PDA

View Full Version : Democrats Eye Confiscating Private Retirement Accounts


Karenrbw
11-07-2008, 09:42 AM
The Carolina Journal

By Karen McMahan

November 04, 2008

RALEIGH — Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers’ personal retirement accounts — including 401(k)s and IRAs — and convert them to accounts managed by the Social Security Administration.

Triggered by the financial crisis the past two months, the hearings reportedly were meant to stem losses incurred by many workers and retirees whose 401(k) and IRA balances have been shrinking rapidly.

The testimony of Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, in hearings Oct. 7 drew the most attention and criticism. Testifying for the House Committee on Education and Labor, Ghilarducci proposed that the government eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts, such as IRAs, and confiscate workers’ retirement plan accounts and convert them to universal Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs) managed by the Social Security Administration.

Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, in prepared remarks for the hearing on “The Impact of the Financial Crisis on Workers’ Retirement Security,” blamed Wall Street for the financial crisis and said his committee will “strengthen and protect Americans’ 401(k)s, pensions, and other retirement plans” and the “Democratic Congress will continue to conduct this much-needed oversight on behalf of the American people.”

Currently, 401(k) plans allow Americans to invest pretax money and their employers match up to a defined percentage, which not only increases workers’ retirement savings but also reduces their annual income tax. The balances are fully inheritable, subject to income tax, meaning workers pass on their wealth to their heirs, unlike Social Security. Even when they leave an employer and go to one that doesn’t offer a 401(k) or pension, workers can transfer their balances to a qualified IRA.

Mandating Equality

Ghilarducci’s plan first appeared in a paper for the Economic Policy Institute: Agenda for Shared Prosperity on Nov. 20, 2007, in which she said GRAs will rescue the flawed American retirement income system (www.sharedprosperity.org/bp204/bp204.pdf).

The current retirement system, Ghilarducci said, “exacerbates income and wealth inequalities” because tax breaks for voluntary retirement accounts are “skewed to the wealthy because it is easier for them to save, and because they receive bigger tax breaks when they do.”

Lauding GRAs as a way to effectively increase retirement savings, Ghilarducci wrote that savings incentives are unequal for rich and poor families because tax deferrals “provide a much larger ‘carrot’ to wealthy families than to middle-class families — and none whatsoever for families too poor to owe taxes.”

GRAs would guarantee a fixed 3 percent annual rate of return, although later in her article Ghilarducci explained that participants would not “earn a 3% real return in perpetuity.” In place of tax breaks workers now receive for contributions and thus a lower tax rate, workers would receive $600 annually from the government, inflation-adjusted. For low-income workers whose annual contributions are less than $600, the government would deposit whatever amount it would take to equal the minimum $600 for all participants.

In a radio interview with Kirby Wilbur in Seattle on Oct. 27, 2008, Ghilarducci explained that her proposal doesn’t eliminate the tax breaks, rather, “I’m just rearranging the tax breaks that are available now for 401(k)s and spreading — spreading the wealth.”
Continued http://www.carolinajournal.com/articles/di...ry.html?id=5081

Boxcar
11-07-2008, 03:10 PM
Wtf????!!!!!

Spectre
11-08-2008, 09:28 AM
"That government which governs least, governs best."
Thomas Jefferson

teacher5
11-08-2008, 02:40 PM
:punch:KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF OF MY 403B! THAT'S MY HARD EARNED MONEY I HAVE INVESTED WISELY OVER THE PAST THIRTY YEARS. I VOTED DEMOCRATIC TO SECURE IT, AND THAT'S WHAT OBAMA PROMISED.

Spectre
11-09-2008, 01:31 AM
Keep in mind that this comes from but one source. There are a LOT of rumors and innuendos afloat and, along with that, a fair amount of disinformation. There are some in the country who are very unhappy about the turn of events and will attempt. as they have for the past 8 years, to distort, to confuse and complicate.:confused2: It's how they've controlled us, kept us on a proverbial leash, if you will.:angry:

Some would like very much for Mr. Obama to "crash and burn" so that they can tell us "we told you so," and then entice us to go running back to the "shelter" of their absolute control. :eek:
Those who are doing this are not, IMHO, nice people and do NOT have the general welfare in mind. They've had their way with us for nearly a decade and are very resentful that we, as a country, have broken their grip.

If I am wrong, I will be the first to say so, but right now, let's give the "new kid" a chance. Even Senator McCain said that.:)

Boxcar
11-09-2008, 07:46 AM
I think you make a good point.

What makes me a bit nervous is one party having control of both the White House and the Congress. It doesn't matter what party it is that has the control. It just doesn't seem like a good idea.

Spectre
11-09-2008, 08:17 AM
I think you make a good point.

What makes me a bit nervous is one party having control of both the White House and the Congress. It doesn't matter what party it is that has the control. It just doesn't seem like a good idea.


I will admit that that makes me uneasy as well.

I am hoping that Barak Obama won't be just the democratic president, but, rather, President of the entire United States. We've had far too much partisan politics in the last decade and it wasn't merely the republicans who did it. The democrats didn't help.:confused2: