Posted on 11/09/2008 5:53:17 AM PST by Libloather
Yes, I heard many of these ideas before the election. Pretty much everyone above you is guilty of posting without reading and understanding what the article was saying. They are actually pretty good ideas (which is why either they're not Obama's or they'll never get into law).
The only two that are genuinely bad are allowing people to dip into their 401k's for emergency funds for 2009, and having the government match employee contributions. The first one is a REALLY bad idea (and identified as such in the article) - it will take a lot of capital from an ailing market and the funds will never be paid back to the 401k's. The other one socializes our retirement.
The article never says word one about them confiscating our 401k's, which is what the Dems in Congress want to do.
The idea makes sense to me.
“Soylent Green is people”
I am cashing out I think so they can’t get my money anymore than the taxes I will have to pay anyway and I won’t contribute a cent more than what they take for taxes.
I have been making posts about the idea since 1996.
There's really no reason for forced withdrawals at 70 and 1/2. By that time virtually 100% of the funds in any 401(k) or IRA consists of capital gains, not the income originally deposited.
That means that when it is withdrawn it will be taxed at the higher ordinary income tax rates and the saver will actually suffer a loss not forced on other categories of investors.
Here's what needs to be done ~ eliminate the 70 and 1/2 years age standard. Secondly, track withdrawals from these accounts so that once the saver has withdrawn his or her original earned income deposits, and paid the income tax on them, any future withdrawals are subject only to capital gains taxes.
A one time end-stage withdrawal and conversion to a regular equity fund should probably be devised to deal with this.
That way you wouldn't be forcing the elderly to pay an extra tax penalty simply because they got old faster than they could remember.
Oh, yeah, and Social Security ~ since that money is taxed as you make your payments into the system, it should be a simple matter to exempt from taxation any initial payments made up until the time the retiree has withdrawn benefits equal to that amount.
For some strange reason Republicans tend to fritz out and go balmy when faced with any beneficial changes in Social Security ~ like establishing tax equity.
Democrats sure don't want to do it, so why not Republicans taking the lead on this AS THE BOOMERS REACH RETIREMENT AGE.
Gotta' be some votes in that group.
I’m a few months shy of turning 52. Under O’Hitler’s health care plan I won’t be surprised to see people denied health care once they turn 55 or 60 or those even younger or born with birth defects denied as well.
I’ve read where that monster will mandatorily close all neo natal units in every hospital in this country. Premies will be tissue that just didn’t miscarry instead and like those babies that survive abortion will be forced to die.
Well if the Dems want to see financial armeggedon and the Depression they seem to so desire - nationalize 401K’s. Then sit back and watch how quickly EVERYONE pulls their money out of thier 401K’s before the Govt grabs them.
They move to do that, and you will see the market crash by at least 75%
This is actually an idea that McCain and Republicans supported and suggested. I hope that it happens. What I don’t want to see is the government take over 401k or force people into a government kind similar to social security.
If Hussein does this, I could go along with it...but I don’t think this was his idea from the get-go...it was a Republican idea..
I don’t think the article mentions eliminating 401IKs. Honestly, I don’t think they’re that stupid. Keeping Wall Street happy has become the #1 priority of both parties. It is too big a reservoir of contributions and cronies for it to be otherwise.
All your retirement accounts are belong to us.
Could this possibly mean what it says and a person could leave their 401K/Thrift Savings alone and they would pay no tax or penalty upon withdrawal at age 70.5?
If true, it would be good for those who reach 70.5 before Obama leaves office in 2012, but not for those who won't.
401ks are down 40%
Guns and ammo? up 200% plus.
http://www.carolinajournal.com/articles/display_story.html?id=5081
It's not going to happen -- unless perhaps in a modified form included in some draconian confiscatory measure to take the edge off the pain.
Obama's government is not going to forego a penny of revenue. Most of the plans discussed in this article, by the way, were based on campaign promises/slogans.
All that is so over. The state of the economy will now be used as a call for national sacrifice -- of your money, naturally. The process began with that press conference the other day, when O used the past tense in reference to those famous 95% tax breaks. If you listened carefully you could almost hear them sprout wings and fly, sadly and wistfully, into that future of hope and change, which will take at least eight years to accomplish, of course.
Is there any way to get that word out? Rush, Sean, Huckabee? The only thing that's going to slow this guy down is calling him on stuff early on. If McCain brought it up first, then people should know it wasn't some stroke of genius on O's part.
If something like this passes, I’m wondering whether it would be wise to liquidate my 401K (about 140K after the losses) and pay off my mortgage. Would appreciate any FReeper advice.
ping
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.