House Democrats Contemplate Abolishing 401(k) Tax Breaks

[CountryBoy]

What is this? Am I reading this right. Another tax hike by abolishing matching fees on our contributions. The libs/socialists just can't wait to tax us. If I'm reading this wrong please let me know, but I sure don't like the sound of it. The Nanny state is already eye balling our money.


http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/25/83/58.php

CB

[JTH]

This is some scary stuff :worried:

[Frixxxx]

What is this? Am I reading this right. Another tax hike by abolishing matching fees on our contributions. The libs/socialists just can't wait to tax us. If I'm reading this wrong please let me know, but I sure don't like the sound of it. The Nanny state is already eye balling our money.
CB
CB,

That's not all I see on this.....They are looking to a guarantee retirement account. Kind of like the way they sold SS.

I've got my ears and eyes on this one.:suspicious:

[CountryBoy]

CB,

That's not all I see on this.....They are looking to a guarantee retirement account. Kind of like the way they sold SS.

I've got my ears and eyes on this one.:suspicious:


Yeah I picked up on the dual SS system and they F*%& system up, no they want to do the same with our TSP. :mad:

CB

[CountryBoy]

This is some scary stuff :worried:

Yes sir, Damn scary, but this is exactly a taste of what we'll get with obama and his Socialist backers. Wealth redistribution. :mad:

CB

[Gumby]

What is this? Am I reading this right. Another tax hike by abolishing matching fees on our contributions. The libs/socialists just can't wait to tax us. If I'm reading this wrong please let me know, but I sure don't like the sound of it. The Nanny state is already eye balling our money.


http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/25/83/58.php

CB

How did you think they would pay for the bailout?
Either print more money and watch the dollar fall or get it the Liberal Socialistic way....Tax the hell out of us.

[ChemEng]

Wealth redistribution.Aren't all taxes wealth redistribution? In fact, aren't each of our pay checks wealth redistribution?

[nnuut]

What is this? Am I reading this right. Another tax hike by abolishing matching fees on our contributions. The libs/socialists just can't wait to tax us. If I'm reading this wrong please let me know, but I sure don't like the sound of it. The Nanny state is already eye balling our money.


http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/25/83/58.php

CB

Here we go again, the Dems are out fo the cage. Just wait, if Obama wins this type of crap will be the norm. Guess they would want me to give up my CSRS retirement for an expanded Social Security System? And the FERS folks will really take a beating. Looks like more taxes to me! I encourage all to vote the Dems out of the House and Senate, even up the vote so one party can't abuse the people of the USA with their Liberal stupidity!:cool:

[Silverbird]

It'll never make it on the budget. No way there's enough to cut to balance this out.

[CountryBoy]

Aren't all taxes wealth redistribution? In fact, aren't each of our pay checks wealth redistribution?

Well obviously obama backers are fine with this and all other tax increases. But anyone that wants to pay more taxes are free to write a check for more. We obviously disagree on what is fair when it comes to reneging on a deal or paying taxes. You're fine with what they want to do with our savings, I'm not. 'Nuff said on this subject.

Have a good weekend,
CB

[Aviator_Guy]

The Dems are so excited about the polls showing Barry as the winner, they just can’t resist the temptation of thinking about touching our 401K tax breaks. What next, end home mortgage interest deductions?!! I guess they figure they are so far ahead in the presidential polls, who cares anymore…:cool::cool:

[ChemEng]

Well obviously obama backers are fine with this and all other tax increases. But anyone that wants to pay more taxes are free to write a check for more. We obviously disagree on what is fair when it comes to reneging on a deal or paying taxes. You're fine with what they want to do with our savings, I'm not. 'Nuff said on this subject.

Have a good weekend,
CBNo one is saying any of the above CB. I was just acknowledging "wealth redistribution" as a buzz word--much like the "death tax" from a few years back. If you were really opposed to the idea, then you would also have some major concerns in other areas--like the source of your (and my) paycheck. Or Public Schools? Police Departments? Libraries?*

Anything else is just using the word for its political undertones.

*As an aside, it still constantly amazes me the number of federal government workers that are verbally against socialism while simultaneously working for the largest socialist organization in the world.

[malyla]

*As an aside, it still constantly amazes me the number of federal government workers that are verbally against socialism while simultaneously working for the largest socialist organization in the world.

Here, here. I once had a 'discussion' with a fellow government worker about taxes and their benefits. This worker was very upset to be paying 29% capital gains taxes. After many questions on my part (I was a newbie), I understood that he thought that paying 29% to the government who helped regulate and build the infastructure that allowed him to put 71% of the profits from his investment into his pocket was an unreasonable. My comment was that he was living off taxes and was lucky to have made more than enough money to put that extra into the stock market and that he was just paying to have a playground to play in with his 29%. My only wish was that the government used that money to update the countries infrastructure of power, water, roads, communications, etc... as when these start to fail, the market will too. I should have been more farsighted about including financials in that list. This conversation occurred during the devaluation of the ruble in 2000.

[CountryBoy]

No one is saying any of the above CB. I was just acknowledging "wealth redistribution" as a buzz word--much like the "death tax" from a few years back. If you were really opposed to the idea, then you would also have some major concerns in other areas--like the source of your (and my) paycheck. Or Public Schools? Police Departments? Libraries?*

Anything else is just using the word for its political undertones.

*As an aside, it still constantly amazes me the number of federal government workers that are verbally against socialism while simultaneously working for the largest socialist organization in the world.

Common sense and reality have to be considered when expending federal funds and I do have some major concerns with the expenditures of Federal Funds. I believe that I pay enough taxes and resent the fact that someone or some party can take money that we have been saving and give it to those who refuse to better themselves, because they have been on the dole, most for generations. The politicians, both sides, need to do something novel like,,,,uh, I know, cut spending, before they automatically start considering the many ways to screw us out of our hard earned retirement savings.

School systems? Take Wash DC, for example. It has the highest per capital dollars spent per student in the country and about a 50% drop out rate also near the highest if not the highest, so lets throw more money at them? Plus when teachers are tested for competency to teach a subject, then I’ll even be open to paying the more qualified teachers more money with my tax money. We just voted to have our PP taxes raised about 4 years ago for 3 new schools in our county and we got it passed. But it was our choice, not some Federal edict forcing us to pay additional taxes.

Police officers, never paid enough? But vigilantism might cut down on the court back log and crime rate, well eventually, there would be that nasty initial uptick on crime as the criminals are weeded out. ;)

Libraries? Museums, public radio, free college tuition, free food, where do you draw the line? I’m more of a take personal responsibility for yourself and your own community type.

Oh and we have our share of socialist types working in my office. They are the ones that never volunteer to spend weeks or a couple of months away from home on hurricane or flood disaster relief and no I don’t work for FEMA. I work for the government to help people, especially when their homes have been destroyed. That’s the most satifying part of my job. I actually get to help people by building things for them. You may call that socialism, but I call that helping my fellow man.

There are things that only the Feds can do, unfortunately they are trying to do everything for everybody and in the process they are destroying a person’s will or desire to excel in life and because of this we ARE (don't know how to bold, but I'm not yelling) becoming largest socialist organization in the world and I hate that. Why work or save, when Uncle Sugar, will take care of you?

And if my job gets cut in reducing the size of government, so be it, I’ve quit one job and got laid off from another both in private industry, before this one and I have another lined up already, when I retire from here. So if it would mean a better life for my daughter and her kids, they could lay me off right now.

Again, we’re just going in circles, we just have a different view on life and different life experiences and I’m tired of typing. :laugh:

CB

[Silverbird]

DC is a basket case onto itself - the local government has no power, anything they do can be overridden by Congress. So you can complain to the local officials all you want - with a stroke of a pen, it won't matter.

[CountryBoy]

DC is a basket case onto itself - the local government has no power, anything they do can be overridden by Congress. So you can complain to the local officials all you want - with a stroke of a pen, it won't matter.

My bad, using the DC school system as an example of trying to make a point that throwing tax dollars at a school system cures it problems. Personal responsibility has to be in the equation also and I know there are all sorts of extenuating circumstances; family and income wise, but then we'll just be profiling children and saying all kids who come from that type of background will have a high faliure rate also. Spending tax money doesn't cure all problems was the ponit I was trying to make about schools. There are always exceptions to any rule and nothing is absolute. Again my bad.

CB

[ChemEng]

Personal responsibility has to be in the equation also Who has ever said this isnt the case?

[CountryBoy]

Who has ever said this isnt the case?

And your point? :confused:

CB

[ChemEng]

And your point? :confused:

CBThat your use of the phrase was that of a qualifier and not a tautology.

Its like politicians saying they are "for the children." On my local level, we have one running on a platform of "tired of waiting in lines." Seriously. Show me someone who is against either.

The problem arises when its used as a qualifier to imply that the other position is counter the idea. I'm for the children so he must be against them. Or in this case, personal responsibility must be part of the solution to mean that it is not part of the solution in place now.

[dannyboy]

Well obviously obama backers are fine with this and all other tax increases. But anyone that wants to pay more taxes are free to write a check for more. We obviously disagree on what is fair when it comes to reneging on a deal or paying taxes. You're fine with what they want to do with our savings, I'm not. 'Nuff said on this subject.

Have a good weekend,
CB
************************************************** ***********
I was totally shocked by this article which I pulled up at lunch from another source, but thanks CB. I've been tied up in projects.
http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/25/83/58.php (http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/25/83/58.php)
Seems like, they know some people can't or won't plan for retirement. SSA can't help much then they are going to rob those who do plan ahead for retirement. Tax them so that everything is 'fair?'. This is insane just let (the system, the market, the world) correct itself and leave us :worried: soon-to-be-retirees?(22 years togo?) It's not a big issue now but when there's issues, express them! :sick: I'm kind of scoping around for a quick pick up on a good house deal, so I'll always be needing more capitol around, both now and especially later. I don't want my money robbed by Obama's taxes. Happy Weekend, everyone

[CountryBoy]

That your use of the phrase was that of a qualifier and not a tautology.

Its like politicians saying they are "for the children." On my local level, we have one running on a platform of "tired of waiting in lines." Seriously. Show me someone who is against either.

The problem arises when its used as a qualifier to imply that the other position is counter the idea. I'm for the children so he must be against them. Or in this case, personal responsibility must be part of the solution to mean that it is not part of the solution in place now.

Look ChemEng,

Personal responsibility is to man up and take the blame for screwing up and I see so much effort by people looking for some one else to blame for their mistake or circumstance that it's sickening or sitting around for Uncle Sugar to come thru with money instead of getting off your butt and start to make circumstances better.

We obviously have a generation gap thing or something going on here and it being Friday and I’m sitting here at home with a cold one, I’ve done beating my head against the wall, cause at 4:30 everyday, the internet is turned off and I spend the evening enjoying my outdoors and family.

Now my outlook on life is pretty simple and being an evil conservative it’s pretty black and white and very little room for excuses. I'm not a nuance type guy, who tries to dissect every word and statement so as to twist it around. I can read between the lines on folks and don't require all the t's crossed and i's dotted, so I'll try to keep this as plain and simple as possible.

I’m very fiscally conservative and think you cut spending before you add an additional tax load to the public. Adding taxes is the lazy and dumb man's way out and should be the last option considered. We all know of the vast gov’t waste. And it takes some serious thinking to come up with some creative ideas, instead of reaching into the successful person's pocket and givng it to the lazy man. Anyone can come of with that and I expect more thinking from our Prez, than "Lets raise taxes". I can't raise taxes, I have to cut my spending.

I believe that if someone needs help and is willing to work for it, then it is Gov’ts responsibility to help them better themselves. I actually do believe education should be a lot more available, but they must maintain a B average and repay any loans, even if that means garnishment of wages.

Charity begins at home and I believe sending our tax dollars to any government that isn’t friends of ours should be stopped. Europe and the other countries could stand pick up the load and doing more of the heavy lifting instead of always pointing all that is wrong with America. That alone would free up billions of tax dollars for our programs.

I believe in human rights and any violation should be stopped, but we can’t do it all, so that’s a whole other can of worms and a discussion for another time, but they’ll always be evil in this world and the best we can do is protect our country first.

I believe if you do the crime, you do the full time, no if’s ands or buts. I believe strongly in the Powell and one of the Bush doctrines. If someone says they are going to harm me or mine, then I’ll be sure to get the first punch in with everything I have. My word is my bond. I have never backed off my word. And anyone that hits a woman, child or animal, should be tied to the nearest tree and horsewhipped.

Now this whole conversation has really turned boring, especially to others here on the forum. because I am who I am and you are who you are and nothing will change that. And last of all, I’m not politically correct.

Now you can spin or nuance this anyway you feel like, you’d make a good lawyer, but I tried to keep it pretty straight forward and simple, so there would be no misunderstanding.

Crack a cold one and chill out man, it’s the weekend. :) It's 4:32. :laugh:

CB

[nnuut]

I give up! There is no hope! Must be some kind of MIND CONTROL?:notrust: 4909

[ChemEng]

Now this whole conversation has really turned boring, especially to others here on the forum. because I am who I am and you are who you are and nothing will change that. And last of all, I’m not politically correct.Not trying to change either. It was a slow day around the office today, which is probably why I associated the socialism question to this thread. Any other day and I would have been distracted with work. Have a great weekend CB. More time to talk later, appreciate the discussion...

[softball]

What is this? Am I reading this right. Another tax hike by abolishing matching fees on our contributions. The libs/socialists just can't wait to tax us. If I'm reading this wrong please let me know, but I sure don't like the sound of it. The Nanny state is already eye balling our money.


http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/25/83/58.php

CB
I think it's a good idea. Why should tax payers subsidize your retirement? Govt employees get payed too much anyway. Private sector employees do a better job and get payed less. You should also pay taxes on your health insurance. You pay more taxes, I pay less.

[Frixxxx]

I think it's a good idea. Why should tax payers subsidize your retirement? Govt employees get payed too much anyway. Private sector employees do a better job and get payed less. You should also pay taxes on your health insurance. You pay more taxes, I pay less.
And the peanut gallery has spoken!:suspicious:

[XL-entLady]

I think it's a good idea. Why should tax payers subsidize your retirement? Govt employees get payed too much anyway. Private sector employees do a better job and get payed less. You should also pay taxes on your health insurance. You pay more taxes, I pay less.
'Scuse me?????? Maybe I read that wrong. :rolleyes:

Lady

[Frixxxx]

'Scuse me?????? Maybe I read that wrong. :rolleyes:

Lady
Notice my previous post, Heck of a statement for a first-time poster.

[XL-entLady]

Notice my previous post, Heck of a statement for a first-time poster.
Agree! Over a decade of my 3+ decade professional work history is in private industry. I've seen both sides in-depth. I can say with rock-solid confidence that no group works harder or smarter under more adverse conditions (like red tape, outmoded tools, etc., etc. ...) than the average group of federal workers. :cool:

Can I get an 'amen,' brother? :toung:

Lady

[Frixxxx]

Agree! Over a decade of my 3+ decade professional work history is in private industry. I've seen both sides in-depth. I can say with rock-solid confidence that no group works harder or smarter under more adverse conditions (like red tape, outmoded tools, etc., etc. ...) than the average group of federal workers. :cool:

Can I get an 'amen,' brother? :toung:

Lady
AMEN!

[ChemEng]

I take that to mean you agree with the premise behind the article.Absolutely not. But even though CB and I agree about the article, I thought it was interesting that we both got to the same answer from very different starting points. Hence the discussion.

[Birchtree]

You can bet the Donkeys will reintroduce cost containment from the Carter years - try living through that in the work place.

[KevinD]

Notice my previous post, Heck of a statement for a first-time poster.

It's got to be whats known as a fake n00b. Some member here registered another account and is trolling the board.

An admin could check the IP address to see if there are more than one member from the same IP.

[CountryBoy]

************************************************** ***********
I was totally shocked by this article which I pulled up at lunch from another source, but thanks CB. I've been tied up in projects.
http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/25/83/58.php (http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/25/83/58.php)
Seems like, they know some people can't or won't plan for retirement. SSA can't help much then they are going to rob those who do plan ahead for retirement. Tax them so that everything is 'fair?'. This is insane just let (the system, the market, the world) correct itself and leave us :worried: soon-to-be-retirees?(22 years togo?) It's not a big issue now but when there's issues, express them! :sick: I'm kind of scoping around for a quick pick up on a good house deal, so I'll always be needing more capitol around, both now and especially later. I don't want my money robbed by Obama's taxes. Happy Weekend, everyone

Yea it shocked me to danny,

I found it on the Fedsmith website who had linked to the article, instead of writing the article themselves. The following link are the comments Fedsmith received from fellow federal employess, regarding the story.

http://www.fedsmith.com/headline/comment/9815/start/0/

You have a good weekend also, :D 40 degrees here this morning, I may have to start a small fire in the living room downstairs just to take off the chill. Not worth running the furnace yet.

CB

[CountryBoy]

Absolutely not. But even though CB and I agree about the article, I thought it was interesting that we both got to the same answer from very different starting points. Hence the discussion.


Agree with me? that's sure is a funny way to show agreement and gain respect, by nit picking terms, lnaguage and any nuance you can find. I guess I'm more of a stright shooter and don't try to bust somones ba!!s over such minutiae. Where I come from we have names for folks like that. ;) I'll keep your discussion technique in mind for future discussions. It'll make things must easier on me. :laugh:

So I take it you have the same beliefs I have on things, that I outlined when I simplified my stance on various subjects or are you just just deftly avoiding any comment on them, so as to remain in the closet on such things? :rolleyes: Reminds me of the Sheriff's Dance Scene, Charles Durning, scene in the "Best Little Whorehouse in Texas". That was the best part of the movie. Anyway, each to his own, that's what makes the world go around.

Eh, it's to early and it's the weekend to bust on someone, I already know the answer, we have 3 or 4 folks in our office that are exactly the same way when responding or debating.

Have a good weekend and may the markets smile on us next week, though Tuesday could be a very wild day with this Lehman/AIG bail out due, something to the effect that the US may have to write billions of dollars in checks to Hedge funds who had enormous policies on Lehman thru AIG, something like 4X's the amount of the value of AIG and these hedge funds were the people who circled Lehman like a pack of wolves and brought it down, though Fuld's stupidity made it easier for them.

No hard feelings here, I'm to old for that type of crap and it sure as heck doesn't do any good. :D

CB

[Show-me]

I think it's a good idea. Why should tax payers subsidize your retirement? Govt employees get payed too much anyway. Private sector employees do a better job and get payed less. You should also pay taxes on your health insurance. You pay more taxes, I pay less.

You are wrong and welcome to the mb. Haliburtan and Black Water proved that. They stoled tax payer trained employee's from the military and charged the tax payer a outrageous fee to do the same or lesser jobs. IMO, this was done to avoid the stigma of a draft. Better to **** away billions than impose a draft.

Private sector employee's do not do a better job, IMO. Private sector employee's do get paid less while the CEO get paid millions. In Govt at least we have salary caps for our Executives.

Again welcome to the mb and I'm not sure why you are here if you are private sector.

[Show-me]

Agree! Over a decade of my 3+ decade professional work history is in private industry. I've seen both sides in-depth. I can say with rock-solid confidence that no group works harder or smarter under more adverse conditions (like red tape, outmoded tools, etc., etc. ...) than the average group of federal workers. :cool:

Can I get an 'amen,' brother? :toung:

Lady

Amen and Hallelujah!

[KevinD]

Again welcome to the mb and I'm not sure why you are here if you are private sector.

Show - Do moderators have the ability to check IP addresses or is Tom the only one who can do that? I think softball is a regular board member with a fake ID trying to stir up $#!+.

[VirginiaBob]

Saying that federal employees are overpaid is like saying that teachers are overpaid. Looking at salary.com, my salary is in the lowest 5% of salaries for my profession, but I'm not in it for the money. I'm happy to have my job and really enjoy what I do, and that is what it is all about. But to suggest I am overpaid is ridiculous and to be quite honest, ignorant. Now, maybe others in the federal government are overpaid, such as those in Washington DC, but I beg to differ that myself nor my colleagues are overpaid.

[Callme_CO]

You are wrong and welcome to the mb. Haliburtan and Black Water proved that. They stoled tax payer trained employee's from the military and charged the tax payer a outrageous fee to do the same or lesser jobs. IMO, this was done to avoid the stigma of a draft. Better to **** away billions than impose a draft.

Private sector employee's do not do a better job, IMO. Private sector employee's do get paid less while the CEO get paid millions. In Govt at least we have salary caps for our Executives.

Again welcome to the mb and I'm not sure why you are here if you are private sector.


I completely agree with Show-me, look at the BOP we have privatized facilities and under-paid staff working them and they have more problems than our high security institutions. You get what you pay for. If you think differently join up and walk the walls of a prison....for 8 bucks an hour.

[ChemEng]

Aren't all taxes wealth redistribution? In fact, aren't each of our pay checks wealth redistribution?Here's a 3 minute video that has Colin Powell saying exactly what I said here (check out 1:50 onward if you dont want ot watch the whole thing).
Nh_c5bbvmqc

[KevinD]

How do we deal with all of this?

www.fairtax.org (http://www.fairtax.org)

[KevinD]

With the FairTax all legislation having anything to do with taxes goes away. This thread is about employers loosing the tax incentive to make matching contributions. Under the FairTax that goes away. Under the fair tax the tax rate for capitol gains goes away. The rules for the Roth IRA goes away. Heck...IRA's go away. Deductions go away. Exemptions go away. Credits go away. 1040's go away. Schedule C's go away. ALL schedules go away. Filing deadlines go away. Extensions go away.

Just think of the manipulation that the government currently uses to manipulate me and you that they would no longer have.

This debate would also go away...

[Show-me]

But the underlying point is that even with all of the tax deductions, credits, etc. someone has to pay for the programs and running of the Country. In the good and services you buy are embedded taxes from the taxes paid by the cooperations and wealthy. So in a round about way we are paying the tax no matter what.

Why not eliminate and simplify the tax code and you only pay tax on "new goods" you purchase and let the wealthy pay the larger portion of the tax when they buy a new car, yacht, plane, house, SUV, etc. They spend more because they have more therefore they will be taxed more. I spend less and will be even more frugal in my retirement years, therefore I will pay less tax if any.

Heck, I would be happy with a flat tax. It would be more fair than our current system and much more simple.

[Show-me]

Of course I believe that land owners, business owners, and veterans should be the only people allowed to vote, but that is another discussion.

[justbizness45]

Heck, I would be happy with a flat tax. It would be more fair than our current system and much more simple.

Agreed and the deficit would go down. IMO.

[saturneptune]

Slow me, but is this article talking about the tax deduction we as individuals enjoy with TSP by the income never showing up on our W-2, or is it the tax deduction the employer enjoys for his matching funds? Or both? Thanks

[James48843]

The fair tax or flat tax would never pass. Too may accountants and lawyers make money off the current complex system.

They would all lobby to kill anything that simplifies the tax code.

Too much money for them at stake to allow it to happen,

[RunningFool]

The fact is that our tax code is nothing more than social engineering. If the object is to collect money to run the government then a simple flat tax work work just fine. That was how is all started back in 1914 or so, but the social engineers started using it to encourage what they thought was important and it continues to this day. The tax code has nothing to do with collecting taxes it is a way for the congress to buy votes and social engineers to shape society to their liking.

[Show-me]

The fair tax or flat tax would never pass. Too may accountants and lawyers make money off the current complex system.

They would all lobby to kill anything that simplifies the tax code.

Too much money for them at stake to allow it to happen,

Bingo, and that cost is completly passed on to the consumer.

[Birchtree]

You do realize that 40 million people in this country pay no tax - they receive money from the earned income tax credit and the more children the more money. This is what they call redistribution and it was a Gore pet project. I had a young divorced mother of two who worked for me that would intentionally take time off to keep her salary below a certain level because she would make it all up later in a bulk payment from the earned income tax credit - it pays not to work. There was a whole circle of these folks that played this program - they informed each other about the benefits.

[Show-me]

You do realize that 40 million people in this country pay no tax - they receive money from the earned income tax credit and the more children the more money. This is what they call redistribution and it was a Gore pet project. I had a young divorced mother of two who worked for me that would intentionally take time off to keep her salary below a certain level because she would make it all up later in a bulk payment from the earned income tax credit - it pays not to work. There was a whole circle of these folks that played this program - they informed each other about the benefits.

YES! I agree and my tax liability for 2006 was under $200. I used the system. The system that is broke.

[KevinD]

Slow me, but is this article talking about the tax deduction we as individuals enjoy with TSP by the income never showing up on our W-2, or is it the tax deduction the employer enjoys for his matching funds? Or both? Thanks

Not sure but I figure both.

[Frixxxx]

Agreed and the deficit would go down. IMO.
JB, IMO, the deficit would only go down, if we spent less than we brought in, regardless of how it is taxed.:cool:

[KevinD]

You do realize that 40 million people in this country pay no tax - they receive money from the earned income tax credit and the more children the more money. This is what they call redistribution and it was a Gore pet project. I had a young divorced mother of two who worked for me that would intentionally take time off to keep her salary below a certain level because she would make it all up later in a bulk payment from the earned income tax credit - it pays not to work. There was a whole circle of these folks that played this program - they informed each other about the benefits.

The way I understand it the Republicans were the ones that thought it up.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p596.pdf

The table starts on page 44 and the max credit is on page 46 then the credit starts going down from there with income from 11250 to 12750.

[Show-me]

If the tax break goes away for corps., why would they offer matching funds? Very bad for private sector, IMO. No change for me, I have a contract.

IMO, in the long run it will not effect me as much as it will effect the private sector.

If I remember right when the Clinton's were President did they not kick around the idea of doing a one time taxing all 401(k) and Ira plans to pay down the debt?

[Show-me]

Spread the wealth, a great way to end performance.

[Silverbird]

It's not spread the wealth, all he said was he was not raising taxes for those making under $250K. It's raising revenue to slow down borrowing (I do NOT have the illusion that we will be paying back anything sustantial in the short run).

401(K) tax break abolishment yes, that's short sighted, after all the money is eventually taxed. It will just lead to more people not saving for their retirement, especially with the returns most people are getting right now. I suspect I'm not the only one with skin in TSP right now due to deferred taxes and matching - it's definately not for the returns in G.

[CountryBoy]

Yeah I know, some of you are going to be saying, there goes that crack pot CB seeing boogie men under his bed again, but here is another article of the Dems plan for our and the rest of us Americans 401K retirement funds. :nuts:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122477680834462659.html

I know some of you think this will never occur, and I hope you’re right, but here’s another article about the Dems plan to plunder or retirement moneys and if they get their wish, they’ll have complete control of the legislative process and nothing can stop them and since their pensions are impacted, well they could really care less about us. They’ve already proven that.

This is real and meetings have already been held on this robbery. What better way to make SS solvent than by stealing everyones 401 K retirement money and put it in SS Version 2.0 and then dole the money out to us in the amounts they think we deserve, regardless on how hard we worked to increase our families retirement funds. This is one of their core beliefs. :mad:

I’ll be meeting with my financial advisor and ask him what can be done to protect our future money, if this would occur. I have no problem stopping my TSP contributions, since I'm over a year ahead of my funding schedule, for a year until this shakes out, especially if I can put the money elsewhere, that will give me a bigger return than 3 to 5%, which are the numbers I’ve been reading or hearing. I’m getting a bigger return on most of my stocks via divvies than that. The only thing that really makes the TSP attractive is the matching funds, but hey, if the TSP no longer exists, then nor do the matching funds.

I will be contacting NARFE about this, but I'll not waste my time and effort on my elected officials. I've come to the conclusion, they are greedy self serving bastards, that consider us nothing more than chattel.

I know some of you think I'm off my rocker, but I wonder now many Jews and good German people thought that what happened to them couldn't happen either back in the 30's?

CB

[CountryBoy]

A little more info on our 401K plan

http://www.fedsmith.com/article/1752/

[ChemEng]

The underlying philosophy behind the system is apparently due to a philosophical dislike of allowing wealthier Americans (such as Federal employees) to benefit from a tax-deferred system such as that used by the TSP system.
Since when are wealthier Americans Federal employees? In my field, the pay for Federal work is less than private sector (without adjusting for risk of course).

A wealthy family in a 35% tax bracket gets a tax break three-and-a-half times more valuable than a family in a 10% tax bracket, even if each family contributes the same dollar amount to a 401(k).
Blatant misrepresentation of the numbers here. The reason a tax break for wealthy family in a 35% tax bracket is more valuable than one in the 10% tax bracket is because they are paying more in taxes than the 10% family. It is all about the income levels and nothing about the tax break.

[Show-me]

Betcha I know who FedSmith is voting for!;)

[The HalfBreed]

What is this? Am I reading this right. Another tax hike by abolishing matching fees on our contributions. The libs/socialists just can't wait to tax us. If I'm reading this wrong please let me know, but I sure don't like the sound of it. The Nanny state is already eye balling our money.


http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/25/83/58.php

CB

That ain't gonna happen. Just more "Scare Tactics" put out to move voters.
Anyone who believes that needs to purchase my shares in a bridge. :blink:
Sometimes, I really can't believe how gullible people can be.

[CountryBoy]

That ain't gonna happen. Just more "Scare Tactics" put out to move voters.
Anyone who believes that needs to purchase my shares in a bridge. :blink:
Sometimes, I really can't believe how gullible people can be.

You need to check out the Wall Street Journal and their article on this and CNBC was also discussing this as being on the table with some of their guest economists. I can't believe how ill informed some folks are. ;) And they say ignorance is bliss. I hope it doesn't happen, but being gullible ain't one of my traits, it's more of being prepared for the worse and not being so blissful.

CB

[CountryBoy]

This is a link from our friends at FedSmith.com, with more scare tactics. ;)

http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/Save_Your_401_k_Before_the_Feds_Replace_it_With_th e_GRA_112008.html

This idea keeps bubbling to the surface, but this is the first time they used the wording

"Teresa Ghilarducci of the New School for Social Research has proposed a plan to let workers trade their current 401(k) plans in for a Guaranteed Retirement Account (GRA). "

I wonder if "to let" could be considered voluntary?

CB

[jimijr]

FedSmith, CNBC, The Wall Street Journal, are not Congress. These are trial balloons to guage the response. The time to pay attention is if - and when - Congress begins talking. They have the same retirement plan we do, so I'm sure we'll come out alright. :)

[CountryBoy]

FedSmith, CNBC, The Wall Street Journal, are not Congress. These are trial balloons to guage the response. The time to pay attention is if - and when - Congress begins talking. They have the same retirement plan we do, so I'm sure we'll come out alright. :)

I hope you're right but did you even read the articles? The latest link's first 2 paragraphs discussing the 401K plan :

" When ideas emerge out of fear instead of facts, the consequences can be disastrous. Amid the tumultuous stock market and worries about the cost of federal bailouts, policymakers, politicians, and presidential candidates are focusing now on 401(k) plans.

At a recent hearing before the House Committee on Labor and Education, several experts testified about the effect of the financial crisis on these defined-contribution retirement plans, all but sounding the death knell for 401(k) plans."

It sure looks like to me that Congress is talking and also listening. And you really think that Congress isn't above exempting themselves from these ideas? :laugh: Here's your sign. If they thought for a moment they'd have to play by the same rules as us worker bee's, these trial balloons, wouldn't have made it off the ground. Now they might make it apply to just new hires or those folks that only have a few years of service. I can see that happening. But regardless, when someone starts discussing my retirement money, that gets my attention and I take it serious.

But don't be so naive, to think that our Congress is looking out for our best interests. These bailouts alone, will haunt our grandchildren, heck maybe even our great grandchildren for years.

CB

[James48843]

Teresa Ghilarducci of the New School for Social Research

No traction on the issue- just some ideas floated, that's all.

Besides- what she advocates is giving people an option to trade 401K money for a fixed pension.

Here is a copy of her testimony to Congress:

http://www.house.gov/ed_workforce/testimony/2008-10-07-TeresaGhilarducci.pdf

It makes interesting reading. She blames 401(k)s for the stock market crash.

[CountryBoy]

No traction on the issue- just some ideas floated, that's all.

Besides- what she advocates is giving people an option to trade 401K money for a fixed pension.

Here is a copy of her testimony to Congress:

http://www.house.gov/ed_workforce/testimony/2008-10-07-TeresaGhilarducci.pdf

It makes interesting reading. She blames 401(k)s for the stock market crash.

I can live with having the option, I believe I even mentioned that earlier on. But with companies halting their matching funds, I think this is just the start of something where we come out on the short end of the stick. But then we do have divergent views especially, on governement intervention in ones personal life. :)

CB

[McDuck]

FedSmith, CNBC, The Wall Street Journal, are not Congress. These are trial balloons to guage the response. The time to pay attention is if - and when - Congress begins talking. They have the same retirement plan we do, so I'm sure we'll come out alright. :)

Congress get 1.7%/year FERS retirement while we get 1.0%

[Buster]

I think it's a good idea. Why should tax payers subsidize your retirement? Govt employees get payed too much anyway. Private sector employees do a better job and get payed less. You should also pay taxes on your health insurance. You pay more taxes, I pay less.Oh forgive him Father..For he knows not what he says....http://www.jaguarforums.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_screwy.gif

[nnuut]

Typical:cool: We don't get tax breaks on TSP we pay when we withdraw! When we retire we pay taxes on our health care premiums!

[mayday]

Taxes are a necessary evil.

Spending more than you can afford to pay back is foolish.

Taxation without representation seems to be what is happening in Washington.

Barry Obama did promise change. He did not say you would like it.

So count your blessings. We can vote the bums out.

[nnuut]

Taxes are a necessary evil.

Spending more than you can afford to pay back is foolish.

Taxation without representation seems to be what is happening in Washington.

Barry Obama did promise change. He did not say you would like it.

So count your blessings. We can vote the bums out.
Shades of things to come! :cool:

[mayday]

Shades of things to come! :cool:

I hope they come soon enough.