Posted on 11/07/2008 5:50:37 AM PST by Red in Blue PA
And if not, why not?
You cannot have a law which says that people adding to their accounts have money which is theirs and THEN pass a law which confiscates this money.
From everything I learned in school that would qualify as an ex post facto law. Where am I going wrong?
(Excerpt) Read more at freerepublic.com ...
More correctly, the government SEIZED gold then valued at $20/oz and handed out paper in return. Then a year later devalued the paper by 40%.
Socialists/Marxists don’t give a damn about your piece of paper.
Yes, of course, that’s the more apt term!
So, the question now is,does one cash out the 401K, take the enormous tax penalty, then pay off the mortgage, hold the cash, buy gold etc? Or let the 401k sit in a falling market, with the hope that the Marxists don’t steal it, and hope the market will rebound over the next 20 years?
If the Marxists can steal your 401K’s they can steal your physical possessions, too. Land or gold wouldn’t be safe unless you defend them at the point of a gun.
See Zimbabwe/Rhodesia for how that worked out.
another 401k thread you may want in on.
We all remember the "what the meaning of is, is" crap, which is EXACTLY what is being done with re-inventing and destroying the U.S. Constitution, too.
For example, you have $100,000 in your 401k. Your maximum tax rate is set at 25% plus penalty of 10% and now the “value” of your $100,000 account is $65,000 less interest from the date the seizure order was issued.
So you receive your $65,000 (or less) check of taxable income, and all the “due process” necessary to make it legal.
Very good points and right to the heart of it all. Taxes were, are and always will be legalized theft. Especially income taxes. What does a man own more that the fruit of his own labor? They tell us slavery was abolished in 1963. But it was re-instated via the 16th amendment. If they can take the fruits of your labor, they can TAKE anything.
This sounds like trust law, and I'm not a lawyer.
My 401(k) allows hardship withdrawals for an employee or a lump sum withdrawal if an employee quits
before age 59 ½. It also allows current and former employees to receive the stock dividend as a check mailed
to us instead of reinvesting it in the plan.
Mr. Boehner or Mr. McConnell could hold a press conference and explain why this confiscation won't happen.
Most plans allow these. But they are not the same thing as "you can take your money out at any time." These are specific exceptions to the general rule that you can't take the money out until retirement and they are allowed by the regulations that govern these plans. It's important not to confuse the exceptions with the general rule.
As such, they are in fact private property. Those holding the trust cannot claim ownership.
So yeah, technically, they WOULD be taking money that is MINE.
This in no way means the money isn't yours.
Not to be a smartass here, but it depends upon the meaning of “yours.” Fail to pay taxes on “your” property and see how fast “they” take “your” property.
Considering what we have coming our way from a Dem/Marxist controlled Congress/Executive... tax protestation via non-payment may become a lot more prevalent.
The Founders threw the Boston Tea Party over a mere fraction of the tax burden we take as a matter of course...
Unless you are over 59 (or 59 1/2), there is a 10% penalty IN ADDITION to income tax liability, federal, and state, if you have a state income tax. The amount of the income tax liability will depend on where you fall in the marginal tax rates.
I agree. I’ve always said that slavery is nothing more than a 100% income tax rate. If that be true, what is a 25% income tax rate?
Why didn’t you post an article on the 401k issue, and then provide your comment? That’s how FReepers have done it for years.
Hhmmm... sounds familiar doesn't it? :-)
No. It's a trust created by an employee benefit plan that is qualified under section 401 of the internal revenue code.
The companies holding 401(k) assets are private institutions.
Correct but irrelevant. To the extent anyone "owns" the assets it's the trustee, who may or may not be the institution holding the assets.
Think of them as CD's that you can borrow against
You can think of them this way but you'd be wrong.
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.