Tweet
i will be in prison for retirement if that happens, so i wont worry about it. let them try it.
-
-
Ok, I'll back away from that pessimistic statement. But, thanks to cantretire, I did go read the Constitution:
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
I'm not trying to be difficult here, really, please let me know where I am wrong.
Here are the powers of Congress according to the Constitution:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
*********************
So what part of that says Congress can pass a law that gives the power to buy or bail out companies to an unelected official (Sec Paulson) with no limit on what he spends the money on and no limit on how much he CAN spend?Comment
-
I'm summarizing here, but have ensured that I maintain the context of all of the statements:
I highlighted some sections which do just that, underlining the key phrases.Originally posted by cptacek View Post
The constitution was intentionally (and very wisely) written to allow for interpretation by future generations. Without this, there would be no FAA, the governing body which ensures the safety of flight in the nation. Our founding fathers never could have made provisions to allow for such an organization when the thought of commercial flight was unheard of. In the same light, neither could they have foreseen our present circumstances. Thus, the powers of congress which have been invoked of late are entirely justifiable. Preferable? Perhaps not. Necessary? Depends on who you ask, but quite possibly.
Touching back to cantretire's original post, some of these same powers (and others) could potentially be used to validate other radical actions if deemed necessary... such as the implementation of a guaranteed retirement plan, and other measures to support such an action. I'm the last to say I like the idea of some (much) of this, but challenge the idea that our elected officials are working contrary to our constitution.Last edited by kork13; 10-27-2008, 07:46 PM.Comment
-
The constitution was written to allow it to be changed as future generations saw fit. The "interpretation" of the constitution is political doublespeak for "we are going to do what we want and we will 'interpret' the constitution in such a way to allow us to do it."
The constitution is a very simple document which requires very little interpretation. The interpretations which have been made have almost universally been made to infringe upon our rights and create a more obtrusive government. If we really needed an FAA, or a department of education, or a TSA, then certainly we could muster the support to amend the constitution to add one.Comment
-
asmom, I am having a hard time seeing how this "doesn't sound all that bad." Please explain to me why this would be good. I have read the links and listened to Ghilarducci explain her comments and how this will "spread the wealth around." The govenrment is going to TAKE my money that I have earned and saved away from me and in return give me 3% + inflation. Oh, she said the great news was that this wouldn't cost the government a dime. No kidding! However, it costs me everything. I am planning on never seeing Social Security to begin with, so I have saved and lived below my means so that I could afford a healthy financial lifestyle. What incentive does this give me to do this? Again, please explain.Originally posted by asmom View PostComment
-
If you think your employers will like to pay 5%- in addition to the 6.1% they already pay into SS and in addition to the 1.2% they already pay into medicaree, think again.
This essentially means for paying a person 50k, the company is "taxed" an additional 12.3%. While that might not sound like much, consider this:
For every 8 workers making 50k, the company is paying tax equivalent to a 9th worker.
My question is this- what is best for the economy
1) 12.3% funding SS, medicare and a "weak" government pension plan?
2) 12.3% more workers earning money and paying payroll taxes
3) 12.3% of wages being added to company profit and being taxed at higher rates than income. Corporate tax rates approach 40% for some companies- so the money is worth more to tax system if it is taxed at profits than it is if taxed at payroll.
3) is better than 2) is better than 1) as far as the revenue which the government collects- maybe it is 2) 3) then 1) because only a portion of this money is taxed in #3.
1) is safer than 2) is safer than 3) for retirement
this country does not need a government sponsored annuity
it should just make sure the sales people which sell private annuities abide by good financial standards (avoid sub prime mortgages), and provide other financial avenues for retirement (IRAs, 401ks similar).
I might have to move to another country to keep my job though- as increasing my companies tax rate to keep me employed is not something they want.Last edited by jIM_Ohio; 10-28-2008, 01:52 PM.Comment
-
We know we initially encourage you to save for your retirement in 401k's once it was realized that pensions were going by the wayside. We even gave a tax break to further encourage you. With pensions mostly gone and social security going to fail at some point, we have now decided that the vehicle we gave you to save for retirement should be our own little cookie jar! Thank goodness for all of you suckers that saved in your 401k's. First, you lived below your means and bought a home you could afford, so we never had to bail you out. Then, you continued your saving ways by living further below your means and saving for your own retirement in your 401k's. Thank you for your patriotism!
