Your 401K in Jeopardy- For the Better Good and All

[Geaux4it]

You know its coming. The government leftist goons want your hard savings because you didn't consider the lame and lazy as your beneficiaries. Dumb dumb

-Geaux

Government Confiscation And Lifting The Veil On "The 401(k) Scheme"

From The Next Shoe To Drop On Your Retirement Account | Zero Hedge and "will never go down in value" to Poland's 'precedent-setting' confiscation of public pensions funds for the good of the nation's debt load; and from the IMF's "one-off" wealth tax 'idea' to Europe's recent consideration of 'wholesale savings confiscations and enforced redistribution', it appears Marc Faber's warning that "from now onwards, the bailouts will also be at the expense of the asset holders, the well-to-do people. So if you have money I am sure the governments will one day take away 20-30% of my wealth," is becoming more likely every day. As the following mini-documentary explains, confirming Ron Paul's warning that "there is more chaos to come," Jim Rogers' fear that "they won’t take our bank accounts...they will take our retirement accounts," is coming true.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-06/government-confiscation-and-lifting-veil-401k-scheme

 

[Theowl32]

You know its coming. The government leftist goons want your hard savings because you didn't consider the lame and lazy as your beneficiaries. Dumb dumb

-Geaux

Government Confiscation And Lifting The Veil On "The 401(k) Scheme"

From The Next Shoe To Drop On Your Retirement Account | Zero Hedge and "will never go down in value" to Poland's 'precedent-setting' confiscation of public pensions funds for the good of the nation's debt load; and from the IMF's "one-off" wealth tax 'idea' to Europe's recent consideration of 'wholesale savings confiscations and enforced redistribution', it appears Marc Faber's warning that "from now onwards, the bailouts will also be at the expense of the asset holders, the well-to-do people. So if you have money I am sure the governments will one day take away 20-30% of my wealth," is becoming more likely every day. As the following mini-documentary explains, confirming Ron Paul's warning that "there is more chaos to come," Jim Rogers' fear that "they won’t take our bank accounts...they will take our retirement accounts," is coming true.

Government Confiscation And Lifting The Veil On "The 401(k) Scheme" | Zero Hedge

The leftists do not care, cause leftists really do not work. None of the leftists on this board anyway.

 

[Mac1958]

.

My kneejerk reaction would be "no way that happens", but I can't say that.

The hardcore left will tell you that money actually belongs to the government, I've had that conversation more than once, so I suppose this is possible. The hardcore left was emboldened by "you didn't build that", and that's when I started seeing this argument. Everything is a gift from Our Great & Glorious Leaders In Central Planning, and they can take it back whenever they want.

Still tough to believe, but I now have to admit it could happen.

.

 

[Geaux4it]

.

My kneejerk reaction would be "no way that happens", but I can't say that.

The hardcore left will tell you that money actually belongs to the government, I've had that conversation more than once, so I suppose this is possible. The hardcore left was emboldened by "you didn't build that", and that's when I started seeing this argument. Everything is a gift from Our Great & Glorious Leaders In Central Planning, and they can take it back whenever they want.

Still tough to believe, but I now have to admit it could happen.

.

Indeed. You didn't build that is a fine example of how Odummer views success brought on from risk, hard work and sacrafice

Can't have any of that around here anymore

-Geaux

 

[jon_berzerk]

You know its coming. The government leftist goons want your hard savings because you didn't consider the lame and lazy as your beneficiaries. Dumb dumb

-Geaux

Government Confiscation And Lifting The Veil On "The 401(k) Scheme"

From The Next Shoe To Drop On Your Retirement Account | Zero Hedge and "will never go down in value" to Poland's 'precedent-setting' confiscation of public pensions funds for the good of the nation's debt load; and from the IMF's "one-off" wealth tax 'idea' to Europe's recent consideration of 'wholesale savings confiscations and enforced redistribution', it appears Marc Faber's warning that "from now onwards, the bailouts will also be at the expense of the asset holders, the well-to-do people. So if you have money I am sure the governments will one day take away 20-30% of my wealth," is becoming more likely every day. As the following mini-documentary explains, confirming Ron Paul's warning that "there is more chaos to come," Jim Rogers' fear that "they won’t take our bank accounts...they will take our retirement accounts," is coming true.

Government Confiscation And Lifting The Veil On "The 401(k) Scheme" | Zero Hedge

the prezbo at the state of the union that he wanted to see this

just be thankful the prez does not have control of the house

if he did at would already be law

 

[Theowl32]

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I have been saying for years that at some point the Federal government will take over 401k's.
It is just too much money sitting out there that they can't get their grubby little hands on.
Wait and see.

 

[jon_berzerk]

I have been saying for years that at some point the Federal government will take over 401k's.
It is just too much money sitting out there that they can't get their grubby little hands on.
Wait and see.

sooner then you think

 

[martybegan]

I have been saying for years that at some point the Federal government will take over 401k's.
It is just too much money sitting out there that they can't get their grubby little hands on.
Wait and see.

sooner then you think

I just don't see the legal framework on how the government could do this. The 401k law just allows for tax deferment. I don't see where it says money in the plan can somehow be taken by the government by fiat.

That being said the federal government has been pushing its boundaries for decades now, however in this case they would basically have to ignore all laws regarding personal property.

 

[jon_berzerk]

I have been saying for years that at some point the Federal government will take over 401k's.
It is just too much money sitting out there that they can't get their grubby little hands on.
Wait and see.

sooner then you think

I just don't see the legal framework on how the government could do this. The 401k law just allows for tax deferment. I don't see where it says money in the plan can somehow be taken by the government by fiat.

That being said the federal government has been pushing its boundaries for decades now, however in this case they would basically have to ignore all laws regarding personal property.

who until a few years ago thought that the government

could force you to buy a product whether you need it or not

from a private business or face fines and penalties

 

[martybegan]

sooner then you think

I just don't see the legal framework on how the government could do this. The 401k law just allows for tax deferment. I don't see where it says money in the plan can somehow be taken by the government by fiat.

That being said the federal government has been pushing its boundaries for decades now, however in this case they would basically have to ignore all laws regarding personal property.

who until a few years ago thought that the government

could force you to buy a product whether you need it or not

from a private business or face fines and penalties

State government have been doing this with auto insurance for decades. That being said I know there is a difference between spreading out liability on public roads, and forcing people to get health insurance.

 

[zeke]

Nice little circle jerk you all got going.
Hey, but don't worry about the government taking your all's money from your 401k.
You dumb fucks don't have any money.

And hey owl. That fucking shit pot I got from you. It was rag weed dude. I want my money back.

 

[Theowl32]

I have been saying for years that at some point the Federal government will take over 401k's.
It is just too much money sitting out there that they can't get their grubby little hands on.
Wait and see.

sooner then you think

I just don't see the legal framework on how the government could do this. The 401k law just allows for tax deferment. I don't see where it says money in the plan can somehow be taken by the government by fiat.

That being said the federal government has been pushing its boundaries for decades now, however in this case they would basically have to ignore all laws regarding personal property.

There really is no legal framework for any of these things this commie in chief has done.

1. Obama's term as Board Chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge in the mid-
1990s where he and his colleague, unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, misused over $300
million in private donations meant to improve the education of minorities. Instead of
spending the money on traditional learning programs, Obama and Ayers directed the funds
to local community activists who wasted it on trying to "radicalize" the students.

2. Millions in illegal contributions accepted by the Obama campaign during his
presidential run. Credit card filters designed to screen out foreign money and domestic
donors who had maxed out their legally allowable limits, as required by US law, were
intentionally switched off.

3. Attorney General Erik Holder's failure to sue sanctuary cities for violating US
immigration law, while at the same time proceeding with a lawsuit against the State of
Arizona for enforcing US immigration law.

4. The Obama National Security Strategy released in May that allows for the
targeted assassination of US citizens including "homegrown terrorists" without due
process. It has also been described by the Kremlin, which knows quite a lot about these
kinds of things, as a "new law put forth by President Obama capable of seeing up to
500,000 American citizens jailed for the crime of opposing their government."

5. The $26 billion bailout of the teacher's unions that Obama recently signed into
law. Not only was the money taken from food stamp programs for poor Americans in order
to fund Democrat special interests, a portion will be skimmed off the top as union dues and
tunneled to Democrat political campaigns this fall.

6. Directing the EPA to unilaterally set carbon emission standards, thus
unconstitutionally bypassing Congress which opposed Obama's energy reform bill.

Obama's 13 Impeachable Offenses

 

[iamwhatiseem]

State government have been doing this with auto insurance for decades. That being said I know there is a difference between spreading out liability on public roads, and forcing people to get health insurance.

Not the same at all.
Driving is a privilege, not a right. So making people carry insurance in order to participate in your driving privilege is not close to health insurance. Because, well you know, living in America as a citizen is not a privilege...it is a right.

 

[Katzndogz]

Not everyone has to have auto insurance. Those with out cars don't have insurance.

 

[martybegan]

State government have been doing this with auto insurance for decades. That being said I know there is a difference between spreading out liability on public roads, and forcing people to get health insurance.

Not the same at all.
Driving is a privilege, not a right. So making people carry insurance in order to participate in your driving privilege is not close to health insurance. Because, well you know, living in America as a citizen is not a privilege...it is a right.

Its not the same, I agree, but it is the mechanism used to justify universal health insurance.

 

[Theowl32]

I am pretty sure all rights are free. "Affordable" health care is not free or affordable.

Then again, liberals thought it was free. It is not free. So, if it is going to be "sold" as free, then make it free. Which, of course is impossible.


Bill of Rights
Amendment 1 Freedoms, Petitions, Assembly
Amendment 2 Right to bear arms
Amendment 3 Quartering of soldiers
Amendment 4 Search and arrest
Amendment 5 Rights in criminal cases
Amendment 6 Right to a fair trial
Amendment 7 Rights in civil cases
Amendment 8 Bail, fines, punishment
Amendment 9 Rights retained by the People
Amendment 10 States' rights
Amendment 11 Lawsuits against states
Amendment 12 Presidential elections
Amendment 13 Abolition of slavery
Amendment 14 Civil rights
Amendment 15 Black suffrage
Amendment 16 Income taxes
Amendment 17 Senatorial elections
Amendment 18 Prohibition of liquor
Amendment 19 Women's suffrage
Amendment 20 Terms of office
Amendment 21 Repeal of Prohibition
Amendment 22 Term Limits for the Presidency
Amendment 23 Washington, D.C., suffrage
Amendment 24 Abolition of poll taxes
Amendment 25 Presidential succession
Amendment 26 18-year-old suffrage
Amendment 27 Congressional pay raises


Which is why health care is not a RIGHT. However, it would not constitutional to deprive someone of an opportunity to PURCHASE health insurance. Which, every one of the "44 million citizens" that did not have health insurance.

Now, the so called goal was to get were not insured to be insured. Now, the administration does a "victory lap" (interestingly enough every news outlet and reporter that reported it called it a "victory lap") when they supposedly at 7 million people sign up. We will not get into how the morons on the left refuse to factor in the 5 million or so that were kicked off of their plan......eye roll.

This thing is the first so called "right" that the left insist it is that is not free at all. Not in any way.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

State government have been doing this with auto insurance for decades. That being said I know there is a difference between spreading out liability on public roads, and forcing people to get health insurance.

Not the same at all.
Driving is a privilege, not a right. So making people carry insurance in order to participate in your driving privilege is not close to health insurance. Because, well you know, living in America as a citizen is not a privilege...it is a right.

Its not the same, I agree, but it is the mechanism used to justify universal health insurance.

Also, as I pointed out in a different thread, who would have thought that the Federal Government would give government employees the right to legally remove food from your child's lunch at their discretion.

 

[waltky]

Granny got Halliburton & Blackwater stocks fundin' her 401k...

High fees eroding many 401(k) retirement accounts
Apr 12,`14: WASHINGTON (AP) -- It's the silent enemy in our retirement accounts: High fees.

And now a new study finds that the typical 401(k) fees - adding up to a modest-sounding 1 percent a year - would erase $70,000 from an average worker's account over a four-decade career compared with lower-cost options. To compensate for the higher fees, someone would have to work an extra three years before retiring. The study comes from the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. Its analysis, backed by industry and government data, suggests that U.S. workers, already struggling to save enough for retirement, are being further held back by fund costs. "The corrosive effect of high fees in many of these retirement accounts forces many Americans to work years longer than necessary or than planned," the report, being released Friday, concludes.

Most savers have only a vague idea how much they're paying in 401(k) fees or what alternatives exist, though the information is provided in often dense and complex fund statements. High fees seldom lead to high returns. And critics say they hurt ordinary investors - much more so than, say, Wall Street's high-speed trading systems, which benefit pros and have increasingly drawn the eye of regulators. Consider what would happen to a 25-year-old worker, earning the U.S. median income of $30,500, who puts 5 percent of his or her pay in a 401(k) account and whose employer chips in another 5 percent:

- If the plan charged 0.25 percent in annual fees, a widely available low-cost option, and the investment return averaged 6.8 percent a year, the account would equal $476,745 when the worker turned 67 (the age he or she could retire with full Social Security benefits).

- If the plan charged the typical 1 percent, the account would reach only $405,454 - a $71,000 shortfall.

- If the plan charged 1.3 percent - common for 401 (k) plans at small companies - the account would reach $380,649, a $96,000 shortfall. The worker would have to work four more years to make up the gap. (The analysis assumes the worker's pay rises 3.6 percent a year.)

The higher fees often accompany funds that try to beat market indexes by actively buying and selling securities. Index funds, which track benchmarks such as the Standard & Poor's 500, don't require active management and typically charge lower fees. With stocks having hit record highs before being clobbered in recent days, many investors have been on edge over the market's ups and downs. But experts say timing the market is nearly impossible. By contrast, investors can increase their returns by limiting their funds' fees.

Most stock funds will match the performance of the entire market over time, so those with the lowest management costs will generate better returns, said Russel Kinnel, director of research for Morningstar. "Fees are a crucial determinant of how well you do," Kinnel said. The difference in costs can be dramatic.

MORE

See also:

A guide through the complexities of 401(k) fees
Apr 12,`14 Where to find the fees charged by your 401(k) retirement funds?

"Sorry to say there isn't an easy answer to where to find all expenses on retirement accounts, which is definitely part of the problem," says Jennifer Erickson, co-author of a new study of 401(k) fees by the Center for American Progress. Your quarterly statement may not show all the fees and "can be even more confusing," Erickson says. Most fees - more than 80 percent of them - are covered by a plan's "expense ratio." The expense ratio includes recurring fees you're charged when you invest in a fund. The ratio is disclosed in a document - form 404(a)(5) - sent annually to participants in 401(k) plans.

The expense ratio appears as a percentage of assets. It's also shown as an annual dollar amount for every $1,000 you invest. But the $1,000 figure can be misleadingly low. It doesn't illustrate how fees pile up year after year as you put more money into the plan. For example, a 1 percent expense ratio comes out to $10 per $1,000 invested. Yet as you contribute more money and your investment grows over several decades, that 1 percent will likely add up to tens of thousands of dollars. Among the fees some funds collect that aren't included in the expense ratio: Sales charges. These are also known as "loads" or commissions. These fees can vary from plan to plan and can be hard to find in the fund documents.

Erickson and co-author David Madland suggest asking your human resources department to help you compare fees among different plan options. How else to minimize what you pay in 401(k) fees? Greg McBride, chief financial analyst at Bankrate.com, suggests favoring index funds that track broad market measures, such as the Standard & Poor's 500, rather than costlier funds that actively buy and sell investments. And McBride has another suggestion: Lobby for lower-cost options from your employer's human resources department and from the company that sponsors your employer's 401(k) plan.

AP Newswire | Stars and Stripes