Hilary Clinton proposes 401(k)s, matching funds

jlew24asu

fuck this plan. why should successful people be forced to pay for poor peoples retirement??


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071009/ap_po/clinton_retirement_accounts

At a cost of $20 billion-$25 billion a year, the plan is Clinton's largest domestic proposal other than her plan for universal health insurance. The New York senator said it would be paid for by taxing estates worth more than $7 million per couple and would help narrow the gap between the rich and those who don't have enough savings for retirement.

Pacomc79

that's what social security would be now if they let us freaking invest our own money.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

so now we have a basic right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, free health care, and retirement benefits? Hell yeah! i think i deserve to have a right to a new Porsche 911 too!

We are gonna need to invade a lot more countries to pay for all this cool shit.

Edit: i also feel i have a right to an xbox 360.

fanch75

Just what America needs – yet more socialist policies that will cost the taxpayer dearly, remove responsibility from individuals, and create more government dependents. We're in the red as it is without these plans she's dreaming up (taht will cost far more than her estimates - they always do).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071009/ap_po/clinton_retirement_accounts

JLew, the "fuck the poor" posts don't help our cause, just a note. I don't mind helping folks in need, but I don't believe this plan has anything to do with that.

fanch75

Pacomc79 wrote:

that's what social security would be now if they let us freaking invest our own money.

Excellent point, Pac! Why not update the current ailing program, as opposed to creating an entire new program on top of all the others?

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

and how the fuck is taxing only people who make over 7 million dollars supposed to pay for retirement programs for 300 million americans? Maybe if they payed about $40 million for every $7 million they made and we all lived in Candyland that would work.

RainDog

MrSmith wrote:

Hell yeah! i think i deserve to have a right to a new Porsche 911 too!
Edit: i also feel i have a right to an xbox 360.

Yeah, but those demands are a little unreasonable. Perhaps if you start demanding "food and shelter when I'm old," you might actually get it.

And a Nintendo Wii. Apparently they're finding their way into more and more retirement homes.

jlew24asu

Pacomc79 wrote:

that's what social security would be now if they let us freaking invest our own money.

amen to that.

jlew24asu

fanch75 wrote:

Just what America needs – yet more socialist policies that will cost the taxpayer dearly, remove responsibility from individuals, and create more government dependents. We're in the red as it is without these plans she's dreaming up (taht will cost far more than her estimates - they always do).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071009/ap_po/clinton_retirement_accounts

JLew, the "fuck the poor" posts don't help our cause, just a note. I don't mind helping folks in need, but I don't believe this plan has anything to do with that.

i'm not saying fuck the poor, i'm saying fuck this plan

blackredyellow

Give me a break... Every day, thanks to our current administration, I creep further and further left, but then something like this comes out and slides me right back towards the center where I belong.

A 401k is an investment... The market, and how you position your investments, should determine how much return you get, not because the government should just match your contributions.

Our country spends and spends and never saves money (wonder where they got that idea), so now it's up to the gov't to just give us more money to blow?

Privatize social security... hell, make participation mandatory like s.s. is now, and even put limits on what type of portfolio you can invest in, but just giving people money to match their investments is stupid.

That being said, I would appreciate my $1000 check sooner than later... while the $1000 a year won't make me rich, it might allow me to retire just a little earlier than planned

RainDog

blackredyellow wrote:

..............................................
A 401k is an investment... The market, and how you position your investments, should determine how much return you get, not because the government should just match your contributions.

Our country spends and spends and never saves money (wonder where they got that idea), so now it's up to the gov't to just give us more money to blow?
.............................................edit..................................................
That being said, I would appreciate my $1000 check sooner than later... while the $1000 a year won't make me rich, it might allow me to retire just a little earlier than planned

I'm not a huge fan of Hillary Clinton, but to be fair, that's not how 401(k) matching funds work.

know1

jlew24asu wrote:

fuck this plan. why should successful people be forced to pay for poor peoples retirement??


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071009/ap_po/clinton_retirement_accounts

At a cost of $20 billion-$25 billion a year, the plan is Clinton's largest domestic proposal other than her plan for universal health insurance. The New York senator said it would be paid for by taxing estates worth more than $7 million per couple and would help narrow the gap between the rich and those who don't have enough savings for retirement.

There go more freedoms and liberties down the drain.

Don't people understand that everytime taxes go up and government gets bigger that all of us are a little less free than we were before?

know1

Pacomc79 wrote:

that's what social security would be now if they let us freaking invest our own money.

I really wish the government would let us opt out of Social Security. They can keep EVERYTHING I've contributed to this point and just let me have the money that the employer has to put in on my behalf and I'd gladly sign away my right to ever receive Social Security. It's a no-brainer.

gabers

I don't know all the dollars and cents of this proposal, but my view is the same as it is with health care. I think as a society we need to find a way to ensure all Americans are covered. If we have 20 million people over the age of 65 that don't have enough money to buy food and shelter, we have a problem. (I just threw out a number). This isn't money to buy a Wii, it's money to survive people.

onelongsong

jlew24asu wrote:

fuck this plan. why should successful people be forced to pay for poor peoples retirement??


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071009/ap_po/clinton_retirement_accounts

At a cost of $20 billion-$25 billion a year, the plan is Clinton's largest domestic proposal other than her plan for universal health insurance. The New York senator said it would be paid for by taxing estates worth more than $7 million per couple and would help narrow the gap between the rich and those who don't have enough savings for retirement.

hillary care in the 90's was a big hit. free healthcare for everyone. oh; that flopped.
but this idea; this idea will have everyone with money putting it into trusts. now that's the way to cripple the economy; and make the poor; poorer.
tmz reported brittney spears income at $780,000/month. isn't it clear that the people would rather have brittney and other washed up performers instead of healthcare? why else would the public funnel so much of their hard earned money to her?
i think we will get socialized medicine when the public gets their priorities straight. and maybe we don't need to worry about retirement when we can pay a drunken has-been $780K/month to crawl accross the bar floor. it's clear that we have plenty of money to throw away.

know1

gabers wrote:

I don't know all the dollars and cents of this proposal, but my view is the same as it is with health care. I think as a society we need to find a way to ensure all Americans are covered. If we have 20 million people over the age of 65 that don't have enough money to buy food and shelter, we have a problem. (I just threw out a number). This isn't money to buy a Wii, it's money to survive people.

So if I'm one of the people who does have plenty to survive (and survival is very subjective - there are people who make more than me who are struggling to "survive:) why should I be FORCED to also give to those who don't? I may choose to give to help them out, but I oppose it being mandatory.

fanch75

know1 wrote:

I really wish the government would let us opt out of Social Security. They can keep EVERYTHING I've contributed to this point and just let me have the money that the employer has to put in on my behalf and I'd gladly sign away my right to ever receive Social Security. It's a no-brainer.

You probably already know this, but SS doesn't work that way. It's a tax on current taxpayers to pay for current beneficiaries. When money is taken out of your check, it doesn't go to an account with "know1" on it; it goes into the General Fund like most other taxes where it is later disbursed to SS recipients and most other government expenses.

So, when they talk of the system being "bankrupted" in the future, what they mean is that disbursments for SS recipients will exceed receipts from SS taxpayers at a given point in time.

That being said, under your scenario, it would bankrupt the system today. Any privatization would have be a hybrid of a tax & pay system (so that today's recipients have funding) and the set-aside into these accounts. This would be incredibly complex, I'd say.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

Clinton said she has given up another idea for a savings incentive — giving every baby born in the United States a $5,000 account to one day pay for college or a first home.

She made that suggestion last month before the Congressional Black Caucus, saying it was just an idea and not a policy proposal.

nice. Way to try to buy black votes. very progressive.


btw, if this does happen i hope this is retroactive.

inmytree

jlew24asu wrote:

fuck this plan. why should successful people be forced to pay for poor peoples retirement??


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071009/ap_po/clinton_retirement_accounts

At a cost of $20 billion-$25 billion a year, the plan is Clinton's largest domestic proposal other than her plan for universal health insurance. The New York senator said it would be paid for by taxing estates worth more than $7 million per couple and would help narrow the gap between the rich and those who don't have enough savings for retirement.

the cost for this program is a drop in the bucket...heck, we're paying 720 Million per Day to play in Irak...

meme

jlew24asu wrote:

fuck this plan. why should successful people be forced to pay for poor peoples retirement??

Because if we have more than 7 millions we can spare a little to make someone else's life more comfortable?

I have no problem with the plan.
I'm starting to have a problem with heartless fucks though.

know1

fanch75 wrote:

You probably already know this, but SS doesn't work that way. It's a tax on current taxpayers to pay for current beneficiaries. When money is taken out of your check, it doesn't go to an account with "know1" on it; it goes into the General Fund like most other taxes where it is later disbursed to SS recipients and most other government expenses.

So, when they talk of the system being "bankrupted" in the future, what they mean is that disbursments for SS recipients will exceed receipts from SS taxpayers at a given point in time.

That being said, under your scenario, it would bankrupt the system today. Any privatization would have be a hybrid of a tax & pay system (so that today's recipients have funding) and the set-aside into these accounts. This would be incredibly complex, I'd say.

Yes - I do know that, but I also know that they do send me a statement showing my contributions so it's a bit like they are trying to misrepresent it.

It's definitely a broken system that needs to be fixed.