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

[JCL]

So this thread started with the government nationalizing 401k accounts and forcing all citizens to contribute, and now none of that is true, but they might reduce the tax break in upcoming years for those who contribute? Isn't that what they are supposed to do, balance the budget by way of tax changes and expenditure changes?

[noncom23]

Originally Posted by JCL

So this thread started with the government nationalizing 401k accounts and forcing all citizens to contribute, and now none of that is true, but they might reduce the tax break in upcoming years for those who contribute? Isn't that what they are supposed to do, balance the budget by way of tax changes and expenditure changes?

I give, you win. Yes government
should increase taxes on our savings
so they will have more to waste.
Sounds good. Works everywhere
else, right? And that won't lead
to anything negative, or more taxation.
They'll just do it once.

[Quicksilver]

Your title say's "Why and how "it is" to be done." Emphasis on "It Is"..
The article title is "Why Congress "Might" Have to Mess with the 401(k)"
Emphasis on the word "Might". The word might doesn't mean will.

I can write an article about what "MIGHT" happen and for me that would
be my reality but in real practice JIM LO SCALZO / EPA opinion isn't
any better than someone else that disagrees with him.

[JCL]

Noncom: I think we are talking past each other. There is nothing wrong with your last two links. And I am not suggesting governments should raise taxes, but rather that they should balance budgets by a combination of revenue increase and spending reduction. I don't really mind what the mix of the two is, but I think it should be both, to some degree. If there wasn't a debt problem, then reducing spending would reduce the deficit, but given the current debt, there is a huge percentage of spending that is not discretionary, so there will have to be some revenue increases, IMO. You don't get out of a hole just by stopping digging, although it is a good start. You have to actually start filling the hole back in, and pay down the debt.

What my last post above actually said, wasn't "don't reduce spending." It just pointed out that this thread has shifted a lot from forced participation, Communism, nationalization of private accounts, etc, all the way to "they might change the contribution limit or remove the tax break for contributing" (while not touching what is already invested). That is quite a shift in objectives.

For the record, I think people should be encouraged to save for retirement. Trouble is, they aren't responding to the incentives being offered, as your post noted. I max out my RRSP (our 401k equivalent in Canada) every year. But only one third of eligible citizens in Canada make any contribution, and the average across those is only 5% of income, well below the limit. So those tax credits we have, very similar to the US ones, don't seem to be very effective in driving the desired behaviour.

So, what is the alternative? Tax policy Shold be designed to drive behaviour, not just to hand out gifts. What else may work better? What would you do?

[noncom23]

I don't really think the thread has changed.
I believe the message is clear. The govt.
has spent itself into oblivion in a manic
way. It is out of control.

The govt gave subsidies for 401k savings
and because it is not happy with the way
the public uses the tax break, now wants
to rewrite it?

The govt wants to take back the susidies
and more. All that shiney saved money
would spend really well. So lets tax it.
If that is not enough, lets raid it like
social security. And if that is not enough
lets make 'em buy bonds. This is
only part of the current pathway to
control of the people's money entirely.
That is a plank of communism.
Is that such a hard path to follow?
(ref:marx 10 planks of communism)

There is no end in sight. Take 100%
of the people's money and without
massive cuts to spending, you are
still in the hole you mentioned.
The picture is clear, defund the govt.
Stop them. If not, nothing is safe.
The govt can no longer be trusted
with the people's money.

The future will answer if the outcome
is as predicted. But at least be informed.
Be open. Why ignore the obvious signs.

[noncom23]

A softer analysis of how this gets
started and how it applies to theUS,
particularly.
And a start for a fix...


Caesarism in the USA
Sam C. Holliday

There are ample reasons to question what can be learned from the past. All history is oversimplification -- some is guesswork, some is prejudice, and all of it is a riddle. Also, as Will and Ariel Durant have noted, "our conclusions from the past to the future are made more hazardous than ever by the acceleration of change." Yet parallels can be noted and they can be helpful for those who want to influence future events.

At this critical time, the citizens of the United States of America would benefit from revisiting two books that are now forgotten. The Coming Caesars by Amaury de Riencourt was published in 1957 and The Riddle of History by Bruce Mazlish in 1966. Both suggest that Americans should be concerned about Caesarism.

According to Reincourt: "Caesarism is not dictatorship, not the result of one man's overriding ambition, not a brutal seizure of power through revolution. It is not based on a specific doctrine or philosophy. It is essentially pragmatic and untheoretical. It is a slow, often century-old, unconscious development that ends in a voluntary surrender of a free people escaping from freedom to one autocratic master."

In the United States, Caesarism was born when Justice John Marshall undercut the Founders' vision of limited government, few bureaucrats, decentralization of power, and American citizens as sovereign. Our Founders knew that centralization of power was the cause of the decline and decay of both Greece and Rome. Caesarism gained acceptability with Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, and the Seventeenth Amendment. Under Woodrow Wilson, government gained the ability to manipulate the wealth and productivity of the whole country through taxation, changing the value of the currency, and debt manipulation. And finally, Caesarism was openly installed by Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Congress has never been able to regain the power the Founders expected it to have. Instead, Congress has been content to "go along to get along" with the commander in chief and to compromise just as long as congressmen and senators were left free to reward their political supporters. Congress never took advantage of what the Founders had given it, nor challenged the claim of the Supreme Court that it alone determined what was constitutional. Congress dodged the hard work of governance. Ronald Reagan made a halfhearted attempt to reverse the drift toward centralization, while at the same time acting much like a Caesar himself.

According to Riencourt: "The prime element in this situation is neither political nor strategic -- it is essentially psychological. It is the growing "father complex" that is increasingly evident in America, the willingness to follow in any emergency, economic or military, the leadership of one man. It is the growing distrust of parliaments, congresses, and all other representative assemblies, the growing impatience of Western public opinion at their irresponsibility, lack of foresight, sluggishness, and indecisiveness. Further, it is the impulsive emotionalism of American public opinion. Such was Rome's public opinion in the first century B.C.".

The rise of Caesars is the outcome of political and legal evolution. Each generation "having unconsciously added its stones to the towering pedestal on which they are going to stand." Thus today the United States has a large, centralized government that has rules, regulations, and laws to control everything -- and Americans are only sovereign in theory.

Our future is not going to be determined by global warming or a new source of energy. It is going to be determined by the minds and inner compasses of Americans. Humans live in cycles. The questions are (1) how are we going to find out what these cycles are, and (2) where do we stand today in our cycle? Recognizing how Caesarism has grown in the United States is a critical step in achieving a better future.

It is time for an American Manifesto restating the principles and ideals of the Founders and challenging Caesarism. Since human beings do not like to change their institutions, or rethink their philosophies, will an American Manifesto be of any practical use? It can be, but not alone. In order to reap any practical benefits more is required. The American Manifesto can only state an ideal and a path.

The next step must be debate on and modification of any manifesto. Then most Americans must develop a common identity based on the principles and ideals contained in this manifesto -- rather than seeing themselves as members of factions.

Finally, there must be political action -- by a political movement that advocates limited government, fewer bureaucrats, decentralization of power, and American citizens actually being the sovereign.

The Romans failed at this task, a failure followed by centuries of decay and anarchy throughout the West. Is it possible for the United States to succeed?

[noncom23]

Washington – Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner says the government has begun borrowing from the federal employee pension fund to keep operating without surpassing its debt limit.
Geithner says in a letter to congressional leaders that the move will free up $156 billion in borrowing authority while Congress debates increasing the $16.4 trillion debt limit.
The government reached its borrowing limit on Dec. 31, but began using bookkeeping maneuvers to keep from surpassing it. Geithner has told congressional leaders that Treasury expects to exhaust those measures by mid-February to early March.
The latest action has been taken by other Treasury secretaries and will not put in jeopardy any monthly pension payments. Geithner said he will replace the funds removed from the pension account after the borrowing limit is raised.


Read more: US taps pension fund to avoid passing debt limit | Fox News