Wait a second, I just realized there is nothing patriotic about you buying a smaller home so there is less to shop for to furnish all of the rooms. As well, you didn't pay your share of taxes because you were saving money in your 401k's instead of blowing your money to help the economy. Now I am just mad. Your lack of patriotism sickens me and the only way to right your wrongs is to spread your wealth around. And to think I was leaning towards giving you a holiday every year. In fact, I wasn't just going to give you one holiday, but 24: the 15th and the 30th of every month. All right, I am begining to calm down. Knowing now that you are finally about to own up to your wrongs and finally be patriotic is bringing my blood pressure back down. In closing, not only do I now thank you for renewed patriotism, but so does your neighbor who bought a home he couldn't afford and therefore had no money left over to save in his 401K.
Sincerely,
Uncle SamComment
-
Originally posted by Snave View Post
Well for starters, "not all that bad" does not equal "good". If you can make that distinction then you can put the rest of my post in the proper context!
I am not going to BS you and post figures and percentages about why it would and not work because frankly I don't know.
What I do know is that the OP alleges that some in the government are contemplating seizing 401(K) accounts which is inaccurate. They are simply holding hearings, at which this person testified about her plan which eliminates the 401(K) tax break. Do you understand that this lady is an economist and not the government? Now compared to planning to seize our 401(K) plans, listening to one woman's proposal doesn't sound that bad, does it? I also think that for those who subsist on SS alone, having a guaranteed supplement is not all that bad. Once again, not all that bad does not equal good.
I realize that all over the blogosphere, it has been repeated over and over that the government is thinking about confiscating, stealing, seizing our 401(K)s when a simple search shows that nothing could be further from the truth. That is precisely why I never rely on others to tell me what to believe.Comment
-
The government/ 401k confiscation plan has lots of hidden taxes built in.
For example, because the new plan behaves like a pension, there will be "years of service" tied to the benefit and that would imply a MUCH later retirement than the age 65-68 most retirees get now.
Because at 3% return above inflation, the returns are not that good (stock market usually is 6-7% above inflation- double that return in real terms), so if my 401k would get me retirement by contributing 10% of my salary at age 68, then if I get HALF the return with HALF the contribution, how long do I have to work? TWICE as long? FOUR times as long (remember that 401ks compound, no mention if this new vehicle compounds using similar numbers).
In addition when this system is first introduced, there will be more "income" than "outgo". Kind of like SS around 25 years ago. Remind me how that program worked out?
If you have to work for longer periods of time to collect this pension, this economist also fixed SS- because workers will collect less SS, and contribute in longer. Deficit solved.Comment
-
I would agree. If I was to subsist on SS alone, I too would want a guranteed supplement also. Who wouldn't? My challenge is those that plan on retiring on SS alone are not taking any personal responsibility to save with our current system. Therefore, a "not all that bad" solution is to punish those accountable for their own financial well-being to make it fairer for those deciding to abstain from saving?Originally posted by asmom View PostComment
-
And wouldn't self employed people have to pay both shares, so they would be taxed 25% even before income taxes?Originally posted by jIM_Ohio View PostComment
-
Throwing in my 2 cents here: the articles probably do not cover the details of this plan at anything other than a basic skim over level, like writing a book report on war and peace after having only read the first page of the cliff notes. As a rough idea this would require alot of work to ever be implemented. I don't mind that the House of Representatives had someone in to discuss that, the fact that they are looking into a wide variety of options on how to protect American's retirement accounts, even if some are extreme, is in my mind, a good goal.Comment
-
Different companies have raided their company's pension funds. I shutter to think that our government would or could do something like this, but they have already put a foot into the door of 'gov't control of the banks' with the "Bail Out" package.
Full government control of the banking industry would be the first step in allowing the "nationalization" of the 401K's.
Has the term By The People been changed to now read To The People?Comment
-
What exactly is in need of protecting? That is my big question. If people do not want to risk their money, they have options within their accounts to place money in bonds, etc... If you are not comfortable with potentially losing money in your retirement accounts, then park your money someplace safe.Originally posted by Cylenchar View PostComment
-
Cylenchar sort of just mis-spoke. The idea behind all of this isn't to protect everyone's retirement accounts, but rather to out and out protect their retirement overall. And for many people (who do not, or can not save in retirement accounts), that is a real threat, particularly with the ever-increasing threat to social security, medicare, and medicaid. So I actually mostly agree with Cylenchar--it's good that the Congress is looking at options in an effort to find one that will work. Just not this one....plzOriginally posted by Snave View Post
Comment
Comment