What Obama will do with your 401k...
By missybal
@missybal (4489)
United States
October 28, 2008 4:36pm CST
This takes the cake... the Democrats want to take your 401k. Just another thing for the government to mess up for us. This is beyond wrong...
Sen. Barack Obama's Democratic allies in Congress are looking into a radical new plan that would fundamentally change the way Americans save for retirement. House Democrats recently heard testimony on the idea and, under a potential Obama administration, would likely move to put it in place. Democrats want to seize the money that workers currently invest in their 401(k) plans and replace the popular retirement savings accounts with a one-size-fits-all government sponsored retirement account. Under the scheme, Americans would be forced to transfer all of their hard earned retirement savings from their 401(k) to the government.
The government would contribute $600 a year to fund each account and would pay a rate of return of around three percent in interest. The government would also mandate that each worker contribute 5% of their yearly salary to the accounts. Under current law, workers with 401(k) plans contribute to their retirement accounts and earn interest tax free. The Democrats' plan would end those tax breaks, amounting to as much as a 15% tax hike on each American worker.
Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) said recently that Democrats had better ideas for the $80 billion that Americans contribute to their 401(k) plans each year. "We have to start thinking about whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that's not doing what we say it should." Sen. Obama would likely sign on to the plan as president.
Obama, McDermott, and Congressional Democrats miss the point that under current law, Americans have control over their retirement savings, where and how it is invested, and when and how much they contribute. The idea to nationalize retirement savings is another example of Democrats' socialist proclivities. They want control of Americans' retirement to reside in Washington DC, not on Main St., all in the name of "retirement security."
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/10/24/obama-dems-seek-to-end-401-k-plans/
Even if you are for Obama you should still make your voice heard and tell him this is one place he needs to go against his own party. You can bet that with a democrat government this would pass.
1 person likes this
2 responses
@chameleonsdream (1230)
• United States
28 Oct 08
The news story is based on a blog opinion entry at US News and World Report. The single fact in that entry is that the House Democrats invited a Teresa Ghillarducci to testify about an idea to eliminate preferential tax treatment for 401k tax savings. I would hope that any government committee would invite and consider many different plans, including those with which they don't agree. The blogger picked out one person out of who knows how many that testified, and what other testimony was offered to make his points of disagreement with Ghillarducci's idea. The hearing at which she testified was held Oct 7. A followup hearing was held October 22. The statement that came out of those hearings can be found at http://edlabor.house.gov/issues/strengthening401ks.shtml
The statement says that the committee wants to:
- provide complete disclosure and increase transparency about 401(k) management fees
- provide independent management advice to Americans with 401(k) plans to help them manage their own plans
- waive the current tax penalty for seniors 70 1/2+ who don't take their minimum withdrawal
- prohibit privatizing Social Security
None of that sounds like taking away your 401(k) to me. Sounds like they listened to a whole bunch of people with different ideas and suggested ways to help people manage their plans by giving them more information about what's going on with them.
As far as Obama's plans, his stated policy includes changing the rules for employer sponsored 401(k) plans to make them opt-out instead of opt-in, as they are now. In other words, when you're hired (or when the benefit kicks in), you're automatically enrolled in a 401(k) unless you tell your employer that you don't want to be enrolled. Since people are more likely to do nothing than to do something, that plan should increase the number of people saving for retirement in 401(k)s.
1 person likes this
@chameleonsdream (1230)
• United States
29 Oct 08
Which plan do you mean? Do you see any problem with what they actually ARE proposing? I happen to think that forcing financial people to speak plain English and actually tell their customers exactly how much they're charging for their services is a GOOD thing. Do you? Do you think that 401(k) plans should remain opt-in if it means that it will save big business money because fewer people will take the steps to enroll themselves? I think those are good ideas. I think forcing conversion of 401(k)s and IRAs is a bad idea - but no one is proposing that, so why is it even an issue?
It's an issue because it fits a message that demonizes a certain group so it got spread far and wide - and I'm very specifically not naming names, because I see it happening in so many places. It's why I -never- -ever- use names like McSame or Rethugs - they're non-productive, and they feed divisiveness and prevent us all from actually focusing on FACTS. Would I speak out and say that I think micromanaging people's retirement plans for them is a bad idea? Yes. I don't care who proposes it. Would I speak out and say that I think providing more information to people on economic realities and the real risks and benefits of various ways of investing your money is a good idea so they can decide how much risk they're willing to take - realistically? Again, yes, and I don't care who proposes it.
1 person likes this
@ClarusVisum (2163)
• United States
28 Oct 08
Oh yeah, a RedState (for anyone who doesn't know, RedState is the kind of website that pushes claims like 'Ayers is the ghostwriter of Obama's first book'--that ought to give you an idea of the crowd this guy runs with) blogger who AOL News itself says is not a journalist (Source: http://news.aol.com/political-machine/bloggers/mark-impomeni/).
Great source. How about something reputable next time?
1 person likes this
@missybal (4489)
• United States
29 Oct 08
Well if the democrats actually sponsored a plan like this would you speak out against it? The democrat party wishes to nationalize a lot of things, this is very well possible. I don't want the government in control of any more of my life.
Instead of always fighting the source why don't you try fighting the issue. The next response did.
@ClarusVisum (2163)
• United States
29 Oct 08
I don't always fight the source. Maybe it just seems that way if you're used to using non-reliable sources.
But I do try to verify each one I refer or am referred to.
Chameleonsdream put it well enough that I'd sound like I was copying him/her if I laid out what I think. I'll also add that I'll worry about losing a 401k through a Democratic policy when such a policy actually turns up.
In the meantime, lots of people are watching their 401k's melt away for a completely different reason--the financial crisis.
But I do try to verify each one I refer or am referred to.
Chameleonsdream put it well enough that I'd sound like I was copying him/her if I laid out what I think. I'll also add that I'll worry about losing a 401k through a Democratic policy when such a policy actually turns up.
In the meantime, lots of people are watching their 401k's melt away for a completely different reason--the financial crisis.1 person likes this

