Congress mulls major 401k changes

Mikelly1221

DIS Veteran
Joined
May 11, 2000
Messages
1,496
I didn't see a thread about this, so if there is, ignore mine! :)

This is from Investment News and is dated Oct. 7th of this year.

A wide range of sweeping changes to the 401(k) system were proposed Tuesday at a hearing on how the market crisis has devastated retirement savings plans.
Chief among them was eliminating $80 billion in tax savings for higher-income people enrolled in 401(k) retirement savings plans.

This was suggested by the chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor.

“With respect to the 401(k), it appears to be a plan that is not really well-devised for the changes in the market,” Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., said.

“We’ve invested $80 billion into subsidizing this activity,” he said, referring to tax breaks allowed for 401(k) contributions and savings.

With savings rates going down, “what do we have to start to think about in Congress of whether or not we want to continue and invest that $80 billion for a policy that is not generating what we … say it should?” Mr. Miller said.

Congress should let workers trade their 401(k) assets for guaranteed retirement accounts made up of government bonds, suggested Teresa Ghilarducci, an economics professor at The New School for Social Research in New York.

When workers collected Social Security, the guaranteed retirement account would pay an inflation-adjusted annuity under her plan.

“The way the government now encourages 401(k) plans is to spend $80 billion in tax breaks,” which goes to the highest-income earners, Ms. Ghilarducci said.

That simply results in transferring money from taxed savings accounts to untaxed accounts, she said.

“If we implement automatic [individual retirement accounts] or if we expand the 401(k) system, all we’re doing is adding to this inefficiency,” Ms. Ghilarducci said.

Rep. Robert Andrews, D-N.J., raised the issue of which investment advisers are allowed to offer workers investment advice.

The Department of Labor is considering “loopholes” that would allow advisers to offer “conflicted investment advice if the advisers work for subsidiaries of financial services companies that sell the investments,” he said.

With American workers facing $2 trillion in losses from retirement plans over the past year and Democrats expected to gain seats in the House and the Senate, actions being contemplated by the committee are an important harbinger of what could come out of Congress next year.


Thoughts? Personally, I don't have a 401k right now, but I did and I don't care who is president, I want the government to stay as far away from my retirement accounts as possible. This goes for Obama, McCain, Bush, Clinton, pick a president. "Step away from the 401K!"

Here's the link: http://www.investmentnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081007/REG/810079894
 
The only changes I want to see are allowing people to withdraw TAX FREE for all 401Ks not just the Roth 401K. The way this economy is gonig and the fact that Social Security will be a joke for a younger generation, people should be allowed to build a tax free nest egg.
 
This isn't going to happen.

It was planted in the news by the far right to try and scare voters away from Obama.

And obviously, it didn't work.
 
This isn't going to happen.

It was planted in the news by the far right to try and scare voters away from Obama.

And obviously, it didn't work.

I tried to find an unbiased news source-I thought Investors News would be one-was I wrong?

So this quote from Rep. Miller and Rep. Andrews and Ms. Ghilarducci never happened? :confused3
 

The only changes I want to see are allowing people to withdraw TAX FREE for all 401Ks not just the Roth 401K. The way this economy is gonig and the fact that Social Security will be a joke for a younger generation, people should be allowed to build a tax free nest egg.

The reason Roth's are tax free for withdrawals is because you are paying the tax on those $ up front. With 401K, you have not paid the tax.
 
I didn't see a thread about this, so if there is, ignore mine! :)

This is from Investment News and is dated Oct. 7th of this year.

A wide range of sweeping changes to the 401(k) system were proposed Tuesday at a hearing on how the market crisis has devastated retirement savings plans.
Chief among them was eliminating $80 billion in tax savings for higher-income people enrolled in 401(k) retirement savings plans.

This was suggested by the chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor.

“With respect to the 401(k), it appears to be a plan that is not really well-devised for the changes in the market,” Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., said.

“We’ve invested $80 billion into subsidizing this activity,” he said, referring to tax breaks allowed for 401(k) contributions and savings.

With savings rates going down, “what do we have to start to think about in Congress of whether or not we want to continue and invest that $80 billion for a policy that is not generating what we … say it should?” Mr. Miller said.

Congress should let workers trade their 401(k) assets for guaranteed retirement accounts made up of government bonds, suggested Teresa Ghilarducci, an economics professor at The New School for Social Research in New York.

When workers collected Social Security, the guaranteed retirement account would pay an inflation-adjusted annuity under her plan.

“The way the government now encourages 401(k) plans is to spend $80 billion in tax breaks,” which goes to the highest-income earners, Ms. Ghilarducci said.

That simply results in transferring money from taxed savings accounts to untaxed accounts, she said.

“If we implement automatic [individual retirement accounts] or if we expand the 401(k) system, all we’re doing is adding to this inefficiency,” Ms. Ghilarducci said.

Rep. Robert Andrews, D-N.J., raised the issue of which investment advisers are allowed to offer workers investment advice.

The Department of Labor is considering “loopholes” that would allow advisers to offer “conflicted investment advice if the advisers work for subsidiaries of financial services companies that sell the investments,” he said.

With American workers facing $2 trillion in losses from retirement plans over the past year and Democrats expected to gain seats in the House and the Senate, actions being contemplated by the committee are an important harbinger of what could come out of Congress next year.


Thoughts? Personally, I don't have a 401k right now, but I did and I don't care who is president, I want the government to stay as far away from my retirement accounts as possible. This goes for Obama, McCain, Bush, Clinton, pick a president. "Step away from the 401K!"

Here's the link: http://www.investmentnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081007/REG/810079894

Where do these guys get off? They think they are spending money by not taxing us for it...:scared:

I agree -- I want the government far, far away from my 401K. Everybody's 401K has taken a hit, but it's only a loss on paper unless you cash it out now. I'm not retiring for 20 years, so I'll keep plugging away investing. This is a market of opportunity right now.
 
I tried to find an unbiased news source-I thought Investors News would be one-was I wrong?

So this quote from Rep. Miller and Rep. Andrews and Ms. Ghilarducci never happened? :confused3

Investment News is pretty well respected in the financial community. I read it regularly and have found it to be reliable and not alarmist. I also read reports of the proposal in other sources as well. Personally, I don't think the proposal has much chance of going anywhere in the near future but I've been wrong before! I really don't think the timing of the article had anything to do with the election - others may have a diferent opinion.
 
Investment News is pretty well respected in the financial community. I read it regularly and have found it to be reliable and not alarmist. I also read reports of the proposal in other sources as well. Personally, I don't think the proposal has much chance of going anywhere in the near future but I've been wrong before! I really don't think the timing of the article had anything to do with the election - others may have a diferent opinion.

Thank you! I really tried to find a source that was pretty politically neutral to be fair to everyone. I agree about the timing-I think the article was very much "just the facts ma'am".

So, everyone! Thoughts?
 
Investment News is pretty well respected in the financial community. I read it regularly and have found it to be reliable and not alarmist. I also read reports of the proposal in other sources as well. Personally, I don't think the proposal has much chance of going anywhere in the near future but I've been wrong before! I really don't think the timing of the article had anything to do with the election - others may have a diferent opinion.
With the liberal trifecta heading the show, I can absolutely see them doing this. I expect they will also go after pensions next.
 


Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts. Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
Disney EarMarked Producer






DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom