Posted on 11/27/2012 11:17:14 AM PST by Perseverando
NEW YORK Two years ago, as WND reported, the Obama administration was proceeding with a novel way to finance trillion-dollar budget deficits by forcing IRA and 401(k) holders to buy Treasury bonds by mandating the placement of government-structured annuities in their retirement accounts.
Remarkably, those financial professionals specializing in private retirement savings and the U.S. citizens investing in private retirement plans now face the possibility the Obama administration and its allies on the political left will impose rules and regulations that effectively abolish the private retirement savings and investment markets.
Recent evidence suggests government officials continue to eye the multi-trillion dollar private retirement savings market, including IRAs and 401(k) plans, eyeing the opportunity to redistribute private retirement savings to less affluent Americans and to force the retirement savings out of the private market and into government-controlled programs investing in government-issued debt.
Government takeover?
An Investment Company Institute study published this month found that U.S. retirement assets totaled $18.5 trillion at the end of the second quarter 2012, of which 3.5 trillion was in IRAs and $5.1 trillion was in 401(k) plans.
Since 2010, the U.S. Treasury Department and the Department of Labor have been holding combined hearings on various plans designed to introduce government-mandated retirement plans and investment options, including government annuities invested primarily in U.S. Treasury debt, into the private retirement savings market.
This hearing was set up to explore why Americans are not saving as much for their retirement as they could, explained National Seniors Council National Director Robert Crone, describing a recent Treasury-Labor hearing held in the Labor Departments main auditorium.
However it is clear that his is just the first step toward a government takeover. It feels like the beginning of the debate over health care and we all know how that ended up.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Obamanation Communism File.
bkmk
I think this is the biggest thing the left hates, viscerally, and without a conscious thought to it.
Because, it's something that God says is righteous behavior:
Prov 13:22 A good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children, but the sinner's wealth is laid up for the righteous.
He may be more flexible, but it may be to the point that his head will be firmly implanted between his cheeks with his body intact.
You must be a prophet. At least for your own finances. Good move!
I don’t have a lot but what I do have is in a credit union. My wife wants to take most all of it and bury it in the backyard. Seriously. You can’t be robbed or burgled from something that ain’t in the house.
I’m with ya
10% kicks in below the age of 59 1/2
LOL....
The takings clause don’t mean shit to these rotten tomatoes.
Neither does the 5th, 4th and 10 amendments.
Nothing.
Now.
Which houses had which signs...?
WAR.
I did the math and cleaned out one of my IRAs. It came to something like this:
If I wait until I’m old enough to withdraw without penalty, I will be VERY LUCKY to still be in the 25% bracket, simply because taxes WILL go up. But even if the bracket is still around, there is no way I’ll be in a lower (marginal) bracket at retirement. So the best that I could do when I retire is be in the same tax bracket - so the theory that you defer income while in a higher bracket while working, doesn’t hold for me (and it doesn’t hurt being in Texas, with no state income tax).
So next is the question of what tax rate will I pay on what I pull out. It winds up that most of my taxes (if not all, not sure) will be in the 25% and 28% brackets. So, still no big hit on my tax bracket.
Next is the 10% penalty. This one is annoying, but it’s a price you pay for freedom, and for having the money put to real work at zero risk (i.e., help pay off my house). So you pay it - unless you think you can make a hardship case to the IRS, which I can’t because I refused to take out subprime loans. So I lose the 10%, but I get that back in 3 years, as it pays down my mortgage.
So, in summary, if I had $100k in my account (which I didn’t, but it’s a round number), and I take it out now, I get ~$64k. If I wait until I’m old enough, then $75k. I don’t feel like waiting and I’ll get much of the difference back just by paying down my mortgage.
As to people that can’t stand paying all that money in taxes - well you have choices. You can save the tax money and watch your IRA turn into an annuity backed by our lovely government. In other words, pay them now or have them take it all.
The only regret was that I didn’t think of this earlier and take out the money a bit slower - but that’s water under the bridge now.
no just over 59 1/2 is all it takes
-PJ
Can one of you guys help me with this? When I read it, all is see is that they intend to make a mandatory contribution to treasuries GOING FORWARD. I didn’t see the line where they are going to confiscate CURRENT 401k’s and mandatory convert them into treasuries or give them to someone else. Of course, I don’t like them doing ANYTHING with my money at all, but are we getting revved up over something that isn’t in the works yet? I mean, sure, I can see them saying that 3% of all future contributions must be in treasuries (and I hate it) but I haven’t seen anything yet. Thooughts?
Can one of you guys help me with this? When I read it, all is see is that they intend to make a mandatory contribution to treasuries GOING FORWARD. I didn’t see the line where they are going to confiscate CURRENT 401k’s and mandatory convert them into treasuries or give them to someone else. Of course, I don’t like them doing ANYTHING with my money at all, but are we getting revved up over something that isn’t in the works yet? I mean, sure, I can see them saying that 3% of all future contributions must be in treasuries (and I hate it) but I haven’t seen anything yet. Thoughts?
What seems to be a lot of money on paper, would soon be cut by more than half due to taxes. Besides, I have economical tastes.
Gold is dumb as a box of hammers. I am a capitalist at heart and prefer to invest in business. Where would I put it?
That is my take on it. On a scale of of 0 to 10 the threat level is near zero for a change in tax treatment for retirement accounts while the republicans have the house.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.