Hilary Clinton proposes 401(k)s, matching funds

jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
edited October 2007 in A Moving Train
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.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«13456

Comments

  • Pacomc79Pacomc79 Posts: 9,404
    that's what social security would be now if they let us freaking invest our own money.
    My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
  • 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.
  • fanch75fanch75 Posts: 3,734
    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. :)
    Do you remember Rock & Roll Radio?
  • fanch75fanch75 Posts: 3,734
    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?
    Do you remember Rock & Roll Radio?
  • 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.
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    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.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Pacomc79 wrote:
    that's what social security would be now if they let us freaking invest our own money.

    amen to that.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    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 ;)
  • 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 :)
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    ..............................................
    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.
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    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?
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    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.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • gabersgabers Posts: 2,787
    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.
  • onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    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.
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    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.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • fanch75fanch75 Posts: 3,734
    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.
    Do you remember Rock & Roll Radio?
  • 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. :)
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    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...
  • memememe Posts: 4,695
    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.
    ... and the will to show I will always be better than before.
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    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.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • inmytree wrote:
    the cost for this program is a drop in the bucket...heck, we're paying 720 Million per Day to play in Irak...

    $20 - 25 billion (which is almost definitely a lowball estimate) is not a drop in the bucket. its more like a permanent mini Iraq war.
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    MrSmith wrote:
    $20 - 25 billion is not a drop in the bucket. its more like a permanent mini Iraq war.
    Only people are saving for their retirement instead of never making it to retirement.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    meme wrote:
    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.

    whos heartless? I'm a human being who likes choices. I don't need government forcibly taking my money away.
  • fanch75fanch75 Posts: 3,734
    know1 wrote:
    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 a total misrepresentation. There is no account with your name on it, and those numbers you see are based on actuarial estimates, using assumptions that could drastically change (taxes go up, benefits are cut, etc). In essence, that piece of paper is literally meaningless.
    Do you remember Rock & Roll Radio?
  • onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    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 need to continue paying in so i get my monthly checks. they already spent the money i put in over the last 43 years.

    i see your point to one extent. but what if you invest badly? what do we do with you when you're 70 and have nothing? do you take global warming into consideration when you invest? what is the cost of evacuating 2/3 of the population from coastal areas?

    in one sentence you say "let us fend for ourselves" and i agree; but don't you also ask for free healthcare? how can it be both ways?
  • MrSmith wrote:
    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.


    That's pretty much exactly how I see it. The haves "have" because of the have nots.

    Exploitation
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • A couple things:

    know1- You keep saying if we elect democrats, raise taxes, etc. that our liberties go out the window. Our current administration does the oppposite and yet we've seen a huge rescinding of our rights. It seems the democrats are the ones defending our actual day to day rights.

    To those who have questioned that a tax on the elite ($7mm plus) can support a large portion of the population. Look at the current divide. The top 10% control an enormous amount of wealth. Even taxing the elite evenly (a 7mm estate taxed at the same rate as a 70mm, 700mm, etc.) would create very large sums for this program. Many of you are complaining that the government wants to take your money without your choice. If any of you are worth 7mm+, shut the hell up and help others out.

    Peace
    When Jesus said "Love your enemies" he probably didn't mean kill them...

    "Sometimes I think I'd be better off dead. No, wait, not me, you." -Deep Toughts, Jack Handy
  • onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    meme wrote:
    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.

    so if you were an american; you'd have no problem with the government taking away your family's money? mostly to give to layabouts who don't want to go out and work. i don't believe that.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    SilverSeed wrote:
    A couple things:

    know1- You keep saying if we elect democrats, raise taxes, etc. that our liberties go out the window. Our current administration does the oppposite and yet we've seen a huge rescinding of our rights. It seems the democrats are the ones defending our actual day to day rights.
    huge rescinding of our rights? how so?
    SilverSeed wrote:
    To those who have questioned that a tax on the elite ($7mm plus) can support a large portion of the population. Look at the current divide. The top 10% control an enormous amount of wealth. Even taxing the elite evenly (a 7mm estate taxed at the same rate as a 70mm, 700mm, etc.) would create very large sums for this program. Many of you are complaining that the government wants to take your money without your choice. If any of you are worth 7mm+, shut the hell up and help others out.

    Peace

    who are you to tell others to shut up and stand in line. no, I'm not in the 7 million+ category but I certainly plan to be. you know how i'll get there? hard work and determination. and after I spend many years of hard work, I don't accept to sit back and BE FOCRED to give it to (in many cases) lazy people. I absolutely will give to charities that I see fit and give my children a chance to be succussful. seriously, who the fuck are you?
  • onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    SilverSeed wrote:
    A couple things:

    know1- You keep saying if we elect democrats, raise taxes, etc. that our liberties go out the window. Our current administration does the oppposite and yet we've seen a huge rescinding of our rights. It seems the democrats are the ones defending our actual day to day rights.

    To those who have questioned that a tax on the elite ($7mm plus) can support a large portion of the population. Look at the current divide. The top 10% control an enormous amount of wealth. Even taxing the elite evenly (a 7mm estate taxed at the same rate as a 70mm, 700mm, etc.) would create very large sums for this program. Many of you are complaining that the government wants to take your money without your choice. If any of you are worth 7mm+, shut the hell up and help others out.

    Peace

    excuse me??? get off your arse and work like we had to. i was born dirt poor and i remember the day when we all sat down with a couple lawyers because my dad was worth over 13 mil and we had to set up trusts so the government couldn't take it. that money is for our family. grandchildren and their grandchildren and hopefully; their grandchildren. we didn't work for people we never met. how dare you feel this sense of entitlement. i worked 2 jobs (sometimes 3) until i became disabled and then i started a business i could run on a part time basis. i'm working for my future generations. i HAVE because i've worked and earned it. what makes you so special that i should give to you?
Sign In or Register to comment.