Your Nest Egg Or Uncle Sams Nest Egg?

azmastablasta

New member
Reading between the lines is always required when dealing with idiot libs. If we can be required to purchase health insurance, could we not be required to buy ONLY T-bonds for retirement funds to reduce the deficit?

Feds eye retirement-fund tax to cut $16 trillion-plus deficit

By GREGORY BRESIGER

Last Updated: 8:25 AM, April 22, 2012

Uncle Sam (Uncle Obongo), in a desperate attempt to fix its(HIS) $16 trillion-plus deficit, is leering over Americans’ retirement nest egg as its new bailout fund.

Capitol Hill politicians are assessing tax changes that could let the Internal Revenue Service lay claim to a portion of the $18 trillion sitting in 401(k) accounts and other tax breaks used by middle-class workers, including cutting the mortgage tax deduction.

A commission looking for ways to close the deficit, and, noting the extent of 401(k) tax breaks, recommends an examination of the system as one way to prevent government bankruptcy.

Besides 401(k)s, other possibilities include the mortgage-interest deduction on second homes, as well as benefits from employer-provided health insurance, which are untaxed now.

Under current 401(k) rules, total employee/employer contributions can’t exceed $50,000. In the proposed rule change, employer/employee contributions would be limited to 20 percent of the employee’s compensation, with a maximum of $20,000, the so-called 20/20 proposal.

Another proposal being discussed in Congress says all tax deductions on 401(k)s and IRAs to be replaced with an 18 percent credit. The credit, according to a proposal that has been endorsed by economist William Gale, would be placed directly in a person’s retirement account.

“Unlike the current system,” Gale told Congress, “workers’ and firms’ contributions to employer-based 401(k) accounts would no longer be excluded from income and would be subject to taxation, contributions to IRAs would no longer be tax-deductible and any contributions to a 401(k) plan would be treated as taxable income.”

In other words, the employee and employer would no longer get a deduction under the Gale plan, they would qualify for a credit. And the credit would “increase [government] revenues by about $458 billion,” Gale says.

Last week a group of retirement industry experts went to Capitol Hill to criticize these proposed changes in retirement-plan rules. “These changes could have unintended consequences,” warns Lynn Dudley of the American Benefits Council (ABC).

Testifying before the House Ways and Means Committee about the proposals, Randolf Hardock, of ABC’s board of directors, said, “[The idea] could seriously undermine the retirement savings system.”

Jack VanDerhei, research director of Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI), believes either of the two proposed 401(k) changes under review would have a “catastrophic” effect on the current retirement saving system.

The 20/20 plan provisions curtailing non-taxable contributions would freeze out many higher-paid employees from signing up for a 401(k), which could lead some companies, according to critics, to question if plans would still be worth offering employees.

Reducing retirement-plan contributions for those at the higher end of the wage scale will inevitably have a bad effect on those in the middle and at the bottom, ABC’s Dudley says.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/plunder_CrD9s6MElVsEIJj2IVgHuK#ixzz1sym7CG6V
 
Originally Posted By: Timberbeast7Sadly, this will probably be cheered on by the welfare masses who can't even spell 401K, let alone know what it is.

Yep!

obamawelfarecheck.jpg


"And, more importantly, you will also have effectively doubled the democrat's voting block!"

Regards,
hm
 
Last edited:
401K...that's something for rich people (aka - people who have jobs). Besides, social security will be there to take care of me when I retire from welfare...
 
Originally Posted By: jumprightinitThose parasites never quit looking for a source of new blood.

Which ones, jump, democrat politicians or welfare recipients?
wink.gif


Regards,
hm
 
Originally Posted By: Stu Farish"No." is a complete sentence.

Yeah, historically it seems like the domocrats stumble on those little words like No and Is.

Regards,
hm
 
Wow what an incredible idea! 401k's are for rich people and they don't need that money.

The last bastion for OUR security and the Gubermint wants a hand on it...What part of NO do they not understand..

Perhaps it should be done at the point of a gun or the end of a noose, time to go to the pub and talk a little treason with my mates.

T2G
 
Originally Posted By: hm1996Originally Posted By: jumprightinitThose parasites never quit looking for a source of new blood.

Which ones, jump, democrat politicians or welfare recipients?
wink.gif


Regards,
hm

Isn't that redundant?
smile.gif
 
I've got an idea. Since I have to work from the age of 12 to the age of 77 to even consider retiring with my tax deferred IRA that I contributed to and since S.S. will be non-existant for me. Why don't we take all the benefits away from the politicians not currently in office? If you aren't currently serving, drop the benefits at the end of your term. Why should I be paying to keep and retire Al Franken, Pelosi, Barney Frank, Harry Reid and the rest of the criminals. Some only serve a few years and sit back on their benefits for life. If I have to pay to keep criminals, I might as well do it like the rest and put them all behind bars where they belong and get some chain gang work out of them.
 
Originally Posted By: ARCOREYI've got an idea. Since I have to work from the age of 12 to the age of 77 to even consider retiring with my tax deferred IRA that I contributed to and since S.S. will be non-existant for me. Why don't we take all the benefits away from the politicians not currently in office? If you aren't currently serving, drop the benefits at the end of your term. Why should I be paying to keep and retire Al Franken, Pelosi, Barney Frank, Harry Reid and the rest of the criminals. Some only serve a few years and sit back on their benefits for life. If I have to pay to keep criminals, I might as well do it like the rest and put them all behind bars where they belong and get some chain gang work out of them.

The members of Congress retirement changed back in the 1980's. Since then they pay SS, and have to meet age and service years requirements to get a retirement.

As to SS they said the same thing back in the early 1960's that it would be gone by 1980, well it is still here. It will be here until the Congress changes it. Since they are under SS, it is doubtful it will ever end.
 
Originally Posted By: dogcatcherOriginally Posted By: ARCOREYI've got an idea. Since I have to work from the age of 12 to the age of 77 to even consider retiring with my tax deferred IRA that I contributed to and since S.S. will be non-existant for me. Why don't we take all the benefits away from the politicians not currently in office? If you aren't currently serving, drop the benefits at the end of your term. Why should I be paying to keep and retire Al Franken, Pelosi, Barney Frank, Harry Reid and the rest of the criminals. Some only serve a few years and sit back on their benefits for life. If I have to pay to keep criminals, I might as well do it like the rest and put them all behind bars where they belong and get some chain gang work out of them.

The members of Congress retirement changed back in the 1980's. Since then they pay SS, and have to meet age and service years requirements to get a retirement.

As to SS they said the same thing back in the early 1960's that it would be gone by 1980, well it is still here. It will be here until the Congress changes it. Since they are under SS, it is doubtful it will ever end.

Those guys should just donate their SS retirements back to the system because it's just pocket money compared to what they have stuffed their pockets with from the lobbyists and special interests over the years. There should be a law against any type of compensation from lobbyists or any other source for political favors.
 
Last edited:
Pretty cushy job I'd say. Forget about SS, retirement fund and pension, with the back door deals they don't have to live on this paltry stuff.

Rank-and-File Members:
The current salary (2011-2012) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year.

Members are free to turn down pay increase and some choose to do so.
In a complex system of calculations, administered by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, congressional pay rates also affect the salaries for federal judges and other senior government executives.
During the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin considered proposing that elected government officials not be paid for their service. Other Founding Fathers, however, decided otherwise.
From 1789 to 1855, members of Congress received only a per diem (daily payment) of $6.00 while in session, except for a period from December 1815 to March 1817, when they received $1,500 a year. Members began receiving an annual salary in 1855, when they were paid $3,000 per year.

Congress: Leadership Members' Salary (2011-2012)
Leaders of the House and Senate are paid a higher salary than rank-and-file members.

Senate Leadership
Majority Party Leader - $193,400
Minority Party Leader - $193,400

House Leadership
Speaker of the House - $223,500
Majority Leader - $193,400
Minority Leader - $193,400

A cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) increase takes effect annually unless Congress votes to not accept it.

Benefits Paid to Members of Congress

You may have read that Members of Congress do not pay into Social Security. Well, that's a myth.

Prior to 1984, neither Members of Congress nor any other federal civil service employee paid Social Security taxes. Of course, they were also not eligible to receive Social Security benefits. Members of Congress and other federal employees were instead covered by a separate pension plan called the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). The 1983 amendments to the Social Security Act required federal employees first hired after 1983 to participate in Social Security. These amendments also required all Members of Congress to participate in Social Security as of January 1, 1984, regardless of when they first entered Congress. Because the CSRS was not designed to coordinate with Social Security, Congress directed the development of a new retirement plan for federal workers. The result was the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986.

Members of Congress receive retirement and health benefits under the same plans available to other federal employees. They become vested after five years of full participation.

Members elected since 1984 are covered by the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS). Those elected prior to 1984 were covered by the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). In 1984 all members were given the option of remaining with CSRS or switching to FERS.

As it is for all other federal employees, congressional retirement is funded through taxes and the participants' contributions. Members of Congress under FERS contribute 1.3 percent of their salary into the FERS retirement plan and pay 6.2 percent of their salary in Social Security taxes.

Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but only if they've completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that Members of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension.

The amount of a congressperson's pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary.

According to the Congressional Research Service, 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service as of Oct. 1, 2006. Of this number, 290 had retired under CSRS and were receiving an average annual pension of $60,972. A total of 123 Members had retired with service under both CSRS and FERS or with service under FERS only. Their average annual pension was $35,952 in 2006.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm
 
Originally Posted By: jumprightinit

I seemed to have missed that, where did you get that information?

I remembered it from when Congress was put under SS. It was the same time they put new federal employees under the SS system. I want to say it was 1983 or 1984, but not sure of what year. It may have even been 1985, but it was still in the 80's
 
Wife caught something on the news last night...asked when could we collect SS? I said not sure, 65 (20 years 4 me) or 67. She said, oh..it`s supposed to run empty in 2032..figures.
At the rate I`m saving 401k (provided everything goes as planned), will only put me at..?? $ 250k at retirement..now they want some of that too??
BOHICA
 
Back
Top