Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 33

Thread: Obama Begins Push to Confiscate IRAS & 401KS

  1. #1

    Obama Begins Push to Confiscate IRAS & 401KS

    But of course. They're "unfair." And the fedgov is broke, and no one's buying USG trash. Besides, savers must be punished some more.

    http://www.silverdoctors.com/obama-b...te-iras-401ks/

    It may be time to take the tax hit and withdraw funds from private retirement accounts before they are forced into long term T-bonds.

    The Obama administration is reportedly quickly moving on plans to nationalize private 401k and IRA retirement accounts, and replace them with government sponsored annuities(aka Treasury bonds that the Treasury currently can’t sell to anyone but the Fed).

    National Seniors Council Director Robert Crone warns: “This whole issue is moving forward very quickly. Already there is a bill requiring all businesses to automatically enroll their employees in IRA plans in which part of every employee’s paycheck would be automatically deducted and deposited into this account. If this passes, the government will be just one step away from being able to confiscate all these retirement accounts.“
    [...]
    Please realize that this is 100% about funding $1.5 TRILLION annual deficits using Americans’ retirement funds, as there is simply no other remaining pool of wealth able to soak up $1.5 Trillion in T-bills annually.
    http://www.nationalseniorscouncil.or...rity&Itemid=62

    A recent hearing sponsored by the Treasury and Labor Departments marked the beginning of the Obama Administration’s effort to nationalize the nation’s pension system and to eliminate private retirement accounts including IRA’s and 401k plans, NSC is warning.

    The hearing, held in the Labor Department’s main auditorium, was monitored by NSC staff and featured a line up of left-wing activists including one representative of the AFL-CIO who advocated for more government regulation over private retirement accounts and even the establishment of government-sponsored annuities that would take the place of 401k plans.
    [...]
    A representative of the liberal Pension Rights Center, Rebecca Davis, testified that the government needs to get involved because 401k plans and IRAs are unfair to poor people. She demanded the Obama administration set up a "government-sponsored program administered by the PBGC (the governments’ Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation)." She proclaimed that even "private annuities are problematic."

    Such "reforms" would effectively end private retirement accounts in America, Crone warns. "These people want the government to require that ultimately all Americans buy these government annuities instead of saving or investing on their own. The Government could then take these trillions of dollars and redistribute it through this new national retirement system."

    Deputy Treasury Secretary J. Mark Iwry, who presided over the hearing, is a long-time critic of 401k plans because he believes they benefit the rich. He also appears to be one of the Administration’s point man on this issue.

    "This whole issue is moving forward very quickly," warns Crone. "Already there is a bill requiring all businesses to automatically enroll their employees in IRA plans in which part of every employee’s paycheck would be automatically deducted and deposited into this account. If this passes, the government will be just one step away from being able to confiscate all these retirement accounts."
    h/t The Looters Are in Control

    Harry Reid Has a Plan

    Harry Reid already has a bill on his desk which requires that all pension plans (except for the unions, of course), 401Ks, and IRAs be converted to annuities from the government. This pile of cash represents the largest pile of readily available cash in the world right now. The money will be gone as soon as it hits the government’s account, and you will be left with empty promises. There is no money, only a printing press.
    Last edited by Lucille; 11-19-2012 at 06:01 PM.
    Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
    --Albert J. Nock



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Zippy? Zippy? Is this true?

    Is this from October of 2010? Seems I heard it before.
    Last edited by Danke; 11-19-2012 at 06:04 PM.
    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer

    Ⅎ˥ƎSWIH ˥˥I⋊ ⊥,NᗡIᗡ N
    IƎ⊥SԀƎ

    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  4. #3
    Another reason Romney would have been, even if only marginally, better than Obama

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    Zippy? Zippy? Is this true?
    LOL I know, I always wait to read Zippy's response to financial threads.

  6. #5
    Gee, what a surprise!
    Po fokes ain got no retirement. You owes dem retirement.
    Ain't marxism great? Take from those with the ability, and give to those in need. How sweet.

  7. #6
    So the government will liquidate the holdings of millions of Americans(crashing the market in the process) and then buy treasuries? Nope, not happening. Simply scare tactics.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by cubical View Post
    So the government will liquidate the holdings of millions of Americans(crashing the market in the process) and then buy treasuries? Nope, not happening. Simply scare tactics.
    No kidding.Doing this to existing retirement accounts would bankrupt every company with issued stocks or outstanding bonds overnight.
    Doing it to future retirement accounts would take a little longer,but not that much.

  9. #8
    Methinks that retired folks will have a different reaction to taking away their retirements than they had to giving them free drugs and healthcare...
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate. - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    The only actual change the Obama admin looks to be making in the articles is going from opt-in to opt-out. This isn't a requirement to put money in a 401k, but instead a default that any employee can change. It doesn't change the choice set available to employees, they still have the same options as before. Of course many will save much more for retirement under opt-out than opt-in, one of the pieces of evidence that people do a super $#@!ty job of saving for their own retirement.

  12. #10
    This was a proposal at a hearing several years ago where it was suggested that in order to encourage people to set up an IRA and get people to fund them regularly was to have them set up for automatic payroll deductions. One of the proposed investment options was US Treasury notes (considered a safer alternative than stocks). It is complete speculation that once set up that the government would then seize such accounts. The suggestion was never passed. (original story is from October 13th, 2010).

    The article has this part correct:
    "This hearing was set up to explore why Americans are not saving as much for their retirement as they could,"
    and then tries to give it a scarier spin.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 11-19-2012 at 09:06 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We would be much better off if Republicans had had the instincts to be immigration hawks.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The quality seems to have dropped significantly since I came here, I guess you get what you pay for.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  13. #11
    Bill numbers? This is relevant to my profession, anyone know?

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    This was a suggestion at a hearing several years ago where it was suggested that in order to encourage people to set up an IRA and get people to fund them regularly was to have them set up for automatic payroll deductions. One of the proposed investment options was US Treasury notes (considered a safer alternative than stocks). It is complete speculation that once set up that the government would then seize such accounts. The suggestion was never passed. (original story is from October 13th, 2010).

    The article has this part correct:


    and then tries to give it a scarier spin.
    they don't understand why people aren't saving more for retirement?
    well, its simple math.. if your cost of living takes up all of your check, there is nothing left to save.
    send that info on to your buddies at the fed printing press.
    rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler

  15. #13
    Found a link to a story on the original proposal: http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/...c-ira-proposal
    (it never went anywhere).
    The Treasury Department released new details about President Obama’s Automatic IRA proposal yesterday. Employers that don’t offer a retirement plan and have more than 10 employees would be required to automatically enroll their workers in a Roth IRA if they have been in business for at least two years .

    [See Should Saving for Retirement be Required?]

    Three percent of pay would be withheld from employee paychecks and direct deposited into a Roth IRA, the default savings option. Roth IRA contributions are made with after-tax dollars. So, employees would have to pay regular income tax on the money set aside for retirement. Roth IRA withdrawals at age 59 or later from an account held for at least five years are tax free. Traditional IRA contributions are made with pre-tax dollars, but income tax is due whenever the account holder withdraws their savings.

    Workers may opt out of the automatic Roth IRA, chose a traditional IRA, or elect to save a different amount. The administration has not yet publicly announced what the default investment will be. “A low cost, standard type of default investment and a handful of standard, low cost investment alternatives would be prescribed by statute or regulation,” according to the Treasury Department.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We would be much better off if Republicans had had the instincts to be immigration hawks.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The quality seems to have dropped significantly since I came here, I guess you get what you pay for.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  16. #14
    So our benevolent government does every damn thing humanly possible to encourage consumption and discourage saving, up to and including telling Americans it's pretty much their patriotic duty to spend spend SPEND, and then wonders why saving is virtually nonexistant?

    Yet ANOTHER government created "problem" with yet another assinine government created "solution" that won't be.

  17. #15
    So, unless you opt out, you would be putting 3% into a Roth? And then to withdraw from said IRA you have to pay a 10% penalty (unless you use it to pay for "x" which the government has decreed worthy)?


    Ugh.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    This was a suggestion at a hearing several years ago where it was suggested that in order to encourage people to set up an IRA and get people to fund them regularly was to have them set up for automatic payroll deductions. One of the proposed investment options was US Treasury notes (considered a safer alternative than stocks). It is complete speculation that once set up that the government would then seize such accounts. The suggestion was never passed. (original story is from October 13th, 2010).

    The article has this part correct:


    and then tries to give it a scarier spin.
    I don't save as much as i could in 401k's because I know they will be stolen at some point in time. See Hungary and Argentina.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by jonhowe View Post
    So, unless you opt out, you would be putting 3% into a Roth? And then to withdraw from said IRA you have to pay a 10% penalty (unless you use it to pay for "x" which the government has decreed worthy)?


    Ugh.
    You face the same penalty today. Nothing different. And as I said- this was from over two years ago and went nowhere.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 11-19-2012 at 08:22 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We would be much better off if Republicans had had the instincts to be immigration hawks.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The quality seems to have dropped significantly since I came here, I guess you get what you pay for.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    You face the same penatly today. Nothing different. And as I said- this was from over two years ago and went nowhere. It would not get rid of any other options for people and rather than currently opting in you could opt out if you like.
    But you can't really put money into a ROTH by accident today. With the opt-out, many would.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by torchbearer View Post
    they don't understand why people aren't saving more for retirement?
    well, its simple math.. if your cost of living takes up all of your check, there is nothing left to save.
    send that info on to your buddies at the fed printing press.
    Not only that, but with the inflation tax, the money you saved becomes worth less and less.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.3D View Post
    Not only that, but with the inflation tax, the money you saved becomes worth less and less.
    All by design. It makes stock investment more appealing. You can save money, and lose value, or you can invest in our $#@!ty stock market.

  24. #21
    How the Government Is Coming After Your IRA and 401(k) Plan
    http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com...-your-ira.html
    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...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.
    [...]
    With the issuance of the White House 256-page Budget Proposal for Fiscal Year 2013, the Obama administration endorsed “Automatic IRAs,” a plan introduced into Congress in 2010 by Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass, and Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., in which private companies would be automatically enrolled into government-mandated IRAs, forcing those businesses to contribute on behalf of their employees a “default amount” equal to 3 percent of an employees pay, unless an employee specifically opts out of the plan.

    The FY 2013 Budget proposal notes that currently 78 million working Americans, roughly half of the work force, lack employer-based retirement plans...
    Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
    --Albert J. Nock

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by RonPaul25 View Post
    Another reason Romney would have been, even if only marginally, better than Obama
    Bull$#@!.

    Romney is better? Come one. Even as it is now, the rules around retirement accounts are so ridiculous when it comes to the IRS that neither party is giving us freedom.

    Romney is slightly more war mongering and slightly less welfare statist.
    Obama is slightly less war mongering and slightly more welfare statist.

    Both are toxic.
    "Building Freedom in an Unfree World" - http://freedomlovin.com

    "All initiation of force is a violation of someone else's rights, whether initiated by an individual or the state, for the benefit of an individual or group of individuals, even if it's supposed to be for the benefit of another individual or group of individuals."
    -Ron Paul

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by torchbearer View Post
    they don't understand why people aren't saving more for retirement?
    well, its simple math.. if your cost of living takes up all of your check, there is nothing left to save.
    send that info on to your buddies at the fed printing press.
    And if you do save, right now - you will loose money because of inflation and less than 1% being paid in interest.

    -t

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by tangent4ronpaul View Post
    And if you do save, right now - you will loose money because of inflation and less than 1% being paid in interest.

    -t
    It's that way be design to make investing in the stock market more attractive.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by BAllen View Post
    All by design. It makes stock investment more appealing. You can save money, and lose value, or you can investgamble and lose it all in our $#@!ty stock market casino.
    Fixed it for ya.

  30. #26
    S. 1020: Savings Enhancement by Alleviating Leakage in 401(k)Savings Act of 2011

  31. #27
    They're from the government and they're here to help...themselves to your retirement money.

    The Government Generously Offers To Help You "Manage Your Retirement Account
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-0...rement-account

    [ZH: We have discussed this threat over the past several years (must read).] The obvious concept is that when the government runs out of money, or they face a drying up in interest for its debt, they will come for the $19.4 trillion in Americans retirement accounts. It seems that day may be finally drawing near.

    I stopped contributing to my 401k back when I worked at Bernstein, and I will probably now have to give more serious consideration whether I want to take the penalty and move the funds out of my retirement account entirely. I havent made any decisions, but will be watching closely.

    Im sure the government is just trying to protect your retirement account from terrorists.

    From Bloomberg:

    The U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is weighing whether it should take on a role in helping Americans manage the $19.4 trillion they have put into retirement savings, a move that would be the agencys first foray into consumer investments.

    Thats one of the things weve been exploring and are interested in in terms of whether and what authority we have, bureau director Richard Cordray said in an interview. He didnt provide additional details.

    The bureaus core concern is that many Americans, notably those from the retiring Baby Boom generation, may fall prey to financial scams, according to three people briefed on the CFPBs deliberations who asked not to be named because the matter is still under discussion.

    The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Labor are the main regulators of U.S. retirement savings vehicles and funds. However, the consumer bureau established by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act sees itself as a potential catalyst for promoting a coherent policy across the government, the people said.
    Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
    --Albert J. Nock

  32. #28
    The U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is weighing whether it should take on a role in helping Americans manage the $19.4 trillion they have put into retirement savings, a move that would be the agencys first foray into consumer investments
    Manage my crank, you motherfuckers.

    Last edited by Anti Federalist; 02-02-2013 at 07:43 PM.

  33. #29
    ...a move that would be the agencys first foray into consumer investments.

    Thats one of the things weve been exploring and are interested in in terms of whether and what authority we have, bureau director Richard Cordray said in an interview. He didnt provide additional details.

    Is that what they are calling it nowadays?
    Bonnie and Clyde had a different name for it.

  34. #30

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 01-25-2016, 06:13 PM
  2. Fox News begins the push for Rubio
    By helenpaul in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-12-2014, 08:15 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-03-2013, 11:39 AM
  4. Replies: 27
    Last Post: 07-29-2011, 02:11 PM
  5. Confiscate 401K savings
    By New York For Paul in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-10-2008, 03:59 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •