Would Obama, Dems Kill 401(k) Plans?

new phentermine buy phentermine online

Perfect work!

new phentermine buy phentermine online of @ Nov 25, 2009 17:45:41 PM

xanax restoril equivalent ativan doses

Beautiful site!

xanax restoril equivalent ativan doses of @ Nov 25, 2009 08:37:27 AM

adipex rip off

Perfect work!

adipex rip off of @ Nov 25, 2009 02:52:08 AM

US HAS TO DO SOMETHING

WHAT ELSE CAN THE U.S. DO? IT HAS TO PAY THE BILL. WE ALL CONTRIBUTED TO THE CREDIT CRISIS AND WE TOOK BAD ADVISE.

THIS IS A GREAT LESSON FOR ALL OF US. NOW WE CAN START TO REBUILD.

JR of FL @ Nov 12, 2009 11:46:45 AM

What about stay at home moms?

What about stay at home mothers and caregivers? Would they be expected contribute the money to their accounts?

If it is mandated 5% of income, would it be the woman's income or the family's income.

Or do women who leave the workforce lose benefits for the years they care for their children or elders?

I'm just curious. What would be the day to day impact on families?

The devil is always in the details. Some of us need to hear more before making any decision.

Sheilah of CO @ Nov 10, 2009 17:36:37 PM

Trouble!!

This is the worst thing that could happen to anyone owning a 401k! I guess we have to learn one valuable lesson from the possibility that this might happen: what the government creates, it controls. and often times the control they impose goes against all rational thought.

nick d. of ID @ Oct 26, 2009 14:31:00 PM

This is about spreading wealth

Ghilarducci stated in an interview that this program would spread the wealth around. The bottom-line is that her insane idea would severely damage the future retirement income of millions of Americans. Just compare it to Social Security, which reminds us in their Social Security Statements every year that they are going broke.

When you die, your Social Security does not have a balance that you pass on to your children. Instead, there is a bunch of red tape that it takes to get some very limited-time survivors benefits that are minuscule compared to the savings in a 401(k).

Your 401(k) is different. A 401(k) becomes part of your estate. You can leave it to whoever you wish. No red tape. Just declare your beneficiaries on it, and even better, make a will. You can leave it to your best friends plumber if you want.

Next, compare the $600 credit to the 401(k) tax deduction. If a family makes over $50,000 and has an effective tax rate of 20%, then they are better off with the 401(k) deduction vs. the tax credit that Ghilarducci is proposing.

Also, compare the amount left behind at death based on the average American life expectancy age of 78 years old. If you were to earn even less that historical rates of returns and put exactly the same amounts into a 401(k) as you do into Social Security (12.4% combined from you and your employer), then withdraw the exact same amounts until you die, at death you could easily leave a million or two dollars to you family with a 401(k), but most almost $0 with Social Security.

They are going to tell people this is going to be different than Social Security, but is it? They are proposing the it be run by the Social Security Administration. If something like this ever happened, we would be throwing almost total control of how much we have saved at retirement, and all of the inheritance we may wish to leave, over to the government.

Why go down this path again?

Adam of OH @ Oct 21, 2009 11:20:00 AM

porevo

хаха жжёте я аж возбудилась (;

Porevo of AL @ Sep 13, 2009 09:11:53 AM