dems going after retirement

[FBastiat]

From todays WSJ...

Higher Taxes Loom for 401(k) Savers

Delaying the tax hit on retirement-plan contributions, a much vaunted benefit of 401(k)s, isn't as valuable if you face higher income-tax rates when you retire.

Yet higher tax rates are all too likely in the years ahead.

For years, the standard thinking has been that people drop to a lower tax bracket in retirement. You get years of investment returns building on money that otherwise would have gone to taxes. And when your tax bill on 401(k) withdrawals comes due, you'll pay at a lower rate.

Moderator Edit: Read more at link:

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110328-706241.html

 

[Toronado3800]

Is there anything to see here?

It has been my understanding there are correct and incorrect ways to cash in retirements and investments to lower your tax burden. Guess I will just continue to have to pay attention.

 

[Annie]

Going after seniors in a variety of ways it seems:

theblogprof: Federal judge to seniors: take Medicare or lose Social Security

Saturday, March 26, 2011
Federal judge to seniors: take Medicare or lose Social Security
For those of you who doubt that big government proponents want to inflict government dependence on every man, woman and child in the country, by coercion preferably, by force if necessary, this story puts any such doubts to rest. From The Wall Street Journal via memeorandum: Forced Into Medicare

This week marks the first anniversary of ObamaCare, and if you are wondering where that coercive law is headed, we'd point to a case in federal court. That's where Judge Rosemary Collyer has ruled that Americans have a legal obligation to accept subpar government health benefits.​

It remains a remarkable fact that America obliges most citizens over the age of 65 to take that rickety government health plan known as Medicare. Judging by today's growing number of health-savings options (HSAs, medical FSAs), some Americans would prefer to maintain private coverage upon retirement, rather than be compelled into second-rate Medicare.​

Social security is not a right as the ruling class keeps telling us, it is a privilege to be doled only to those that toe the big government line and will behave the way the ruling class wants them to behave:

...[T]he idea of patient choice offends many in government, and in 1993 the Clinton Administration promulgated so-called POMS (Program Operations Manual System) rules that say seniors who withdraw from Medicare Part A (which covers hospital and outpatient services) must forfeit their Social Security benefits.​

Could anything be more coercive than this?

Several senior citizens in 2008 challenged the government, suing to be allowed to opt out of Medicare without losing Social Security. The plaintiffs paid their Medicare taxes through their working lives and are not asking for that money back. They simply want to use their private savings to contract for health services they believe to be superior to a government program that imposes price controls and rations care. They also dutifully contributed to Social Security and — fair enough — prefer to keep those benefits...​