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.
"When I first proposed this sweeping overhaul, I predicted that "some libertarians will argue that mandatory retirement saving, like mandatory health insurance, would be an imposition on their personal freedom." And that's exactly what I heard from some of our readers. They're right.
But I believe this imposition would pale in comparison to the huge financial burden that nonsavers and short-sighted employers—in a purely voluntary retirement system—will surely impose many years from now on a compassionate society."
I think from what I have seen we are moving more to not working directly for a employers but being more contract type work with speciality offered to more than one employer.The day of employer having specialities on staff working for them is getting rarer and rarer.
Possibly, but there are still many millions of folks who are directly employed and any savings plan could be made portable too. Even "contract" workers can receive compensation packages that include benefits such as savings plans.
"When I first proposed this sweeping overhaul, I predicted that "some libertarians will argue that mandatory retirement saving, like mandatory health insurance, would be an imposition on their personal freedom." And that's exactly what I heard from some of our readers. They're right.
But I believe this imposition would pale in comparison to the huge financial burden that nonsavers and short-sighted employers—in a purely voluntary retirement system—will surely impose many years from now on a compassionate society."
Nonsavers will always impose a burden on society and that has nothing to do with retirement.
Shortsighted is believing that imposing any type of retirement system at the employer level will solve any long term burdens that nonsavers create. As usual, the vision of analysts is as limited as their perceptions of the real world.
the idea that 401k and other benefits like health insurance are linked to employers is ridiculous. the fact that im limited in what i put away in a tax deferred account by my employers decisions is stupid. i should be able to open a 401k and contribute up to its limits regardless of whether or not my employer offers one. the fact that health insurance is attached to an employer is ridiculous. having to choose between the employers plan and then switching if you switch jobs is dumb. employers should only be responsible for salary; you use that for your benefits.
i should be able to open a 401k and contribute up to its limits regardless of whether or not my employer offers one.
You can, it's called an IRA.
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.
