Posted on 06/16/2008 2:58:58 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
With most Americans doing a lousy job saving for their Golden Years, Barack Obama says the government has to step in.
The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee proposes that companies that don't offer retirement plans be required to set up and automatically enroll employees in IRA-type_accounts. In addition, companies with plans would have to automatically enroll workers in them.
Employees, unless they opt out, would have 3% of their salary directly deposited into the retirement account, typically into a low-cost index mutual fund. And the government would match part of the money certain employees contribute.
"These steps will put a secure retirement within the reach of millions of Americans," Obama said Friday at a campaign stop in Ohio.
The plan, which has received relatively little attention on the campaign trail, is likely to be controversial in some quarters. It would help some of the 78 million people without retirement plans at work save. But the proposal also would impose new mandates on businesses, while costing the federal government $18.8 billion a year, according to the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan policy group in Washington D.C.
Government-funded match
To encourage low- and moderate-income people to stay in the plan, Obama would provide a federally-funded match for families earning less than $75,000 who set aside money in a retirement account at work or on their own. The government match - 50% of up to $1,000 in savings - would be a refundable tax credit directly deposited into an IRA.
Obama, like an increasing number of companies and policy experts, is jumping on the auto-enrollment bandwagon. As 401(k)s increasingly become workers' sole source of retirement savings, employers are under more pressure to ensure employees contribute to the plans. More than one in three companies now automatically enroll workers in 401(k)s, according to Hewitt Associates.
(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...
Government, is there anything it can’t do?
There is no such thing to me as “Government” when you’re talking about money, how far would he get if he said the TAXPAYERS will step in and pay for that?
I love it when people say the “government” can afford it, the “government” has a lot of money. Invariably I will ask these people “where does the government get their money?” Amazingly this question leaves most puzzled. I kid you not.
I try and stay away from these people, but they keep popping up! The most ardent lefties I meet are invariably the dumbest people I’ve ever met, at least when it comes to the “government”.
All this on top of our Social Security taxes? How wonderful! Why thank you Mr. Obama - please take away more of our income (what do you want to bet that this will become a “requirement” instead of an option).
The Gov't gives you the match, so what strings will come with it. We have been down this road before.
The problem with this is it would require additional cuts or more taxes to come up with the funds for the match. Where as GWB's proposal for fixing SSI was to take some of your taxes, transfer them to a fund in your name, grow them at market rates, and have the built in feature of transference upon death vs. the annuity scheme that SSI currently is.
This fixes nothing which is what is part of the problem in Washington and the mentality of the Obamaites and the Dem's. Create more boondoggles and fix nothing. Dysfunctional and as stupid as a new set of mag wheels on an old rusted out Muscle car.
Fit the car first!
Government mandates that 3% of our money get taken and put into an account, and government matches it.
That sounds like Bush’s Social Security Privatization plan.
Don’t forget, Obama’s government has 57 states. That’s a 14% increase in federal collections from the states.
Bush's was strictly voluntary. This seems like it's mandatory.
P.S. No pension, minor savings available because I thought putting three kids through college was more important.
“This seems like it’s mandatory”
Yep, call it Marxism. If this guy gets elected,and with the support of Dem majorities in both houses, you will not recognize your country after 4 years. Coast to coast will be a San Fran-like freak show.
Sounds like a nascent privatization of Social Security more or less.
Indeed it was. Your children are better people for having a parent like you who sacrificed to give them a better chance at life. They'll carry that with them forever and, God willing, pass it on to your grandchildren.
The only net differences is that 1) the IRA could now earn interest or experience capital appreciation during the holding period, and 2) if you die before retiring, you'd have an asset to leave to your heirs. As it is now, the gov’t cheers when you die, since your SS contributions are a windfall gain for them.
I try and stay away from these people
In a discussion with a lib some years ago about some econmic matter, the subject is lost from my memory, he asked me, "why doesn't the government just print more money? That would solve the problem". He was dead serious. I just shook my head and walked away.
Some people really are that dumb.
This guy is being fed lines that are just amazing.....
He has no brains to think of these things on his own!
Doesn’t sound much different from the individual social security accounts that republicans have proposed.
My 13 year old granddaughter is already talking about going to Stanford.
The point being Obama opposes taking 3% of the existing social security money and putting it in a private account. But he is proposing to take some percent of the federal money (which might as well be social security taxes) and putting into a private account, IF the person matches it with their own money.
Also, Obama's plan is not mandatory either. It just reverses the result of inaction. In his plan, you can opt out, but you have to do so explicitly.
Which reminds me that we already I think did this, or something similar. I thought that a couple years ago we changed the laws so that employers are supposed to assume new employees want to participate in retirement plans, and the employee has to opt out.
It will be if they return the favor. Otherwise, it was probably a poor investment :-)
McCain's a socialist too. And, we're a very socialist nation:
President Roosevelt signs Social Security Act, at approximately 3:30 pm EST on 14 August 1935.
What's a little bit more? /s
It absolutely was.....you could have put up to 2% into a private fund. There was nothing mandatory about it. Where was it stated that you HAD to be a part of the program?
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.