2460 Days or So Early
I would be willing to bet him that within the decade, it will become a mainstream idea in the progressive community to fund shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare with a full or partial seizure of 401K's.
This is not quite there, but it sure shows that they are thinking in this direction
The senior administration official said that wealthy taxpayers can currently “accumulate many millions of dollars in these accounts, substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving.”
Under the plan, a taxpayer’s tax-preferred retirement account, like an IRA, could not finance more than $205,000 per year of retirement – or right around $3 million this year.
Wealth taxes on large pools of savings are not far behind
I think this may be a Trojan horse. They'll shift this to means testing and take these same "rich" folks off social security. Although the progressives would rather set the precedent of assessing surcharges against personal assets I think it may be a bridge too far. At least I hope that is true.
We really need to cut back on government spending and promises. As much as you would like to tax us to provide Nirvana for the "poor" and liberally well connected, the money just isn't there and eventually we wlll run out of creditors to bail us out.
well my point was that legislation traditionally over the years has contained changes that most folks were not aware of until the regs were issued... and that includes changes to IRA/401/ROTH, etc... -no Obama "conspiracies" just the typical legislative process at work.
the thing about IRAs including the variants and ROTH variants is that 1. most are fairly recent dating from Reagan forward....and 2. - unless rules for ALL of them change - people will just shift how to do them to whatever is most advantages - assuming they know the tax law or can buy someone that does.
the basic thing about ROTH is that you can invest and earn interest with no tax on the interest and that's being re-thunk in the overall context of across the board fairness of taxes charged on interest in different scenarios.
I'm trying Ringo, I'm trying real hard to be a good guy, and keep my money in the _bank_ but you're making it see anything other than 'buried in my backyard' as a viable option.
Exactly, it is creeping incrementalism, and given the fact that this idiotic, insane idea got an official Congressional hearing back in 2008 (see link above) means that the next step is to propose it again, this time seriously (this iteration).
It stands a chance of ratification this go-around, and if not, it will keep reappearing, next year, and the year after that.
It is a stupid, outright seizure of private assets, and will lead to a shooting war if it goes thru.
Shitforbrains, you also forgot this:
After the first 3 year--that is to say, beginning in
1940--you will pay, and your employer will pay, 1.5 cents for each dollar you
earn, up to $3,000 a year. This will be the tax for 3 years, and then,
beginning in 1943, you will pay 2 cents, and so will your employer, for every
dollar you earn for the next 3 years. After that, you and your employer will
each pay half a cent more for 3 years, and finally, beginning in 1949, twelve
years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you
earn, up to $3,000 a year. That is the most you will ever pay.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/ssb36.html
There is a reason everything that comes out of your mouth (and Obama’s) is instant crap.
I don't forsee any kind of violence, not until it's far too late, because the theft will be incremental. There's no difference in principle between progressive income taxation and excise taxes targeted at "sufficiently large" bank or retirement accounts. Those who are ok with stealing from the "rich" because "they don't need that much income" won't utter a word when they start stealing from the "rich" because "they don't need that much property". I believe that to be the majority of Americans. Once that's been accepted in both principle and practice, the definition of "sufficient" will be ratcheted down.
geeze.. you'd think that the tax code had never ever been changed... or talked about changing.
I mean even Mitt Romney was making noises about changing the tax code. He was even musing whether tax-free health insurance should be taxed like other wages - SHOCKING - I tell you! I call this the Romney black helicopter conspiracy! ;-)
People see this for what it is, outright seizure of private property, and it will impact more than just "the rich.". That will be enough.
This strikes me as a related piece of information --
Comex Gold Inventories Collapse By Largest Amount On Record
IMNSHO -- Basically, people are not trusting the gold warehouses not to be an obvious target for an asset seizure.
Expect to hear the following: "We're buying the gold, we're not 'stealing it', said a government spokesperson...Every ounce of gold is being paid for with newly printed bills"
See my note above about gold inventories in warehouses.
If I can find it. I have to dig through 1000 larry posts.
Quite interesting. Yes, you put your gold in someone else's warehouse and it is much easier for FDR to steal it from you.
Something else I just thought of. If you want to purchase gold coins because of the potential impending doom. don't get US dollar gold coins. Buy from Canada or South Africa, because if the US makes it a law to return all gold coins, as they did in FDR's day - then years later when gold is legal again, and you want to sell it - the American issue coin is obviously illegal from the time period in which you are holding it. US can't prove that you didn't purchase the Canadian coins legally after the gold prohibition is over.
LMAO
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/153504/randy-tries-it-out
Dumbass, here’s a Hahvahd economist saying the same thing I am, dipshit
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-11/carmen-reinhart-no-doubt-our-pensions-are-screwed
Since I only attended the Head of the Charles Fuck You party, this may be somewhat appropriate.
Ms. Reinhart is actually illustrating a 2 pronged attack
here:
1. ZIRP
2. Pushing the risk envelope out very far, as a result of ZIRP
For audiophiles/snobs, this is akin to maxing out the lowest and highest frequencies on the EQ; it only works on very primitive sound systems, and usually results in major harmonic distortions and feedback.
So yet another reason why we are doomed.
oh.. you and your idiot references say that all pensions everywhere are doomed because all govt everywhere is incapable of operating correctly?
;-)
yup... you go boy...
Government operated by the likes of you – who drastically and foolishly misunderstand the purpose and function of government – is guaranteed to fail, mostly because people like you lack the knowledge and perspective to understand that your plans cannot work in the modern government social framework. You cannot control the variables by which society operates sufficiently without severely limiting individual freedom. You are trying very, very hard to restrict those freedoms still left, but you will fail here as well, as your modern social democracy crumbles (see Europe).
Unfortunately, there are too many morons like you around. Do us a favor, Lar, and go play on the train tracks.
mesofool - got some govts you like or is the whole world doomed?
;-)
My evaluation and preference of governments is irrelevant.
Economic metrics of most Western governments which have embraced the social democratic model show that they are failing.
The US is on that list as well, and the failure is acute in several states: CA, IL, NY. IL finances are so bad, their debt rating is interfering with their debt offerings
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-30/illinois-delays-500-million-bond-offer-after-rating-downgrade.html
CA will be the same way, after the Stockton bankruptcy continues the precedent of making unions whole at the expense of senior and secured creditors (courtesy of illegal executive branch interference in the GM bankruptcy).
What you & your scumbag leftist buddies need to do Larry is wake up to the fact that you are at serious risk of the entire system failing because of leftist & union greed and corruption.
gawd mesofool.. this sounds pretty serious
This shocks me. I hadn't heard about it, but this strikes as a fundamentally atrocious way to create tax incentives. If the gummint first creates an arrangement to pay tax now for reduced or eliminated tax later, it must avoid the reputation of backing out of the deal. Does the withdrawal tax apply to the old accounts or only to new ones? To old deposits or only to new deposits? Because at least that way the original "deal" would be arguably intact.
I suppose I shouldn't overstate my case, given that politicians will do stupid things all the time. But I'l clarify to say I doubt it will happen, because the benefits providers will scream.
There's a difference between what they want and what they are willing to take. The obstruction to simply seizing wealth is that they need to justify the idea to various supporters and constituencies, and they generally like some sort of buy-in from experts, academics, industry, lawyers, whomever.
The example that illustrates this point for me is the GST tax-exempt trusts. Enormous private family offices are established as trusts. If those trusts predate 1985 and the generation-skipping transfer tax, then today those trusts are still exempt; trusts created since then are not exempt. The result is huge piles of money are sitting in family offices (typically invested in something like real estate or tech startups), avoiding the GST tax as well as the estate and gift taxes. There's no legal reason for this arrangement, except that these family office trusts tend to wield enormous political influence, and the idea that it would be unfair to change the rules on them.
I don't pretend that politicians will respect retirement accounts out of principle. But I do think it would be politically difficult to go after them with direct seizures or post-hoc surtaxes.
I found an article on it. It is not as I thought. It is apparently that in Australian "Roth's" if they have more than 100K in income in a year, the extra income will be taxed at 15%. Here is an article from a communist news source (really) stating how wonderful this is. They closed the loophole on the rich!
http://workinglife.org.au/2013/04/05/super-changes-end-tax-free-holiday-for-the-super-rich/
That said, it is not quite as bad as taking 15% on all withdrawls, like I originally stated, but it is worse than what President Obama has proposed.
Outstanding point.
However, it presumes Obama will abide by current tax/trust law.
How’d that work out for the Indiana State Police Pension Trust?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_State_Police_Pension_Trust_v._Chrysler
[apologies for the Wikipedia ref]