• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Amid Tax Talks, a Cry of 'Save My 401(k)!'

ernst barkmann said:
uniformed opinions?

twice <<<<-------- under the obama administration, the subject of 401k's and other retirement accounts has come up.

the WH has looked at them, and has figured their are trillions of dollars in those retirements accounts.

since about only half of the population has a retirement account, the government has entertained the idea of getting their hands on that money, by FORCING those investments buy into ---->government treasuries.

this way giving the government a load of cash to continue with more of their liberal spending policies, meanwhile robbing people of their money.

if this idea, were to come even close to true, you will see people bail from those accounts and cash out, to the leave the government as little as possible.

in essence it would be government stealing again.
Click to expand...

Right now the thinking seems to be that the deferred funds are "costing" the government roughly $100 Billion a year so my guess is that they will first disallow the deferral benefit. That will get people to stop saving and boost taxable income. After that they will "fix" Social Security by gradually raising FRA to the mid 70's. We will probably also see taxation of employer provided health benefits which will likely drive more people to the "exchanges" which will be regulated to such an extent that they become defacto public services.
 
Lutherf said:
Right now the thinking seems to be that the deferred funds are "costing" the government roughly $100 Billion a year so my guess is that they will first disallow the deferral benefit. That will get people to stop saving and boost taxable income. After that they will "fix" Social Security by gradually raising FRA to the mid 70's. We will probably also see taxation of employer provided health benefits which will likely drive more people to the "exchanges" which will be regulated to such an extent that they become defacto public services.
Click to expand...


i can see that from government.

but again trillions of dollars are in retirement accounts, and the government would love to get its hands on that money.

for the left, and their ideas to function, and i said function, because they don't work, they have to have continuous cash to feed into the flawed system they have created.

socialism is flawed, because it requires a never ending amount of money to keep the system puttering along.
 
Lutherf said:
Right now the thinking seems to be that the deferred funds are "costing" the government roughly $100 Billion a year so my guess is that they will first disallow the deferral benefit. That will get people to stop saving and boost taxable income. After that they will "fix" Social Security by gradually raising FRA to the mid 70's. We will probably also see taxation of employer provided health benefits which will likely drive more people to the "exchanges" which will be regulated to such an extent that they become defacto public services.
Click to expand...
One is currently being debated, two is always being debated, and three is actually up to the IRS iirc as part of Obamacare, also if I remember correctly in the next few years benefits overall are to be taxable under that turd without any future debate.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The average 401k balance is $75,900.
There are an estimated 87 million people (2009 numbers) with 401k accounts.
Click to expand...

In short, most Americans don't have them, and fewer and fewer will in the future, and since the average includes the very large pensions of the very wealthy, most Americans with 401(k)s have amounts that are pretty irrelevant to their retirement. They won't cover retirment except for a couple years.

In short this is a pseudo-problem except for the very wealthy.

By the way, the average retirement savings for Americans: about $10K. At retirement age, a paltry $56K, not enough for one year.
 
Last edited:
head of joaquin said:
In short, most Americans don't have them, and fewer and fewer will in the future, and since the average includes the very large pensions of the very wealthy, most Americans with 401(k)s have amounts that are pretty irrelevant to their retirement. They won't cover retirment except for a couple years.

In short this is a pseudo-problem except for the very wealthy.

By the way, the average retirement savings for Americans: about $10K.
Click to expand...

Um, most workers do have them.
No 401k's aren't for the very wealthy, there is an income cap, on who can contribute.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Um, most workers do have them.
No 401k's aren't for the very wealthy, there is an income cap, on who can contribute.
Click to expand...
You can put x number of dollars at first, then it's a capped fund without tax penalty. I think it's around 3k right now but haven't looked at any plans since I left the industry. Yes, most workers either have them or have access to them, the person you are dealing with is using typical BS talking points issued by people who want to push this stupid assed idea of a 401K grab, really we should call them what they are, thieves, and treat them accordingly, prison.
 
head of joaquin said:
In short, most Americans don't have them, and fewer and fewer will in the future, and since the average includes the very large pensions of the very wealthy, most Americans with 401(k)s have amounts that are pretty irrelevant to their retirement. They won't cover retirment except for a couple years.

In short this is a pseudo-problem except for the very wealthy.

By the way, the average retirement savings for Americans: about $10K.
Click to expand...

Most Americans don't have them? Well, I suppose that if you don't count all the kids who are too young to work and all the people who retired prior to 1978 you might come up with "most" but something like 190 million Americans are employed and if 87 million of them have a 401(k) that's damned near half of them. Throw in SIMPLE IRA's, 403(b)'s and government 457 plans and you'll come up with a whole lot more than "most" being invested in either a 401(k) or something damned similar.
 
Lutherf said:
Most Americans don't have them? Well, I suppose that if you don't count all the kids who are too young to work and all the people who retired prior to 1978 you might come up with "most" but something like 190 million Americans are employed and if 87 million of them have a 401(k) that's damned near half of them. Throw in SIMPLE IRA's, 403(b)'s and government 457 plans and you'll come up with a whole lot more than "most" being invested in either a 401(k) or something damned similar.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you're in dream land.

Retirement Statistics | Statistic Brain

The Average Retirement Savings by Age

Average Retirement Savings by Age

There simply is no dispute in the data. Most Americans have little or no retirement savngs of any substance, and the average number is scewed by the rich, who have most of the savings. Most Americans will rely on SS for retirement, period.
 
head of joaquin said:
Sorry, you're in dream land.

Retirement Statistics | Statistic Brain

The Average Retirement Savings by Age

Average Retirement Savings by Age

There simply is no dispute in the data. Most Americans have little or no retirement savngs of any substance, and the average number is scewed by the rich, who have most of the savings. Most Americans will rely on SS for retirement, period.
Click to expand...

So just because someone only has $20k stashed in a retirement account it would be fine and dandy for the government to take it? Coming from you that doesn't surprise me.

Younger workers don't tend to save a whole lot because they are doing things like paying off student debt and raising kids. For most people saving for retirement doesn't really get rolling until the kids are out of school so figure that it is late 40's and early 50's where people really start saving. At that point they have roughly 20 years to sock away a solid retirement and, truth be told, many do not. For a lot of people their "savings" in a home that is paid for. Most people in their 70's today have some kind of pension, not a 401(k) type product, but as defined benefit plans began to phase out some 20 years ago more employers began offering defined contribution plans (such as 401(k)'s) so at this point in time we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg as far as these plans go. In 20 more years, if the government doesn't muck things up, we will see a massive increase in the value of these plans.....which may well be why the government wants to get their hands on them now. A self sufficient people are far more difficult to properly dictate to.
 
Lutherf said:
So just because someone only has $20k stashed in a retirement account it would be fine and dandy for the government to take it? Coming from you that doesn't surprise me.

Younger workers don't tend to save a whole lot because they are doing things like paying off student debt and raising kids. For most people saving for retirement doesn't really get rolling until the kids are out of school so figure that it is late 40's and early 50's where people really start saving. At that point they have roughly 20 years to sock away a solid retirement and, truth be told, many do not. For a lot of people their "savings" in a home that is paid for. Most people in their 70's today have some kind of pension, not a 401(k) type product, but as defined benefit plans began to phase out some 20 years ago more employers began offering defined contribution plans (such as 401(k)'s) so at this point in time we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg as far as these plans go. In 20 more years, if the government doesn't muck things up, we will see a massive increase in the value of these plans.....which may well be why the government wants to get their hands on them now. A self sufficient people are far more difficult to properly dictate to.
Click to expand...

So now you're backpedaling and changed the topic.

I've shown that hardly any Americans have any substantial skin in the 401(k) game, so if you're saying that rich people are being put upon by the government, your concern for them is noted, and laughed at. Bottomline this is not a problem that hardly any working people have to worry about since they have little or no savings -- and THAT is a real problem, not your pseudoproblem about poor rich people paying higher taxes.
 
head of joaquin said:
So now you're backpedaling and changed the topic.

I've shown that hardly any Americans have any substantial skin in the 401(k) game, so if you're saying that rich people are being put upon by the government, your concern for them is noted, and laughed at. Bottomline this is not a problem that hardly any working people have to worry about since they have little or no savings -- and THAT is a real problem, not your pseudoproblem about poor rich people paying higher taxes.
Click to expand...

Somebody is changing their position but it isn't me. Try reading your own posts - http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/144095-amid-tax-talks-cry-save-my-401-k.html#post1061197387.

You started out by claiming that most people don't have 401(k)'s and when that didn't work you moved on to "they don't have much in them". Now that isn't working so you're just playing the ridicule game. I also notice that you totally avoided the question about taking someone's $20k because "it isn't much" but, hey, when you've got no cards your supposed to bluff so more power to you.
 
head of joaquin said:
Translated: your posts on this thread are totally uninformed and unrelated to the actual facts.

What's new?
Click to expand...


LOL, we should take a poll on that issue. the fact is most of your posts are butt hurt whinings about those who are wealthier than you are and how you want the government to take stuff from them
 
head of joaquin said:
The link proves it, as do any amount of other links from any source. There is no dispute of the data.

Here's a handy chart.

View attachment 67138718
Click to expand...

this is a perpetual theme of yours.

if YOU produce data.....it cant be questioned.

however if everyone else produces data for their case.....according to you..... its flawed.
 
