Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is an extremely sensible law that several other states have passed as well but Wall Street lobbyists are ordering their puppets in congress to repeal the CA law.
Quote:
The 2016 law being targeted requires employers to
enroll 6.8 million California workers who currently have no access to a retirement savings account at work in a state-sponsored plan. Millions more in seven other states that have passed laws similar to California’s would also be enrolled in those states. Many more states are now weighing joining a movement that has been years in the making.
California first took steps toward creating its program in 2012. Other states, including Illinois, have been slowly implementing their own laws, which have been complicated by federal Labor Department rules governing such investment pools.
2 details:
The employer sends a minimum of 3% of the worker's gross pay to a state-managed retirement account.
The worker can opt out.
Kevin De Leon is really growing on me...
Quote:
They are trying to do this for Wall Street in the middle of the night, behind closed doors, without a hearing,” De León said. “If this is really about helping workers, they should hold hearings, study it and permit public testimony.”
He vowed that California would press ahead regardless of how Congress proceeds. California can redesign its program to avoid federal approval...
Strangely since this oppressive, job killing law went into affect, California has still miraculously added hundreds of thousands of new jobs.
Go figure.
lol
Those are your words not mine, and didn't address my comment in any meaningful way.
If you think mandates that make labor more expensive don't have an effect on overall employment, you truely are economically ignorant.
By definition, low-income means they don't make a lot of money. If they are already paying into social security why take more money from someone that doesn't have a lot to begin with?
And letting the state manage it? That is a really bad idea.
Then there's this: "California can redesign its program to avoid federal approval" Of course they can. Since when does California do anything that is in-line with federal law?
Why can't the worker plan for their own retirement?
Let me call them and find out.
Seriously,
I think from the standpoint of easing the burden off the system later on, this has the potential to help a lot of people that are not offered 401ks or retirement planning through their jobs but it also helps taxpayers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
