• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

The government wants to manage you 401k

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
More socialization ladies and gents. Love those Socialists...errr...Democrats.

They want to give you your healthcare, your retirement, your identification...Everything. The government wants to own you lock stock and barrel.

And they will, damned soon.

Link

George Miller Proposes Socializing 401(k)s

House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (D-CA) is holding a hearing today entitled, "The Impact of the Financial Crisis on Workers' Retirement Security."

In reality, it's a dog-and-pony show to advocate for the nationalization of 401(k) plans. The theory is that workers are too stupid to manage them ourselves, so we need to have the government do it for us.

Don't believe me? Here's what Dr. Teresa Ghilarducci, one of the star witnesses, had to say :

Going forward, I propose Congress establish universal Guaranteed Retirement Accounts and the federal government deposit $600 (inflation indexed) in those Guaranteed Retirement Accounts every year for every worker. Every worker (not in an equivalent defined benefit plan) would save 5% of their pay into their Guaranteed Retirement Account to which the government pays a 3% inflation-indexed guaranteed return. Workers would earn pension credits based on these accumulations.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,563
3
0
I guess we should also get the government out of guaranteeing your bank deposits. And out of regulating the markets.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
141
116
Damn, I wish I lived in CA just so I could re-elect George Miller.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: techs
I guess we should also get the government out of guaranteeing your bank deposits. And out of regulating the markets.
Theres a BIG difference between insurance and managing.
 

JohnnyGage

Senior member
Feb 18, 2008
699
0
71
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Damn, I wish I lived in CA just so I could re-elect George Miller.
Yeah, they've done a great job with SS so why not.


They should stay FAR, FAR, AWAY
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,563
3
0
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: techs
I guess we should also get the government out of guaranteeing your bank deposits. And out of regulating the markets.
Theres a BIG difference between insurance and managing.
Uh, that's what a website called the American Shareholder says? I don't know the exact details of the plan, but common sense would prompt me to look for a less biased source.

And btw iirc when Bushie wanted to privatize SS we didn't have to worry because the government would manage which accounts you could put your money in and how they would be run.


 

CrackRabbit

Lifer
Mar 30, 2001
16,641
58
91
It doesn't sound like she is advocating nationalization of 401ks but something similar to the individual retirement accounts as an alternative to SS that the Bush admin was wanting in is first term.
The whole thing is screwed. SS is a losing game currently and anything that might take its place will piss off the boomers.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: techs
I guess we should also get the government out of guaranteeing your bank deposits. And out of regulating the markets.
There is a big difference between the government insuring something and the government mandating something.

Oh, and 3% return....oooooh, that's at least a little better than the average 1.2% return on SS.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,220
26
91
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Damn, I wish I lived in CA just so I could re-elect George Miller.
You want the government to control your retirement money?


Holy Sh*t folks. At least we know where this guy is coming from, if you didnt pick it up already.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
699
126
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: techs
I guess we should also get the government out of guaranteeing your bank deposits. And out of regulating the markets.
There is a big difference between the government insuring something and the government mandating something.

Oh, and 3% return....oooooh, that's at least a little better than the average 1.2% return on SS.
and alot better than my 13 year dollar cost averaged 401k with negative returns for the entire 13 years.

But, that said, I don't think that the government should be getting into this.
 

Codewiz

Diamond Member
Jan 23, 2002
5,758
0
76
I have NO problem if they want to allow me to opt out of social security and invest in the TSP program. The TSP program is better than 99% of commercially managed 401K programs. Lower fees, lower costs, and better returns.

 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
When you can show me a site that isn't the equivalent of a right-wing "Capitalism is God" blogger that is validating this guy's opinion....you might have something worthy of starting a thread over.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
Hahahahaha so after all the hand ringing and boo's and complains and crying from democrats about privatizing SS. They go ahead and want to model a privatization program after the TSP program? Something I and many people on the right have been hammering about for 4 fucking years?

LMFAO only in DC.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
Something needs to be done to replace SS for people my age who can tolerate a wild change to it before I retire. I don't know on the face of it that this is bad. And I'm a huge proponent of 401ks and contribute to one in earnest. I will withhold judgement on this for now.
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
6,942
1,782
136
Making 401(k) management public (i.e. eliminating section 401(k) of the tax code and replacing it with a mandatory public program) and allowing the government to put their hands on Americans most reliable method of retirement saving is a HORRIBLE idea. The moment that happens, the money is as useless as Social Security money.
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Something needs to be done to replace SS for people my age who can tolerate a wild change to it before I retire. I don't know on the face of it that this is bad. And I'm a huge proponent of 401ks and contribute to one in earnest. I will withhold judgement on this for now.
You might want to rethink that. As SS goes bust there will be political pressure to raid healthy 401(k)s to subsidize those who didn't save/invest anything. The horde will strike the productive class once again.

Bottom line is, the protected status of your retirement account(s) can be erased with a stroke of a pen.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
When you can show me a site that isn't the equivalent of a right-wing "Capitalism is God" blogger that is validating this guy's opinion....you might have something worthy of starting a thread over.
When you arent so lazy you cant research it yourself and click the links provided in the article I linked to...

Seriously, this isnt THAT fucking hard. Quite being a lazy fucking boob who wants to spend more time typing some ignorant bullshit then he does reading........
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
I've seen something like this before, then and now it seems vague. I'm not sure what the objective is, but:

A) First of all, we have a national pension plan, it's the OASDI part of Social Security. I think it should be fixed, I see no need to create another national pension plan.

I suppose some will complain of the low rate of return on our assets in that plan, and I agree. SS funds are invested in special government low yield bonds. Although we'll all pay for it vis-a-vis higher national debt service in our annual budget etc.

The 401(k) vehicle as now exists is perfectly adequate as a vehicle for investing in higher securities.

B) If the government is now trying to somehow ensure that people don't lose mony on the market with their 401(k)s, I object. This will be nother more than the *privatisation of profits and socialization of losses".

Those who see profits get to keep them, those who suffer losses get reimbursed with taxpayer money. This will surely lead to more risky investments because there no down-side.

I use to do a lot financial advising, we all know the market goes up & down. After going down, sometimes it takes quite a few years to work it's way back up. Accordingly, it's common knowledge that as you near retirement age funds should be shifted into investments where the principal is secure. You don't want to have to start liquidating stocks when the market is down. Once sold, the stock can never move back up - you're just locking in losses. Instead, those who have shifted asetets into pricipal safe securities can sell those off, there is no principal loss etc.

If we have a problem now with those close to retirement being stuck with all their retirement assets in decimated stocks, we have 1 of 2 possible problems:

1. They are uninformed and the answer is education, not government hand-outs. They still have their SS payments and will just have to do with less after making poor investment decisions with their retirement accounts. If they really screwed it up, we already have existing anti-poverty programs for those below the poverty level (food stamps etc)

2. They knew better but were *greedy*. Bonds and the like do not have the chance for big profits like other more risky investments; if they were greedy and went for big profits knowing the risks, I have no sympathy. In investing, you don't bet what you need to get something you don't (luxuries etc).

Fern




 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,420
5,485
126
Originally posted by: Specop 007
More socialization ladies and gents. Love those Socialists...errr...Democrats.

They want to give you your healthcare, your retirement, your identification...Everything. The government wants to own you lock stock and barrel.

And they will, damned soon.

Link

George Miller Proposes Socializing 401(k)s

House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (D-CA) is holding a hearing today entitled, "The Impact of the Financial Crisis on Workers' Retirement Security."

In reality, it's a dog-and-pony show to advocate for the nationalization of 401(k) plans. The theory is that workers are too stupid to manage them ourselves, so we need to have the government do it for us.

Don't believe me? Here's what Dr. Teresa Ghilarducci, one of the star witnesses, had to say :

Going forward, I propose Congress establish universal Guaranteed Retirement Accounts and the federal government deposit $600 (inflation indexed) in those Guaranteed Retirement Accounts every year for every worker. Every worker (not in an equivalent defined benefit plan) would save 5% of their pay into their Guaranteed Retirement Account to which the government pays a 3% inflation-indexed guaranteed return. Workers would earn pension credits based on these accumulations.
is this on top of SS? can i opt out? if not, the government would be taking 18% of what my employer pays me to give me back sh!t on a stick? do these people really want me to be poor forever?
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix


is this on top of SS? can i opt out? if not, the government would be taking 18% of what my employer pays me to give me back sh!t on a stick? do these people really want me to be poor forever?
You're starting to get it. :)
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,563
3
0
Last I looked a hundred million Americans collected Social Security and for a large number of them it was the only income they had. They weren't a burden to society and they lived in dignity to the end.
Not bad, FDR, not bad.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,420
5,485
126
Originally posted by: techs
Last I looked a hundred million Americans collected Social Security and for a large number of them it was the only income they had. They weren't a burden to society and they lived in dignity to the end.
Not bad, FDR, not bad.
yeah, FDR, thanks for stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from the average american over their lifetime by paying them less than what a savings account does!
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Is there ANYBODY in this stupid thread who's willing to argue facts instead of ideology? All I see from the right-wing folks is broad platitudes about the free market and government that sound like they were lifted whole from the LAST social security debate (where righties were arguing the opposite point). And all the lefties are putting out is a lot of general ideas without addressing the specifics as to how this will end up not having the problems social security has had.

Why does every debate on this issue end up like this? I know we have ideological issues, but this would seem to be an important problem, and rather than trying to solve it in either a lefty or righty way, most people just seem interested in using it as a springboard into some vague exposition of their personal political preferences. And the way I know this is that this latest solution is pretty much what Bush proposed in 2004, only with the parties swapped. And guess what? Most people seem to have swapped with their party and suddenly Bush's embrace of capitalism is nothing less than absolute communism...and the other way around.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: techs
Last I looked a hundred million Americans collected Social Security and for a large number of them it was the only income they had. They weren't a burden to society and they lived in dignity to the end.
Not bad, FDR, not bad.
BUUUULSHIIIIIT

They WERE a burden on society. Each and every single one of us paid into a system that turned right around and paid those old people. They were a tax burden on every tax paying individual in this country.

What you MEANT to say was "They werent a burden to their family, and could be abandoned to solitary existence by their children. Not bad, FRD, not bad.".

The destruction of family values. Oh yes, a wonderful achievement......
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Is there ANYBODY in this stupid thread who's willing to argue facts instead of ideology? All I see from the right-wing folks is broad platitudes about the free market and government that sound like they were lifted whole from the LAST social security debate (where righties were arguing the opposite point). And all the lefties are putting out is a lot of general ideas without addressing the specifics as to how this will end up not having the problems social security has had.

Why does every debate on this issue end up like this? I know we have ideological issues, but this would seem to be an important problem, and rather than trying to solve it in either a lefty or righty way, most people just seem interested in using it as a springboard into some vague exposition of their personal political preferences. And the way I know this is that this latest solution is pretty much what Bush proposed in 2004, only with the parties swapped. And guess what? Most people seem to have swapped with their party and suddenly Bush's embrace of capitalism is nothing less than absolute communism...and the other way around.
It is a step in the right direction. I would prefer to see some investment options other than goverment bonds. But I would rather have 5% of my 15% SS going into private account rather than a big IOY for everyone....
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY