[Perdogg]

Suckers.......

[EBH]

Shut mine all down and took the penalty in NOv. 2008, day after the election....

Fools I tell ya’, fools. Everyone saying they would never do this....

Look it is your money. They want to end it? The only thing you owe them is tax on that money. That was money you or your company put aside. That is YOUR money not the governments in any way shape or form.

[smoothsailing]

The government wants your money, all of it, now!

The fiscal cliff and tax hikes on the rich nonsense is a smoke screen for the wealth confiscation that is well under way.

[Orange1998]

"With a combined $10 trillion sitting in IRAs and 401(k) plans"

So 10 Trillion is sitting in accounts waiting for the owners to claim their money?

I seriously doubt ANYONE can produce 10 Trillion dollars in one swoop because it does not physically exist.

[SueRae]

I would think a lot of people would quit en masse and take the freaking penalty just to take their $$$ out of 401Ks. The bank of Stearns and Foster is going to do well in these times.

[PeterPrinciple]

and under current law never will be (taxed).

---

I am willing to be corrected but that is a lie.

[Milton Miteybad]

From the article:

Everything including the sacred mortgage deduction is on the table as lawmakers wrestle with the fiscal cliff, a year-end avalanche of scheduled spending cuts and tax increases. With a combined $10 trillion sitting in IRAs and 401(k) plans, retirement accounts make a juicy target. Some of this money has never been taxed, and under current law never will be.

To maintain this savings incentive the government “spends” $100 billion a year in the form of tax breaks to those who stash money in these kinds of accounts. Now, a new study suggests this tax incentive does little to change saving behavior. Some lawmakers, no doubt, are wondering: Why keep an expensive tax incentive that does not incent?

The portion in bold is just flat wrong. These are tax-deferred accounts, where current contributions are made with pre-tax dollars and are taxed at withdrawal, at the rate for that taxpayer at the time of withdrawal. The money will most certainly be taxed later on, even if it isn't being taxed now.

Moreover, the whole conclusion of the study quoted by this article is directly refuted by the article itself. Let's erroneously assume that the government actually "spends" $100 billion/year (a monumental misconception, to be certain) in deductions for contributions to these types of accounts, which have been around for 30 years or so. The aggregate deductions for retirement accounts obviously hasn't been $100 B/year from their inception to now...in the early years, whatever current revenue may have been forgone by the federal government was no doubt far less than $100 B/year. Yet, there is now a total of $10 trillion dollars held in these accounts today, which is $10 T in capital that would not have existed otherwise.

These accounts, contrary to the article's premise, have accumulated capital far faster and to a far greater extent than if the contributions had been taxed in the year they were made. The very existence of a capital pool in excess of $10 trillion that would not have existed but for the presence of the tax-deferred accounts undercuts the whole premise of the study.

Now, what I would deem to be a clear waste of federal money is any tax dollars thrown at the jacklegs who came to these erroneous conclusions.

[Mouton]

I love the smell of revolution in the morning, it smells like Victory.....sorry for the plagerism.

[GeronL]

here it comes

confiscation

and of course NO spending cuts

[trebb]

Everything including the sacred mortgage deduction is on the table...

I bought a house and never benefited from the "sacred mortgage deduction". I suppose if I had bought out of my range it might have been different, but I wonder how many middle class folks actually save anything with it. I would hazard a guess that they are upper-middle-class and/or spending more than would be prudent.

[qam1]

And how many times did the Republicans bring this up before the election?

[I want the USA back]

Once again, the government has perpetrated a fraud. They told us to save in tax-free accounts. That was to give us the fruits of our labor in our old age, so that we wouldn’t be dependent.

Ah, but the marxists couldn’t let that last. All that money out there and OUT OF THEIR CONTROL!

Will the few remaining productive people protest and keep this from happening?

[grumpygresh]

If 401k accounts are to be frozen, it will probably occur under the pretext of a crisis. But the crisis would have to be a real crisis like a major financial collapse or war. Freezing 401k accunts would likely result in a run by the public on all other accounts including bank accounts, stocks, bonds which would cause a crash and liely a freeze on these accounts as well.
Therefore, if the government is to do something like this, they will need to act suddenly, shut down the internet, censor the media and be ready to impose martial law where needed.
It is more likely that they will try out some very innocous seeming transition to tax deferred treasuries and gradually withdrawal the tax deferred status of 401ks and similar pension plans

[skeeter]

Time runs articles like this - making no mention of the ridiculous out of control government spending that has brought us to this point, only saying that 'congress might have to...' and then, when the mood hits them, run polls indicating how unpopular congress is.

Obama and his fellow socialists skate off scott free.

[outofsalt]

pfl

[I want the USA back]

“Might Have to Mess with the 401(k)”

I reject their premise. They don’t “have to.” They created the problem on purpose. They knew they would have a big deficit and would use that a justification for seizing money from people who earned it legally.

Face it folks, we live in a communist dictatorship.

[mo]

the problem in the USA is NOT a deficiency of taxes, taxation or regulation....

[Jim Noble]

I had a great 401(k), but one day on a fishing trip my canoe turned over and....

[KeyLargo]

Eventually Obama will have to dip into your savings accounts when he runs out of money from the “evil rich.”

[twistedwrench]

[Political Junkie Too]

How would this actually work?

If much of the 401(k)value is tied up in corporate stocks, then seizing retirement accounts is really seizing the private sector.

How else would one characterize the government mandated selloff of ccorporate stocks?

-PJ