House 401(k) Hearing: 4 Ways to Fix the Retirement System

zopiclone or tramadol

T7pHIC Beautiful site!

zopiclone or tramadol of MO @ Aug 02, 2009 06:34:43 AM

soundtracks

+1

soundtracks of AL @ Jul 17, 2009 06:28:21 AM

cialis

Great topic. Now i can say thank you

cialis of AL @ Jul 16, 2009 07:21:14 AM

buying tramadol with paypal

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

buying tramadol with paypal of RI @ Jul 04, 2009 06:53:03 AM

adipex without perscription

Great. Now i can say thank you!

adipex without perscription of WA @ Jul 02, 2009 18:12:04 PM

Universal Retirement Account

I'm a financial planner. First, understand the current structure and trends: Employer-sponsored defined benefit plans have been trailing off for years (expensive to maintain and longevity risk to the employer). Defined contribution (DC) plans seem to be the way to go; that said, there should remain flexibility in payouts (lump or stream).

Within the DC space, we have pretax vehicles (e.g., Traditional 401ks and IRAs) and aftertax vehicles (Roth-qualified accounts). Pretax accounts seem like a good idea (tax break now gives greater exposure the market, as long as it goes up) but they create additional complexity during the distribution phase of life, requiring income tax planning, RMDs, etc. Roth accounts are simplier: You save, it grows tax free and comes out tax free; no RMDs required.

IN MY OPINION: Employer-sponsered plans should be scrapped and a Universal Retirement Account (URA) should introduced. A URA would be like an Roth IRA with a larger contribution limit (amount to be determined). After providing employees the option to proactively set up contributions through payroll, employers would default to enrolling employees with, say, a 10% contribution; employees could still opt out. Employers would NOT be permited to contribute to such accounts. Any compensation (e.g., salary, bonus, "match", profit sharing, NQDC, everything) would be paid-out to employees and be taxed on the front end. Like IRAs, URAs would have no specific affiliation with their employer and could be transfered to the owner's custodian of choice at any time; no more trapping employees in plans with poor investment options. Before distributing funds, custodians would be required to provide owners information on annuitizing (some or all) versus withdrawing funds as needed.

Via the tax code, Congress needs to take a hard stance against employer-based benefits; they've gotten out of control (first was retirement benefits, then health insurance and it was opened so wide that it's referred to as "cafeteria plans"). Such a structure makes choosing an employer all that more important ("Well, do you have Flexible Spending Accounts for my kid's childcare and my family's out of pocket medical expenses and my parking or bus fare?"); health insurance already complicates the employer-employee relationship. Keep in mind the trend of employees more frequently switching employers; why not lower the barriers further by scrapping employee-retirement benefits and instead offer someting like a Universal Retirement Account.

Institutional asset managers would cringe at this idea because they generate a great deal of revenue from employer-sponsered plans; that revenue ultimately comes at the expense of the employees trapped in such plans. Give it back to the employees.

Radical change? Yes, but we would all benefit from the increased transparency and simplicity of this idea (this coming from a person who makes a living advising people on the complex system we live with today).

Brandon, CPA of OH @ Apr 01, 2009 10:11:25 AM

Government worker misconceptions

I work for the government. I am afraid that if you think we have a golden umbrella you are sadly mistaken. We are now facing not only unpaid furlow days AND either a 3% reduction in pay or a layoff of approximately 60-90 employees. This is just to maintain. We have been told that things probably will get worse. Our state retirement system has lost tons of money because most of it is stock based. We may face actual cuts in the retirement we were promised when we were hired and have worked hard for over the years.

I heard the word "grandfathered" mentioned in a speach made by our local city manager last week and I am now seriously, (even though I cannot afford it), retirement because of the hope of NOT losing benefits due to being grandfathered into continuance.

It would be nice if everyone that isn't working for the government trully understood that we are in the same boat as they are. Only the elite in Washington may be hanging on to a golden umbrella but the trenches are full of government workers that are seriously concerned at this point.

Lynda Hanway of VA @ Mar 12, 2009 08:32:38 AM

FIX THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM

A sure fire way to fix our retirement system is to put all the govn,t retirement systems in the social security program.that,s to include the prestigiouse house and senate retirement system in place that gives all representatives and senators a golden parachute.have you ever seen a poor government worker after he retired from a great govn,t job.we should all be so lucky.i,d also like to add ,the only citizens who survived a deppression well was the government workers.again we should all be so lucky.

wilfred martin of ME @ Feb 26, 2009 18:53:08 PM