. You will be lucky not to lose your shirt unless you know what you are doing which of course most American don't.

401k's were invented solely so that companies could put the burden of retirement on their workers and so that they could make more profit.

(11-30-2012 05:24 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Yes it is a scam and I will tell you why. Matching a few percentage points on your 401k is pennies on the dollar compared to what companies used to compensate you when you got a pension for loyalty to the company.

They aren't obligated to even do that. That doesn't make it a scam.

Fitbud Wrote:Now the vast majority of your retirement doesn't come from the company but from your own hard earned money. In addition to that, you have to invest it in the stock market which in and of it self is a shell game. You will be lucky not to lose your shirt unless you know what you are doing which of course most American don't.

You mean people will have to buy things using THEIR OWN MONEY, and stop getting a check from a company they no longer work for??? How oppressive.

And, no, you don't have to invest it in the stock market.

Fitbud Wrote:401k's were invented solely so that companies could put the burden of retirement on their workers and so that they could make more profit.

"The burden of retirement."

(11-30-2012 05:04 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-29-2012 02:24 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

Quote:One idea was suggested to the U.S. Senate Finance Committee last September by William Gale, the director of the Retirement Security Project at the Brookings Institute. Gale’s plan is to replace pre-tax and tax deductible retirement plan contributions by both employers and employees with a flat 18% tax credit that would be deposited directly into the person’s retirement account. Roth accounts and existing pre-tax retirement account balances would be unaffected. This means that you’d have to pay a tax on any income you or your employer contributed to a pre-tax retirement account, essentially ending these accounts as we know them. As a result of these changes, the plan is projected to increase government revenues by $458 billion over the next 10 years.

Why end it you might ask... Because it's not "fair"

Quote:Gale argues that those in the lower income brackets need more of an incentive to save while those in the upper income brackets are likely to save anyway and simply shift that saving from taxable accounts to tax-sheltered accounts.

401k's were invented so that companies would no longer have to provide a pension for their workers.

Companies actually never had to provide pension... The did because it got them good employees. 401K's were a way to let employees keep their plans when they left form one company to the next..

Quote:In true corporate fashion however, they wanted to cut cost so they put the burden of retirement squarely on the worker and forced them to contribute to their own retirement with the company only matching a small percentage.

1) The burden is typically shared by employee and employer with matching contributions. I have had plans that match at anywhere form 50% to 150%

2) The companies usually pay for someone to manage and process their 401K's.

Quote:401k's are a scam.

I'm 35 and have about 150K saved up for retirement. Maybe a half of that came from me and the rest my employer.

BIE and Blazer...you're right on this one. Not sure where FB is coming from. 401(k)'s are a pretty sound thing and work well for both the company and the employee.

The only thing I take issue with is:

Bull_In_Exile Wrote:2) The companies usually pay for someone to manage and process their 401K's.

This cost is also shared by the employee.

(11-30-2012 05:04 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-29-2012 02:24 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

Quote:One idea was suggested to the U.S. Senate Finance Committee last September by William Gale, the director of the Retirement Security Project at the Brookings Institute. Gale’s plan is to replace pre-tax and tax deductible retirement plan contributions by both employers and employees with a flat 18% tax credit that would be deposited directly into the person’s retirement account. Roth accounts and existing pre-tax retirement account balances would be unaffected. This means that you’d have to pay a tax on any income you or your employer contributed to a pre-tax retirement account, essentially ending these accounts as we know them. As a result of these changes, the plan is projected to increase government revenues by $458 billion over the next 10 years.

Why end it you might ask... Because it's not "fair"

Quote:Gale argues that those in the lower income brackets need more of an incentive to save while those in the upper income brackets are likely to save anyway and simply shift that saving from taxable accounts to tax-sheltered accounts.

401k's were invented so that companies would no longer have to provide a pension for their workers.

In the 50's and 60's, most companies would compensate their workers with a pension for their years of service to the companies.

In true corporate fashion however, they wanted to cut cost so they put the burden of retirement squarely on the worker and forced them to contribute to their own retirement with the company only matching a small percentage.

401k's are a scam.

Scam? For who? I guess that's the cop out for the folks either to lazy or to dumb to invest their own money. You know, the folks that want everything done for them by someone else. Anyway, there are still other retirement options other than the 401k to use if one so desires.

(11-30-2012 08:00 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  I'm 35 and have about 150K saved up for retirement. Maybe a half of that came from me and the rest my employer.

If the company contributes and folks don't participate that's like throwing away free money. Congrats on contributing.

(12-02-2012 07:29 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(11-30-2012 05:04 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-29-2012 02:24 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

Quote:One idea was suggested to the U.S. Senate Finance Committee last September by William Gale, the director of the Retirement Security Project at the Brookings Institute. Gale’s plan is to replace pre-tax and tax deductible retirement plan contributions by both employers and employees with a flat 18% tax credit that would be deposited directly into the person’s retirement account. Roth accounts and existing pre-tax retirement account balances would be unaffected. This means that you’d have to pay a tax on any income you or your employer contributed to a pre-tax retirement account, essentially ending these accounts as we know them. As a result of these changes, the plan is projected to increase government revenues by $458 billion over the next 10 years.

Why end it you might ask... Because it's not "fair"

Quote:Gale argues that those in the lower income brackets need more of an incentive to save while those in the upper income brackets are likely to save anyway and simply shift that saving from taxable accounts to tax-sheltered accounts.

401k's were invented so that companies would no longer have to provide a pension for their workers.

In the 50's and 60's, most companies would compensate their workers with a pension for their years of service to the companies.

In true corporate fashion however, they wanted to cut cost so they put the burden of retirement squarely on the worker and forced them to contribute to their own retirement with the company only matching a small percentage.

401k's are a scam.

Scam? For who? I guess that's the cop out for the folks either to lazy or to dumb to invest their own money. You know, the folks that want everything done for them by someone else. Anyway, there are still other retirement options other than the 401k to use if one so desires.

Nah it isn't about laziness, you won't go that far wrong just by sticking everything into a lifecycle fund. People claim the scam thing because in most cases, the company match isn't worth as much as the company's contribution to the traditional pension that the 401k replaced. I would guess that the old pensions were funded by taking 8% of an employee's pay, the employer roughly matched it dollar for dollar and then stuffed it into the pension fund (assuming they were fully funding the plan, which it turns out, many were not). When the company wasn't doing so well, it froze the pension, setup a 401k and announced a match (3% seems to be pretty common). So the company gives its employees 8% bigger paychecks (not taking pension payments from employees anymore), but actually cut its labor cost by 5%, possibly without the same morale issues that it would face if it had just announced a 5% across the board pay cut. I wouldn't call it a scam, since the 'victims' are clearly told all the relevant facts, but on the other hand, the less financially sophisticated may not have been able to interpret those facts to realize that their bigger paycheck was actually a pay cut.

However, it is important to remember that a 401k does not always have a low contribution rate. I once interned at a company that contributed 9%. This would result in a retirement roughly equivalent pension, as long as the employee contributed the 8% that they would have contributed under a pension system. In addition, 401ks avoid a lot of the abuses of the pension system: my grandfather told me that he once worked at a company that made a point to focus layoffs on employees that were about to vest in their pensions, and pensions are fundamentally ageist since older employees (whose invested contributions won't have as long to grow) are more expensive.

The problem is that the government controls you're access to that money and can change the rules at any time. It amazes me that people who are otherwise fairly Libertarian will allow the government to control their money to that extent.

(11-30-2012 01:12 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-30-2012 09:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-30-2012 09:22 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So one nobody at a think tank speculates on one particular scenario for the future of 401(k)'s back in September, and in 16 posts, we already have Obama freezing your money from you.

You just gotta love how the con mind works.

It's not "one nobody at a think tank" speculating. That's not how the game gets played. It doesn't get past the think tank talk police that way. It was a trial balloon, and we can all hope that it brought about a sufficiently negative reaction to kill it.

One question, RedTom, forget the deflections, how do YOU feel about the proposal? Would you support it or oppose it? Is it one of those things that you say you would oppose today, but if the words came out of your Messiah's mouth you'd change tunes and support it?

I'd have to see a few more specifics first. The paragraph in the OP is confusing, talking about an 18% tax credit and then an unspecified tax, the combination of which somehow increases total taxes received by the treasury.

I'm fine with new options for retirement being added...I just see no way possible that the 401(k) goes away when the investment lobby is so heavily ensconced in it currently.

But what does Jesus have to do with this anyway?

I need more specifics also. is the 18% based on gross income or actual taxes due? 401k's have limits on pretax and total contributions. If a company does not offer a 401K will the credit be into an IRA.

Is there a link to the Forbes article? Like Tom I am also open with new ways to save for retirement.Bush proposed some ideas to simplify the process, but they did not go anywhere.

Jesus said " Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, give unto the Lord that which is the Lord's"

(12-03-2012 01:31 AM)rice09 Wrote:  

(12-02-2012 07:29 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(11-30-2012 05:04 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-29-2012 02:24 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

Quote:One idea was suggested to the U.S. Senate Finance Committee last September by William Gale, the director of the Retirement Security Project at the Brookings Institute. Gale’s plan is to replace pre-tax and tax deductible retirement plan contributions by both employers and employees with a flat 18% tax credit that would be deposited directly into the person’s retirement account. Roth accounts and existing pre-tax retirement account balances would be unaffected. This means that you’d have to pay a tax on any income you or your employer contributed to a pre-tax retirement account, essentially ending these accounts as we know them. As a result of these changes, the plan is projected to increase government revenues by $458 billion over the next 10 years.

Why end it you might ask... Because it's not "fair"

Quote:Gale argues that those in the lower income brackets need more of an incentive to save while those in the upper income brackets are likely to save anyway and simply shift that saving from taxable accounts to tax-sheltered accounts.

401k's were invented so that companies would no longer have to provide a pension for their workers.

In the 50's and 60's, most companies would compensate their workers with a pension for their years of service to the companies.

In true corporate fashion however, they wanted to cut cost so they put the burden of retirement squarely on the worker and forced them to contribute to their own retirement with the company only matching a small percentage.

401k's are a scam.

Scam? For who? I guess that's the cop out for the folks either to lazy or to dumb to invest their own money. You know, the folks that want everything done for them by someone else. Anyway, there are still other retirement options other than the 401k to use if one so desires.

Nah it isn't about laziness, you won't go that far wrong just by sticking everything into a lifecycle fund. People claim the scam thing because in most cases, the company match isn't worth as much as the company's contribution to the traditional pension that the 401k replaced. I would guess that the old pensions were funded by taking 8% of an employee's pay, the employer roughly matched it dollar for dollar and then stuffed it into the pension fund (assuming they were fully funding the plan, which it turns out, many were not). When the company wasn't doing so well, it froze the pension, setup a 401k and announced a match (3% seems to be pretty common). So the company gives its employees 8% bigger paychecks (not taking pension payments from employees anymore), but actually cut its labor cost by 5%, possibly without the same morale issues that it would face if it had just announced a 5% across the board pay cut. I wouldn't call it a scam, since the 'victims' are clearly told all the relevant facts, but on the other hand, the less financially sophisticated may not have been able to interpret those facts to realize that their bigger paycheck was actually a pay cut.

However, it is important to remember that a 401k does not always have a low contribution rate. I once interned at a company that contributed 9%. This would result in a retirement roughly equivalent pension, as long as the employee contributed the 8% that they would have contributed under a pension system. In addition, 401ks avoid a lot of the abuses of the pension system: my grandfather told me that he once worked at a company that made a point to focus layoffs on employees that were about to vest in their pensions, and pensions are fundamentally ageist since older employees (whose invested contributions won't have as long to grow) are more expensive.

I put 11 or 12% in my 401k(I don't remember). That, with the meager company match and some future investments should leave me retiring just before I die thanks to Obama and sending me the bill for all the f'ing deadbeats in this country who voted for him.

BY READING THIS POST YOU RECOGNIZE THAT IMATY IS THE LAST GREAT CRUSADER FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE SO HELP YOU GOD.

(12-03-2012 09:40 AM)dcCid Wrote:  Jesus said " Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, give unto the Lord that which is the Lord's"

And what if Caesar says 100% is his? That doesn't really leave anything for the Lord now does it?

(12-02-2012 07:31 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(11-30-2012 08:00 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  I'm 35 and have about 150K saved up for retirement. Maybe a half of that came from me and the rest my employer.

If the company contributes and folks don't participate that's like throwing away free money. Congrats on contributing.

Agree!

A few years ago they changed the law so that an employee was automatically enrolled in a companies 401k plan unless they opted out.

The company I worked for matched up to 6% (after like 5 years). I always contributed at least 6%, and increased it as I could afford it. Where else would I have received a 100% ROI. The company also paid the administration fees. I was lucky, it compounded very well over the last 20 some years.

I highly recommend everyone contribute if they have a 401k, the deductions are out of sight and out of mind, and subsidised by your tax rate (not FICA).

(12-03-2012 09:50 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(12-03-2012 09:40 AM)dcCid Wrote:  Jesus said " Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, give unto the Lord that which is the Lord's"

And what if Caesar says 100% is his? That doesn't really leave anything for the Lord now does it?

I cannot speak for Jesus, but in my opinion it is your soul that you give to the lord. The soul does not need cash to survive and can still be 100% for the Lord.

From dust we come, to dust we shall return; maybe it is gold dust, I do not know.

However being 1/4 Italian - I am 25% offended by your Caesar bashing.

(12-03-2012 09:50 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(12-03-2012 09:40 AM)dcCid Wrote:  Jesus said " Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, give unto the Lord that which is the Lord's"

And what if Caesar says 100% is his? That doesn't really leave anything for the Lord now does it?

Please both of you just stop... dcCid has no clue what that part of scripture means and you're just feeding the troll...

(12-03-2012 10:10 AM)dcCid Wrote:  I cannot speak for Jesus, but in my opinion it is your soul that you give to the lord. The soul does not need cash to survive and can still be 100% for the Lord.

So Jesus was talking about your soul, not tithing in that scripture? Novel interpretation.

I'm surprised at how willing you are to cede every ounce of your freedom and possessions to the government.

Quote:However being 1/4 Italian - I am 25% offended by your Caesar bashing.

To be fair I'm only 25% German, so my whole heart wasn't in it.