Alaska ANWR Leases Have a Buyer!

[Glitch]

It's just been brought to my attention that 401k's are directly related to the stock market's success or failure. Of course, it's always been obvious!
But would forcing the people into the 401k situation be directly related to government interference in your affairs, that would be intolerable. I as a Canadian would certainly not be amenable to such a scheme! We may have government providing us with high quality and affordable health care but we can see a large distinction between that and being forced to invest in order to abide by the system.
Assuming that you consider universal health care as government interference??

The 401K program is retirement program that businesses offer their employees as an incentive. In the majority of cases a business will either match or exceed the employee's contribution to their 401K account. The business and individual contributions are also tax-free.

Government's involvement in 401K was to establish a tax-free retirement system that businesses and individuals can use. Like with government's Medical Savings Account. Government established a process by which every individual can establish a bank account specifically for the purpose of paying their medical insurance or medical bills and allow those funds to be tax-free. Other than establishing the program initially, there is no government involvement.

401K accounts are entirely voluntary. If you want to reject thousands of dollars given to you, tax-free, by your employer you certainly have the right to be that stupid. You are not going to find many businesses objecting to your demands that they pay you less.

Universal healthcare is not possible in the US, despite the erroneous claims by Democrats to the contrary. The US has dual sovereignty. Meaning the States can reject any scheme the federal government comes up with, like the ACA for example. Currently 28 States have rejected ACA and refuse to establish any State exchanges. Only 22 States have adopted ACA. So they can't even get universal ACA.

The States have the constitutional authority to establish a government-run healthcare scheme, like Massachusetts did. The federal government does not have that constitutional authority. The federal government is limited to only those powers specifically granted to them by the US Constitution. All other powers (except for those specifically banned by the US Constitution) belong to the States.

The Democrats in the federal government are attempting to usurp the constitutional authority granted exclusively to the States, like they have already done with education. Education is another power that is the exclusive authority of the States, not the federal government. Which makes the Department of Education that the Democrats created in 1980 unconstitutional and illegal.

 

[Montgomery]

The 401K program is retirement program that businesses offer their employees as an incentive. In the majority of cases a business will either match or exceed the employee's contribution to their 401K account. The business and individual contributions are also tax-free.

And with that you have told us how government has offered the incentive to take part in the system. To this Canadian, that's government interference that is much, much more egregious than it's providing of high quality and affordable health care for all of our people!

And fwiw, if you don't like interference in your health care then a Canadian is free to go to America and get as good quality for a much higher price.
Close to 2 1/2 times more Americans leave their country for health care than do Canadians. (per capita adjusted)
That doesn't smell very good to me!

 

[Montgomery]

401K accounts are entirely voluntary. If you want to reject thousands of dollars given to you, tax-free, by your employer you certainly have the right to be that stupid. You are not going to find many businesses objecting to your demands that they pay you less.

Free choice to accept it or reject it is the point.
And rejecting it with a choice of receiving the compensation in another form that doesn't hold one captive to the stock market. Cash that can be handled in the citizens chosen way.

Freedom from government interference is the topic that you're trying so desperately to avoid. I don't think your attitude is conducive to any further discussion between us. You're refusing to acknowledge the simplest and the most obvious.

 

[Glitch]

Free choice to accept it or reject it is the point.
And rejecting it with a choice of receiving the compensation in another form that doesn't hold one captive to the stock market. Cash that can be handled in the citizens chosen way.

Nope. It doesn't work that way. You are certainly free to refuse a company's 401K, but doing so means you voluntarily give up that compensation. Businesses are under no obligation to compensate you more than your basic agreed upon salary/wage.

In my business I did not offer a 401K, but I did offer a substantial discount (40%) on Blue Cross and Blue Shield medical/dental insurance coverage. It was voluntary, of course. They could have refused to get the insurance coverage through my business, and some did. A few had their own separate coverage and did not need the discount I was offering.

You can also close out your 401K any time you like. However, if you close out your 401K before age 65, you will be paying ~20% federal income tax, and anywhere from 0% to 10% State income tax, on all that tax-free income set aside for your retirement.

Freedom from government interference is the topic that you're trying so desperately to avoid. I don't think your attitude is conducive to any further discussion between us. You're refusing to acknowledge the simplest and the most obvious.

You are mistaken. The topic is the sale of the ANWR 1002 Area leases.

Government interference is not something I have been trying to avoid, it is ILLEGAL government interference that is something I have been trying to avoid. Why am I not surprised that you cannot tell the difference?

If the government can present evidence in a court of law, on an individual by individual basis, proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is infected, contagious, and a threat to the public, then the accused has been afforded their individual right to due process of law, as the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution requires. Government mandates ignore the individual right to due process, which is why they are illegal.