Its 10:00, do you know where your 401k is?

[noncom23]

Originally Posted by JCL

The proposal is for employers to make pensions available to their employees. There is no requirement for the employees to participate if they don't want to. So I don't understand the use of the word "mandated" to describe the IRA contributions.

By equalatarian I presume you mean egalitarian.

It would appear that this is a promotion of the concept of the economic equality of opportunity, something supported by Milton Friedman, vs the concept of the economic equality of outcomes. I think your characterization of this as communism would be a surprise to Friedman, who is pretty much in the free enterprise camp.

No. I mean Equalatarian. The new buzz term for Socialistic Forced Equality. Mandate came from the hearing.
Communism came from articles, not me.
I am only trying to show the other side here. That your
defense of obama "may" not so warranted. Automatic enrollment doesn't sound involuntary to you?
We can argue this all day. I just hope at some point anyone will see a not so rosey side of your faith
in this guy. No fight from me. Just showing the other side.

[JCL]

Originally Posted by noncom23

No. I mean Equalatarian. The new buzz term for Socialistic Forced Equality. Mandate came from the hearing.
Communism came from articles, not me.
I am only trying to show the other side here. That your
defense of obama "may" not so warranted. Automatic enrollment doesn't sound involuntary to you?
We can argue this all day. I just hope at some point anyone will see a not so rosey side of your faith
in this guy. No fight from me. Just showing the other side.

I am not clear on your definition of equalatarian. I had always associated that word with equality related to gender and similar issues, not economics. I always figured the word egalitarianism worked just fine for the economic equality issues. Maybe I need to get a copy of the Tea Party Dictionary. (edit: I found one on line)

Communism came from the articles posted by you. If you don't believe the ideas in the article, you could perhaps say so when you post, otherwise people may interpret the opinions expressed as matching yours.

What led you to believe that I have faith in Obama, or that I am defending him? The only way I can see that from my posts in this thread is if you believe that Obama is a Communist, which is, incidentally, a view I don't share. I was illustrating the logical inconsistencies in the argument, and pointing out that calling political opponents Communists doesn't do much to advance the debate.

Automatic enrollment doesn't sound evil to me. I think you have the same concept for your social security cards, if people are going to work and pay taxes. It isn't going after the individual, it is ensuring that the businesses impacted offer pension opportunities to their employees. See my comments above on equality of opportunity (to have a pension, in this case), a decidedly right-of-the-spectrum concept.

I just find it interesting the degree to which US politics are being polarized and poisoned by inflamed rhetoric. IMO.

Unlike you, I don't have any dog in this fight, directly, as I don't even live or vote in your country. I am impacted indirectly, seeing as how our economy is so closely tied to the US, and that Canada is your largest foreign oil provider. So I don't get to have a say every four years, but we as a country prosper or not based largely on the health of your economy. That causes me to be interested.

So maybe that is a third side?

[Quicksilver]

In the midst of the OP's original post there's a grain of truth found that satisfies
those who believe the ill-conceived notions proposed by those who believe it.

As for me i'm surprised that none of the main stream media has picked up on
this important information. Please Don't misunderstand I don't believe the media
is the voice of God but if indeed the communist president in office (pun intended)
has designs on 401K's it would seem to me that at least AARP would be up in arms
about the whole thing. (Maybe they are I didn't look) So far my search seems to find
the information listed on the "I'm against Obama sites". But hey thats fine. That being
the case somehow it conjures up a credibility problem for me.

[noncom23]

Originally Posted by Quicksilver

In the midst of the OP's original post there's a grain of truth found that satisfies
those who believe the ill-conceived notions proposed by those who believe it.

As for me i'm surprised that none of the main stream media has picked up on
this important information. Please Don't misunderstand I don't believe the media
is the voice of God but if indeed the communist president in office (pun intended)
has designs on 401K's it would seem to me that at least AARP would be up in arms
about the whole thing. (Maybe they are I didn't look) So far my search seems to find
the information listed on the "I'm against Obama sites". But hey thats fine. That being
the case somehow it conjures up a credibility problem for me.

Do some research like Quick did and get
back to us.

[blktoptrvl]

Originally Posted by noncom23

Do some research like Quick did and get
back to us.

Maybe I misread it, but I got the Impression Q was saying he could find no credible evidence/proof.

[noncom23]

Once more. This is to inform of
issues that may not be the mainstream
medias idea of current coverage.
Q said he also saw a grain of truth.

Is there any way to open you all
to the possibilties that you may
be missing something that that you
may not be aware of? Like what we are about
to see with obamacare? Debunking
is fine, I do it too. But at least open
yourselves to other ideas, sources
or don't. But opinions against
hearings just don't add up to debunking
too me.

obama is not the saint Foxx
wants you to believe. I am only
showing the other side.

[blktoptrvl]

Originally Posted by noncom23

Is there any way to open you all
to the possibilties that you may
be missing something that that you
may not be aware of?

Personally, I don't get into all these Obama bashing conspiracy theories for two basic reasons. First I view him as a better than average President who has been doing good work for the US citizens. I think that if people could take off their political and racial blinders they would probably see it too. But I know that is not possible so I try to avoid most debates about him, and that leads me to the second reason... Almost everything the President does is some kind of dog whistle to all those who hate him.

There have been so many nonsense warning about the President's agenda that for me, all I have to do is hear/read a little of them and I know they are garbage. They just don't pass the common sense test.

Here is Mother Jones' take on this 401K conspiracy...

A New Obama Conspiracy: He's Confiscating Your IRAs | Mother Jones

And here is a chart that I would think is funny if it weren't so sad...

[Quicksilver]

I don't know what's behind the time wasting distortions that people promote but everyone is allowed believe what gives them comfort. Unfortunately perception isn't always reality. Joes say's this, Mary said that and what we are left with is picking apart conroversy, trying to find truth, when in fact at the time like beauty truth about this subject is in the eye of the beholder. I find much of this notion humerious and entertaining so let me stir the pot by contributing some additional perspective......

Doocy, Gingrich falsely accuse Obama of a "scheme" to seize 401(k) assets | Research | Media Matters for America

[noncom23]

Amid Tax Talks, a Cry of 'Save My 401(k)!'
Reuters | November 27, 2012 | 07:45 AM EST
As the debate around tax reform grows more heated, broker-dealers and other companies that service retirement plans offered by employers are increasingly concerned that the tax benefits of 401(k) plans are on the chopping block.

An industry group that normally works behind the scenes, the American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries, on Monday launched a media campaign intended to educate U.S. employers and workers that the federal government might consider changing the tax benefits of retirement savings accounts.

That worries the ASPPA because Americans might end up saving less, and some smaller employers might eventually decide to discontinue their own 401(k) plans.

The "Save My 401(k)" campaign includes a website, Facebook page, Twitter feed, and even an online videogame. The budget is undisclosed but is in the six figures, according to the ASPPA's chief executive, Brian Graff.

The goal of the media campaign, said Graff, is to raise awareness among employers and employees that they may be in danger of losing some of the tax breaks surrounding their 401(k) plans.

The ASPPA has 11,000 member companies including broker-dealers and record keepers who service the retirement savings plans offered by U.S. employers.

In the wake of the November U.S. elections, the federal government is mulling a possible increase in taxes as a means of reducing the federal budget deficit.

A full-scale tax reform could cut or limit specific tax breaks as a way of lowering overall tax rates. President Barack Obama has said he will raise taxes for wealthy Americans, and trade groups representing both employers and financial services firms have voiced concerns that the tax benefits of 401(k) plans could be slashed.

"The last time Congress made major changes to the tax code, there was a drop in 401(k) contributions by more than 70 percent," Graff said in an interview.

Under the current system, investors who place money in their 401(k) plans do so on a tax-deferred basis, which means they pay no taxes on that money until they withdraw it from the plan.

At present, employees are allowed to put $17,000 a year into their 401(k) plans. In 2013, that amount is scheduled to increase to $17,500.

ASPPA officials have been in talks with members of Congress about their concerns, but the industry group believes it should now reach out to investors, given the importance of the situation, Graff said.

"Everyone we met with said we had a great story, but they said they had to hear from the constituents."

Through the "Save My 401(k)" campaign, ASPPA members - including large brokerage firms such as UBS, Bank of America Merrill Lynch and LPL Financial - intend to reach out to clients and encourage them to write letters to Congress.

[noncom23]

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch)—As the fiscal-cliff debate staggers on, some in the retirement industry have come out swinging against the possibility of lawmakers slashing tax benefits for 401(k)s and similar retirement plans. But do 401(k)s need protection? That is, are lawmakers really gunning for the billions of dollars of uncollected tax revenue sitting in retirement plans?

The answer is a qualified maybe.

Some say it’s inevitable lawmakers will at least look at limiting the tax benefits of such plans. After all, tax deferral for 401(k)-type plans will cost the government an estimated $429 billion from 2013 through 2017. (There are many ways to estimate the total amount of lost revenue. The figure above is from the fiscal year 2013 federal budget. See that budget report here .

This paper from Boston College’s Center for Retirement Research looks at various ways for estimating the cost.

Click to Play

Annuities in a low-interest-rate world
With interest rates at historical lows, many retirement savers are leery of annuities. But the older you get, the less interest rates affect your annuity payout.
Retiring on the edge of the 'fiscal cliff'

Check out the new
MarketWatch Retirement
Protect your retirement from the fiscal cliff
Ways to boost Social Security payout
Retire here, not there: California
Working Retirement: Where the jobs are
10 things your 401(k) plan won't tell you

RETIREMENT ADVISER
Retirement income for life
“The numbers are big enough that I think [lawmakers] will evaluate whether the tax preferences given to these plans are worthwhile,” said Craig Rosenthal, a partner with Mercer, a human-resources consulting firm, in New York.

Few expect Congress to start tinkering with retirement-plan tax breaks between now and the end of the year. That hasn’t stopped the American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries, a trade group, from developing a media campaign, complete with website, Facebook page, and Twitter handle, to encourage retirement savers to contact their members of Congress to forestall any such changes.

The industry is worried that revenue-seeking lawmakers may slash the 401(k) maximum contribution amount. Various deficit-trimming proposals in recent years suggest that very idea, not least the Simpson-Bowles plan of 2010, which proposed limiting the total annual contribution from employee and employer combined to the lowest of 20% of salary, or $20,000. The current annual maximum for employer and worker contributions is about $51,000. Read the 2010 Simpson-Bowles report here.

Long-term outlook

Still, it’s unlikely 401(k) changes will get adopted soon. “I do not expect any change as part of the current [fiscal cliff] negotiations,” said Dallas Salisbury, chief executive of the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a nonprofit think tank.

But in 2013 or 2014, “tax expenditures” (that is, the money the government doesn’t collect due to tax breaks) will be on the table, Salisbury said. “Should the parties take the approach that both have discussed—that is, a dollar limit on itemized deductions or a maximum tax rate applied to deductions—then retirement incentives will likely be left where they are, or very close to it,” Salisbury said.

But if broad tax reform is taken off the table, he said, look for lawmakers to raise revenue by trimming the maximum-contribution amount and other means, with an effective date of 2014 at the earliest.

Others agreed. With regard to trimming 401(k) tax breaks, “There’s nothing that the tax-writing committees or anybody who has real influence is really pushing at this stage,” said Eric Toder, co-director of the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute.

Even if lawmakers eventually do limit the 401(k) maximum contribution amount, that’s not likely to change savings rates, Toder said. “There are very few people who contribute to the contribution maximum.”

Shifting the tax break

Generally, only high-income workers can afford to save the maximum, and the tax benefits of 401(k)s accrue largely to those folks. Read: Who gains most from 401(k) tax breaks?