He hasn’t announced it yet, but the Democratic Congress has been considering taking away the tax benefit of your 401k contributions and even more, making your contributions mandatory.
“House Democrats Contemplate Abolishing 401(k) Tax Breaks
Powerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nation’s $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive.
House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-California, and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, are looking at redirecting those tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute.A plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, contains elements that are being considered. She testified last week before Miller’s Education and Labor Committee on her proposal.
At that hearing, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Peter Orszag, testified that some $2 trillion in retirement savings has been lost over the past 15 months.
Under Ghilarducci’s plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year, adjusted for inflation.
The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated.
“I want to stop the federal subsidy of 401(k)s,” Ghilarducci said in an interview. “401(k)s can continue to exist, but they won’t have the benefit of the subsidy of the tax break.”
Under the current 401(k) system, investors are charged relatively high retail fees, Ghilarducci said.
“I want to spend our nation’s dollar for retirement security better. Everybody would now be covered” if the plan were adopted, Ghilarducci said.
She has been in contact with Miller and McDermott about her plan, and they are interested in pursuing it, she said.”
Like I said, Obama hasn’t announced – yet – that he will support this plan, but it’s right up the alley with his other hair-brain ideas for the economy and YOUR money. But here’s the gist:
“The savings rate isn’t going up for the investment of $80 billion,” he said. “We have to start to think about … whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that’s not generating what we now say it should.”
“From where I sit that’s just crazy,” said John Belluardo, president of Stewardship Financial Services Inc. in Tarrytown, New York. “A lot of people contribute to their 401(k)s because of the match of the employer,” he said. Belluardo’s firm does not manage assets directly.
Higher-income employers provide matching funds to employee plans so that they can qualify for tax benefits for their own defined-contribution plans, he said.
“If the tax deferral goes away, the employers have no reason to do the matches, which primarily help people in the lower income brackets,” Belluardo said.
“This is a battle between liberalism and conservatism,” said Christopher Van Slyke, a partner in the La Jolla, California, advisory firm Trovena, which manages $400 million. “People are afraid because their accounts are seeing some volatility, so Democrats will seize on the opportunity to attack a program where investors control their own destiny,” he said.
The Profit Sharing/401(k) Council of America in Chicago, which represents employers that sponsor defined-contribution plans, is “staunchly committed to keeping the employee benefit system in America voluntary,” said Ed Ferrigno, vice president in the Washington office.”
Let Obama try this type of move on our 401k and watch the outrage. Just another example of what the media failed to inform the American public about that directly affects their money and their freedom.
2 Responses
Marilyn
November 6th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
1Obama told us before the election that he thought that the rich’s 401 K’s should be redistributed to make retirement plans for the poor. It looks like he is taking a page out of FDR’s book. Social Security was a means for enticing people who were nearly destitute to willingly pay 1 % of their income in taxes so he could have money to pay for all his socialistic programs. The fact that the retirement age was set at 10 years older than the average life expectancy and that the money was “invested” in Govt. securities which immediately was spent on his programs is an indication it never was what it was sold as being. “Those who don’t listen have to feel” was one of my grandmother’s favorite sayings. You can’t say you weren’t warned. But he is the Messiah. You know you an trust him even if he comes right out and says he is going to redistribute your wealth, however little it is, to pay reparations for real and imagines grievances of the past.
TimF
November 7th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
2And Fidelity wants to know why I’m rolling over most of my old employer’s 401K into an IRA? Of course, that will be next once the first pass doesn’t raise sufficient revenue.
The existence of 401K plans has allowed many companies (including my current employer) to do-away with their pension plan. Wonder if this change in tax law would have the effect of reversing that trend?
I don’t think this will be as popular as the messiah thinks. I know a whole BUNCH of dupes…err, neighbors who voted for Obama that would feel the pinch if this passes. Can we take a page out of the Dan Rostenkowski’s playbook and surround Obama’s unicorn?
RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI
Leave a reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Top Stories in the Blogosphere News
Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac. Starting at just $149.95 with free shipping.
The Commander in Chief at Work!
News
Reading List