Lutherf said:
Somebody is changing their position but it isn't me. Try reading your own posts - http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/144095-amid-tax-talks-cry-save-my-401-k.html#post1061197387.

You started out by claiming that most people don't have 401(k)'s and when that didn't work you moved on to "they don't have much in them". Now that isn't working so you're just playing the ridicule game. I also notice that you totally avoided the question about taking someone's $20k because "it isn't much" but, hey, when you've got no cards your supposed to bluff so more power to you.
Click to expand...

this is an excellent post, at putting all things into prospective again, and i love the card play at the end.....again excellent job.
 
Lutherf said:
Somebody is changing their position but it isn't me. Try reading your own posts - http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/144095-amid-tax-talks-cry-save-my-401-k.html#post1061197387.

You started out by claiming that most people don't have 401(k)'s and when that didn't work you moved on to "they don't have much in them". Now that isn't working so you're just playing the ridicule game. I also notice that you totally avoided the question about taking someone's $20k because "it isn't much" but, hey, when you've got no cards your supposed to bluff so more power to you.
Click to expand...

I'd call that a guillotine!
 
ernst barkmann said:
this is a perpetual theme of yours.

if YOU produce data.....it cant be questioned.

however if everyone else produces data for their case.....according to you..... its flawed.
Click to expand...

true, its his MEME!!!!
 
Good unions still have PENSIONS, typically far superior to 401Ks, typically backed by government as opposed to backed by no one. 401K is a step down from the likes of the big powerful unions and public folks. Good try though.

For us slugs in the private sector not using government/taxpayers to pad our retirement, the 401K is the most recommended retirement vehicle to offer employees. It costs more than IRA to manage, but has greater flexibility and increase amounts that can be tax advantage.

That a lot of people don't save using them, is irrelevant. You'd solve that my mandating retirement, just like you mandated health insurance. You don't "solve" that by reducing 401K benefits, thus pushing even more people out of the most common retirement vehicle. That would mean more people without incomes, which means more liberals demanding living wages even for those in retirement who could have, but chose not to, save, and we're back to taxpayers footing the bill.

Why are you not setting the expectation that you must save for retirement. If you do not, can you then say those who did save are ethically on the hook for making up the difference?
 
specklebang said:
Aren't 401Ks (never had one - real question) just like IRAs in that they are tax DEFERRED, not tax exempt. If rates are rising, the draws will pay the higher rates. If I'm wrong, please explain. Thank you.
Click to expand...

ROTHS are taxed now, then withdrawn tax free.
 
Lutherf said:
Somebody is changing their position but it isn't me. Try reading your own posts - http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/144095-amid-tax-talks-cry-save-my-401-k.html#post1061197387.

You started out by claiming that most people don't have 401(k)'s and when that didn't work you moved on to "they don't have much in them". Now that isn't working so you're just playing the ridicule game. I also notice that you totally avoided the question about taking someone's $20k because "it isn't much" but, hey, when you've got no cards your supposed to bluff so more power to you.
Click to expand...

Nicely excecuted LutherF.
 
OK. Good. Then why not make all of it ROTH. In other words, pay your taxes now so we can get about the urgent business of squandering them and let you ROTH-type saving grow. My MSA concept is similar.

Oddly, GW Bush, who I really, really didn't like, was IMHO on the right track with his proposal.

MSA would require you to save up maybe 50K in safe funds and after that, maybe 50/50 bons or moderately aggressive investments. The main idea is to try to assure that as people retire, they don't drop on to the dole promptly. So, the more they have free and clear, the better off we all are.

Maybe we could even buy out the SS system. Refund everybody with some interest and let there be just that one MSA system. Bes feature is that it works the same for poor or rich, since its YOUR money in there, not the governments.


PirateMk1 said:
ROTHS are taxed now, then withdrawn tax free.
Click to expand...
 
specklebang said:
OK. Good. Then why not make all of it ROTH. In other words, pay your taxes now so we can get about the urgent business of squandering them and let you ROTH-type saving grow. My MSA concept is similar.

Oddly, GW Bush, who I really, really didn't like, was IMHO on the right track with his proposal.

MSA would require you to save up maybe 50K in safe funds and after that, maybe 50/50 bons or moderately aggressive investments. The main idea is to try to assure that as people retire, they don't drop on to the dole promptly. So, the more they have free and clear, the better off we all are.

Maybe we could even buy out the SS system. Refund everybody with some interest and let there be just that one MSA system. Bes feature is that it works the same for poor or rich, since its YOUR money in there, not the governments.
Click to expand...

I dont have a fundemental problem with a MSA per say. I do like the buy out idea too. Even if NO interest was involved. My primary concern would be in is making it constitutional per sey and locking it up so the goverment cant get at it afterward. That in my mind anyway means amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom