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.
Can you point out where it says IRAs and 401K would be canceled and the portfolio transfered to government control. Thanks.
Sorry, you'll have to read it for yourself. That meeting was 2 years ago.
There was also another meeting with Congress and a woman from The New School regarding the same topic.
It's been discussed and that's where it ended. The USG can't just conviscate IRA/401K accounts can they ? That would be what Argentina did.
But they can implement their strategies on public pensions.
SCP is what they're going with.
CA was the first state to implement this.
Like I posted earlier...I'm not worried about the USG taking my retirement money anytime soon, but I am following the talks and discussions happening on Capital Hill regarding this.
That source seems too biased for me. Are there any neutral news source articles concerning this? What would be the difference between this and Social Security? Seems like more of the same. Government takeover of individual savings accts (IRAs) does not sit right with me since we've already seen what Gov't has done to social security ponzi scheme.
The evidence clearly and convincingly shows that lower Capital Gains Tax Rates produce more tax revenues for government, while higher Capital Gains Tax Rates result in a loss of revenues for government.
One needs only to look at the Clinton Era. Capital Gains rates were cut and tax revenues damn-near started falling out of the sky showering the government with money that it never had before.
Financially....
Mircea
Isn't that "falling out of the sky" revenue ephemeral and unsustainable...i.e. weren't the revenues driven largely by taxpayers taking advantage of the (temporarily) low CG tax rates in anticipation of beating higher tax rates later? (sell now and pay a known low tax rate, or hold and accept uncertain but probably higher tax rates down the road)
And like the Reagan years, I didn't see any financial boom for burger flippers under Clinton either.
By the way, you can find those same graphs in the CRS reports.
The evidence clearly and convincingly shows that lower Capital Gains Tax Rates produce more tax revenues for government, while higher Capital Gains Tax Rates result in a loss of revenues for government.
One needs only to look at the Clinton Era. Capital Gains rates were cut and tax revenues damn-near started falling out of the sky showering the government with money that it never had before.
I'm not seeing anything on any creditable news sites yet. It seems to be a wild claim made only on right wing blogs so I think it is safe to say this is not creditable.
This guy served as a Democrat in the Florida House and ran for Congress as a Democrat this year.
"Here's what the government isn't going to tell you. When pension funds transition from defined contribution plans to defined benefit plans, the only backing they have is the underlying assets themselves and the company or entity that's responsible for the plans - which in this case would be the U.S. government.
If the prospects of your entire future being placed in the hands of the federal government doesn't scare the daylights out of you after all we've experienced so far, I suspect that nothing will."
Of course all you libs know the LSM won't mention it until they absolutely can't avoid it any longer.
It was just a few days ago that NBC started reporting on the Benghazi scandal, so don't look for the co-conspirators in the complacent lap dog media to say anything about this scam until it's too late for anyone to stop it.
I didn't see anything like that. I guess we are agreeing it is a bogus claim just like I said.
Since you read it then you see that the discussions centered on already haven taken control of the accounts and how they could be change to lifetime annuities guaranteeing a steady stream of income to retirees.
In all the talks gone on in DC they never discussed taking over or how to take over.
The talks centered around what they would do with the money with the assumption that they already had control.
Congratulations, you have just thrown millions of Obamacare 'losers' under the bus...the burger flipper who now works 29 hours a week is screwed - pays in without getting anything back - while the $20/hr worker with 29 hours is still covered.
Okay -- but if someone works for 20 hours at minimum wage for just 10 years, why should he then be able to retire at age 62 and live to 98 getting a social security check?
Is it fair that many of us started paying in at age 15 or 16, worked at least full time and even worked two jobs and won't retire until we're 70 while others worked as little they possibly could and for as short a time possible?
I think too many are paying in far too little but expect a long retirement.
I think upping the age of retirement is fine, but also they need to require more than 10 short years of working part time to get in on this ponzi scheme.
The guy who works 50 years flipping burgers 40 or more hours a week of course should get his social security checks. Not the one who works just 20 hours a week for 10 years.
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.
