401(k) and fiscal cliff

[MKKShah]

Here's an interesting article:

Fiscal Cliff: Why Congress Might Have to Mess with the 401(k) | TIME.com

What are the odds of one of the following happening:
- Govt. confiscating the accounts (and transferring funds from it to a Social Security type scheme).
- Govt. taxing it right now for all previous gains

Given the above news and the ongoing fiscal cliff debate, what would you do differently w.r.t your 401(k)? Increase contribution? decrease? stop?

I am worried, as approximately 40% of all my assets are in my 401(k).

Thanks!

[jpg7n16]

Here's an interesting article:

Fiscal Cliff: Why Congress Might Have to Mess with the 401(k) | TIME.com

Did you actually read the article, or just the headline?

What are the odds of one of the following happening:
- Govt. confiscating the accounts (and transferring funds from it to a Social Security type scheme).

0%

- Govt. taxing it right now for all previous gains

0%

Given the above news and the ongoing fiscal cliff debate, what would you do differently w.r.t your 401(k)? Increase contribution? decrease? stop?

I would not base my retirement savings percentage on Congress' decision for tax rates over the next few years.

I am worried, as approximately 40% of all my assets are in my 401(k).

Thanks!

You shouldn't be worried.

[moneybags]

I just don't see how they could even think about taking these accounts from individuals. I also don't think they would be able to go back and tax what you already saved. A more likely scenario is a change going forward for future contributions. Of course, having just gone through the financial aid process for college, I am annoyed by the fact that those who save get punished and those that have spent frivolously over the years get financial aid. So, I wouldn't be surprised if the government decides to give less social security to those who saved for retirement.

[GrimJack]

I agree with 'JPG' - there is no chance of confiscation, I am not even sure how you even came up with confiscation as a possibility - could you explain your thinking?

[thesimplemoneyblog]

I just don't see how they could even think about taking these accounts from individuals. I also don't think they would be able to go back and tax what you already saved. A more likely scenario is a change going forward for future contributions. Of course, having just gone through the financial aid process for college, I am annoyed by the fact that those who save get punished and those that have spent frivolously over the years get financial aid. So, I wouldn't be surprised if the government decides to give less social security to those who saved for retirement.

Unfortunately, I will have to agree with all of what moneybags said. They certainly could change the rules for future contributions, but they could also target a change in Social Security too for those savers. Savers are already getting punished now with how low interest rates are.

[MKKShah]

I agree with 'JPG' - there is no chance of confiscation, I am not even sure how you even came up with confiscation as a possibility - could you explain your thinking?

Executive Order 6102 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That was just an executive order. It was issued in the post depression years. Depression was in 1929. The order was in 1933. On the same lines...the great recession bottomed out in 2008. We are in 2012, and with a president who is fond of EO's.

I am not talking of outright confiscation. The total untaxed retirement savings comes to $10 trillion. The Govt. might just easily exchange this money (to pay for current debts / spending) in exchange for some kind of a defined benefits plan. It might be ok for now and for those who might be retiring just now. However over time, the defined benefits could be eroded, might not keep up inflation etc.

There is already a campaign to save the 401(k).

Save My 401k »

It's good to have the kind of faith that folks above have. I would keep my eyes open.

[jpg7n16]

The Govt. might just easily exchange this money (to pay for current debts / spending) in exchange for some kind of a defined benefits plan.

Let me ask you one question that I'd really like to hear your answer on:

Why would they do that?

It might be ok for now and for those who might be retiring just now. However over time, the defined benefits could be eroded, might not keep up inflation etc.

There is already a campaign to save the 401(k).

Save My 401k »

That is entirely stupid.

Can we also start a group to save the ten dollar bill?

I mean why can't we all just start groups to save things that aren't in any real danger?

It's good to have the kind of faith that folks above have. I would keep my eyes open.

I think you've been led astray by fear mongering people claiming that politicians are out to get you and steal all that you have. The 401k confiscation is a stupid internet rumor that too many people are portraying as real.

FactCheck.org : IRAs, 401(k)s and You

------------

Let's talk facts. The trillions that are in 401ks represent a huge source of future revenue for the government. As people retire, they will draw down those balances and pay taxes. That is a HUGE stream of revenue for years and years to come.

If they swapped it out to a pension, they would be forced to sell all the assets in the 401k. Who is out there looking to buy trillions of various mutual funds? The 401k industry is one of the leading buyers for the market. You confiscate the 401ks and convert the assets to a government run pension, and you have to sell the mutual funds. You would destroy the value of the assets you took, and would still be required to pay out, making it even WORSE for the government.

Corporate/municipal pensions have been around for a long time. Why are you only thinking they would take 401ks? And what, leave the pensions alone? Pension assets aren't owned or run by the government. They're managed in exactly the same way as your 401k, except that someone else makes the decisions on how to invest the money, not you.

And if you truly think they can convert your tax advantaged accounts, why not your brokerage account too? And your real assets (aka your house)? Why not your checking accounts too? CDs? That's all money that they could take. So if you don't believe they would take those too, why just the 401k? What makes it so special???

[chrisburke21]

Once Again...

Once again the media begins with their scare tactics. I guess it sells newspapers.

[MKKShah]

Let me ask you one question that I'd really like to hear your answer on:

Why would they do that?

The question is why wouldn't they? Congress has shown time and again that they are willing to raid people's retirement for current spending. The most glaring example of this is the raiding of SS funds to pay for stuff that is not SS related.

That is entirely stupid.

Can we also start a group to save the ten dollar bill?

I mean why can't we all just start groups to save things that aren't in any real danger?



I think you've been led astray by fear mongering people claiming that politicians are out to get you and steal all that you have. The 401k confiscation is a stupid internet rumor that too many people are portraying as real.

FactCheck.org : IRAs, 401(k)s and You

I wouldn't be so quick to come to that conclusion.

FactCheck.org : IRAs, 401(k)s and You

------------

Let's talk facts. The trillions that are in 401ks represent a huge source of future revenue for the government. As people retire, they will draw down those balances and pay taxes. That is a HUGE stream of revenue for years and years to come.

If they swapped it out to a pension, they would be forced to sell all the assets in the 401k. Who is out there looking to buy trillions of various mutual funds? The 401k industry is one of the leading buyers for the market. You confiscate the 401ks and convert the assets to a government run pension, and you have to sell the mutual funds. You would destroy the value of the assets you took, and would still be required to pay out, making it even WORSE for the government.

"Facts" are subjective. The reason for fear is that there are already elitist economists who are now arguing that the average Joe is not capable of managing his retirement, and that "they" have to do something for "us". First it was healthcare...retirement could be next.

The Government always gets in with good intentions. But they find a way to botch things up.

Corporate/municipal pensions have been around for a long time. Why are you only thinking they would take 401ks? And what, leave the pensions alone? Pension assets aren't owned or run by the government. They're managed in exactly the same way as your 401k, except that someone else makes the decisions on how to invest the money, not you.

Well ever heard of public sector unions? Do you think members belonging to a certain political party out there dare ask these guys a question? Yes public sector pensions are also unsustainable and built on the backs of working schmucks like me and you(?). Look at California. They are broke because the pensions have raped that state. Large numbers of Caltrans workers constantly "expanding" I-5.

Another note about someone else managing my retirement funds...Ever thought about why? Look at the options in your 401(k) (or for that fact most 401(k)s). They are very limited, and designed so that trillions get into the management of these guys, who turn around and charge you "fees" to under perform the market. Laughable if you ask me. And all this was achieved by lobbying the congress to write laws that favor the MF industry. I am aware that some 401(k)s offer the ability to choose your own investment, but they are few and far between. Around 97% of funds inside 401(k)'s are not self directed. Go figure!

And if you truly think they can convert your tax advantaged accounts, why not your brokerage account too? And your real assets (aka your house)? Why not your checking accounts too? CDs? That's all money that they could take. So if you don't believe they would take those too, why just the 401k? What makes it so special???

Good you brought this up. If you haven't noticed, they are already raiding checking acounts and CD's. Ever looked at the interest rates you get there? Who decides these rates? Years of Quantitative easing making it easy for gamblers in the market, and almost impossible for savers is a joke. So yes, they are already adversely impacting your checking / CD accounts.

[jpg7n16]

The question is why wouldn't they?

The question I asked you to answer is "why would they?"

If you need some good reasons why not, please read my last post again. That's a good start. I've got more reasons, which I'll be glad to share after you come up with a good answer.

We're still waiting for a good response as to why they'd do it... which apparently you don't have a good answer for.

Another note about someone else managing my retirement funds...Ever thought about why? Look at the options in your 401(k) (or for that fact most 401(k)s). They are very limited, and designed so that trillions get into the management of these guys, who turn around and charge you "fees" to under perform the market. Laughable if you ask me.

Spoken like someone who has no idea what's going on with the 401k industry.

You do realize that your employer (not the gov) chooses what investment options are available for their employees, right?
Did you know that if your employer chooses to provide it, there are firms that allow self-directed brokerage accounts within the 401k that allow the employee to invest however they see fit? Stocks, bonds, options, index funds, ETFs? In a self-directed brokerage option, all are available.
Did you know that there are multiple 401k providers who are competing in a free market for employer's 401k business?
You realize that there are costs to doing business and recordkeeping on the companies behalf, don't you? (hence the fees) And that if your company feels the fees are too high, they can switch to a lower cost company?
You know that employers have the ability to include low cost index funds in their 401k investment options if they so choose, don't you?

If you are not happy with the funds your employer has selected in their 401k, you should bring your complaint to your HR department. If enough people complain, maybe they'll add new funds to their investment options.

Good you brought this up. If you haven't noticed, they are already raiding checking acounts and CD's.

Really? I've been checking my statements for years, and never once saw a withdraw from the US government.

Ever looked at the interest rates you get there? Who decides these rates?

That would be the banks offering the CDs.

A bank offering you a low rate on a CD does not mean that the government is stealing your checking account. Obv you have no idea how this works.

It means the bank is only willing to pay a small amount for the funds. If they really want your business, they'll offer you a better rate.

No one is forcing you to buy CDs. If you don't like the CD rates, you are at perfect liberty to invest elsewhere. If no one buys low rate CDs the bank will be forced to pay higher rates to earn the business.

That's how a free market works.


I'm curious... I currently have exactly $0 in CDs. How much of YOUR investment portfolio is in CDs? What's the dollar amount there?

Years of Quantitative easing making it easy for gamblers in the market, and almost impossible for savers is a joke. So yes, they are already adversely impacting your checking / CD accounts.

That is the exact opposite of reality. Those who gamble in the markets have a more difficult time earning money. Those who save with a consistent plan are doing just fine.

And the stock market has NO impact whatsoever on your checking account/CDs. They are not tied together in any way at all.

[MKKShah]

The question I asked you to answer is "why would they?"

If you need some good reasons why not, please read my last post again. That's a good start. I've got more reasons, which I'll be glad to share after you come up with a good answer.

We're still waiting for a good response as to why they'd do it... which apparently you don't have a good answer for.


Spoken like someone who has no idea what's going on with the 401k industry.

You do realize that your employer (not the gov) chooses what investment options are available for their employees, right?
Did you know that if your employer chooses to provide it, there are firms that allow self-directed brokerage accounts within the 401k that allow the employee to invest however they see fit? Stocks, bonds, options, index funds, ETFs? In a self-directed brokerage option, all are available.
Did you know that there are multiple 401k providers who are competing in a free market for employer's 401k business?
You realize that there are costs to doing business and recordkeeping on the companies behalf, don't you? (hence the fees) And that if your company feels the fees are too high, they can switch to a lower cost company?
You know that employers have the ability to include low cost index funds in their 401k investment options if they so choose, don't you?

If you are not happy with the funds your employer has selected in their 401k, you should bring your complaint to your HR department. If enough people complain, maybe they'll add new funds to their investment options.


Really? I've been checking my statements for years, and never once saw a withdraw from the US government.



That would be the banks offering the CDs.

A bank offering you a low rate on a CD does not mean that the government is stealing your checking account. Obv you have no idea how this works.

It means the bank is only willing to pay a small amount for the funds. If they really want your business, they'll offer you a better rate.

No one is forcing you to buy CDs. If you don't like the CD rates, you are at perfect liberty to invest elsewhere. If no one buys low rate CDs the bank will be forced to pay higher rates to earn the business.

That's how a free market works.


I'm curious... I currently have exactly $0 in CDs. How much of YOUR investment portfolio is in CDs? What's the dollar amount there?


That is the exact opposite of reality. Those who gamble in the markets have a more difficult time earning money. Those who save with a consistent plan are doing just fine.

And the stock market has NO impact whatsoever on your checking account/CDs. They are not tied together in any way at all.

I am not sure if you have been brainwashed by the high finance types, or if you are a paid shill for the finance industry. Perhaps you are employed by them? Regardless, you need to read between the lines.

Yes, companies are responsible for selecting the 401(k) portfolios. But the enormous hidden fees and stuff in reality eat into any gain you may have made. They make money whether or not you do. The Mutual fund industry ranks third in lobbying (right after healthcare, and defense). Why would they do that? Of course to look out for our best interests. (for those who don't get it...I am being sarcastic).

Again, CD's are offered by banks. But when these same banks (post Glass-Steagal repeal) make huge losses, oh...they are too big to fail. We (the taxpayers) end up guaranteeing their losses. And by the way, the Banks don't want "your business" because they have direct access to all this cheap credit peddled by the Fed.

Unless you have personally benefited by these people I don't know how you can even think of defending them, much less attack me with baseless questions.

If you are an expert in finance I am begging you...please help us out here.

[jpg7n16]

I am not sure if you have been brainwashed by the high finance types, or if you are a paid shill for the finance industry. Perhaps you are employed by them? Regardless, you need to read between the lines.

Have we ever met? I'm a financial advisor. I run into this type of stupidity every day, where people claim the government is out to get them and steal their 401k.

No one yet has had a reason as to why they would do that. And apparantly neither do you. Reason? -- Because there is not a good reason why the government would want to do that.

Again I'll ask, because you keep ignoring it: why on earth would the government want to do that?

I'll also take it since you ignored my CD question, that you don't have any money in CDs either and are just making a pointless argument against them to back up your fears.

That's what I hear when I read your post: "I'm afraid." You're not making logical, fact based decisions. You're going on fears of what you've heard, and you have no evidence to support those fears.

Yes, companies are responsible for selecting the 401(k) portfolios. But the enormous hidden fees and stuff in reality eat into any gain you may have made. They make money whether or not you do.

Really? What evidence do you have to support that? Why do the clients I work with every day have significantly more money in their 401k than they personally put in??

Sorry, but as all the evidence out there points exactly opposite what you're saying, I don't believe you and I don't believe you know what you're talking about.

I mean seriously, who cares if the mutual fund makes money or not? Don't you realize that EVERY investment class makes money off you? Stocks/Bonds/Options? Commission. ETFs? Expense ratio. CDs? Either the bank takes your money and lends it higher, or pays a commission to the brokerage firm that sold it to you. Come on -- if EVERY investment makes the company that ran it money whether you gain or not, what difference does it make if mutual funds do too???

Obviously you have good evidence which shows if you're properly invested you've actually lost money because of the 401k, right? Which of these funds is down in the past 10 years?

How about any of Vanguard's target funds? https://personal.vanguard.com/us/fun...t#targetAnchor -- nope. Most average over 5% since inception, close to 10 years ago. And the 10 year industry average when available is positive too.
Maybe, Fidelity's target funds? Fidelity Investments - Mutual Fund Research nope. All 10 year returns are positive.

Hmmm... maybe those ones just got lucky. I mean, based on what you're saying, investors lose money when they save, so maybe the S&P 500 is just down for the past 10 years, and these companies got lucky.

S&P 500: INDEXSP:.INX quotes & news - Google Finance Dec 2002 -- $895 , today -- $1414; nope that's not it

Maybe the bond market is down? Dow Jones Corporate Bond Index: INDEXDJX-DJCBP quotes & news - Google Finance Dec 2002 -- $105 , today -- $122

And each of those does not include the dividends or interest they paid out.

But wait, people saving for retirement don't just save for 10 years and call it quits, they invest longer. What we need is returns over long periods of time, like say: CAGR of the Stock Market: Annualized Returns of the S&P 500

Please find us any 20+ year period of time that has negative returns.


I'm sorry man, I just can't seem to find any evidence that proves that mutual funds on average are losing investors money over long periods of time (like say, saving for retirement in a 401k).

And by the way, the Banks don't want "your business" because they have direct access to all this cheap credit peddled by the Fed.

Then why do they still offer CDs? Is there a federal requirement that all banks must have CDs available?

You're still not making any sense.

Unless you have personally benefited by these people I don't know how you can even think of defending them, much less attack me with baseless questions.

Well as you know, everything I post on SavingAdvice, is a paid advertisement by me. In fact, I get commission whenever someone buys a product based on a post I make here. (for those who don't get it...I am being sarcastic)

Everything I post here is free of charge. Take my advice or not and it will not personally benefit me in any way. Why on earth would I lie and post things that I don't feel are good for you to do?

I'm trying to attack your ideas. They are based on nonsense and cause more harm than good. And you are spreading harmful lies, based on what experience? None. You read some stuff online, backed up by the crazies who fear the government is out to get them.

Then I have to deal with clients who want to cash out $500k+ 401ks because they are afraid it will be confiscated. And why would the governement do that? "I don't know, because they want my hard earned money to pay for their debts! That's why!"

If you are an expert in finance I am begging you...please help us out here.

Believe it or not, I'm trying to show you that you have no evidence at all to support the fear you have. I am intentionally trying to be harsh, because being nice never seems to get through to people like you. So I'm trying a different approach here.

Maybe there's just no helping people like you. Regardless of the fact that there is no evidence for any claim you've made so far. Regardless that seizing/taxing the balance of/threatening people's 401k would cause a national uprising and riots in the streets. You still believe what your fear tells you to.


Come on, be real.

What evidence is there that mutual funds lose money over long periods of time (like saving for retirement in a 401k)? None. -- so therefore mutual funds are evil and are stealing your money whether or not you make anything, right?

What evidence is there that the government is trying to convert your 401k to a Social Security like program? None. -- so therefore, they're trying to steal our hard earned money, right?

What evidence is there that banks will offer CDs to investors, because they could borrow cheaper from the Fed at any time? None. -- so therefore, the government is trying to steal your checking account, right?

The evidence clearly shows that the company chooses the investment options their employees have -- so therefore, the government is caving to mutual fund lobbyists who want to take your money, right?

History shows that when they first put Social Security into place, they did not confiscate pensions to do so. They created a separate government run program to do it -- therefore, they would clearly confiscate 401ks today to do the same thing right?

Studies clearly show that average investors who try and time the market significantly underperform the market average (Quantitative Analysis of Investor Behavior ) -- therefore, those who gamble in the markets get rewarded, and the savers lose out, right?


I mean, don't you hear yourself when you say these things??


It's all about the almighty 401k, isn't it? THAT'S what they're trying to take. There's a "save the 401k" site. But why no "save the pensions?" no "save the brokerage accounts"? no "save the IRAs"? ---- why just the 401k? what makes it so special??


And just to ask again -- why would the government do that? I'd still like to hear your answer to that.

[kv968]

What are the odds of one of the following happening:
- Govt. confiscating the accounts (and transferring funds from it to a Social Security type scheme).
- Govt. taxing it right now for all previous gains

I'd say there is absolutely 0% chance of them "confiscating the accounts" or taxing it RIGHT NOW.

The only thing that I could see even remotely happening is for them to lower the required minimum distributions age from 70 1/2 to something a little lower like 67. Not tax the gains or anything NOW, but just require you to take them earlier. And even that's probably doubtful.

[siggy_freud]

"Facts" are subjective.

JPG you're going to be at your argument for a long time with someone who has this mentality. I think you're right, but would hate to see you spend more time trying to debunk MKKShah's fear-mongering posts.

His argument basically stands on the premise of the facts being "what the man wants you to believe." MKKShah, if you're all that duped, we're boned anyways, and no amount of tin-foil-hat posts is going to change that.

[MKKShah]

Have we ever met? I'm a financial advisor. I run into this type of stupidity every day, where people claim the government is out to get them and steal their 401k.

What kind of a financial "advisor" are you? Do you really understand finance, or are you one more of the sales/marketing types that masquerade as an "advisor". People would do well to avoid a particular type of these so called "advisors", because the only thing that they seem to do is sell whatever crappy investment "product" their company peddles.

(Of course, there are fee based independent financial advisers who know their stuff, and usually guide their clients in the right direction).

Which one are you?

No one yet has had a reason as to why they would do that. And apparantly neither do you. Reason? -- Because there is not a good reason why the government would want to do that.

I am not "claiming" things. Just asking questions based on news from reputable sources. No tin foil hat here.

These are just some examples. But you can search google for a lot more of them.
To Avoid Fiscal Cliff, 401(k) Plans May Fall Off Deep End
Fiscal Cliff Could Cut 401(k) Contributions by 64 | Financial Planning
Could the fiscal cliff push your 401K over the edge? | 11alive.com
Will fiscal cliff fears slam your 401(k)? | Cashin' In | The Cost of Freedom

All the above are reputable news sources that are talking about potential impact on the 401(k). Admittedly, an outright confiscation is an extreme step, I agree unlikely. I also agree that making a decision one way or another regarding your 401(k) when in fact no changes have been made, and only talks of it happening, is not the way to go.

Again, I am not trying to "fear monger". Just calling attention to an article in TIME, and since I have almost 40% of everything I have in a 401(k), was alarmed.

I'll also take it since you ignored my CD question, that you don't have any money in CDs either and are just making a pointless argument against them to back up your fears.

Then why do they still offer CDs? Is there a federal requirement that all banks must have CDs available?

Are you saying that the fed is not printing money? Are you flat out denying QE?

SCHWARTZ: The Fed keeps on printing money - Washington Times
The Fed's Futile Effort To Bail Out Obamanomics - Forbes
Fed’s Decision to Print More Money Is a ‘Short Term Solution to Make the President Look Good’ | Fox News Insider

Banks need to hold some capital. This capital has to come from somewhere. Before the FED got into the money printing business (to be fair, they have always done this, but the scale has just increased by an order of magnitude in recent times), banks had to solicit deposits from customers. They still have to do that, but just not as badly as before (due to the cheap dollars printed by the Fed). This explains the low interest rates we get from the banks.

Obviously you have good evidence which shows if you're properly invested you've actually lost money because of the 401k, right? Which of these funds is down in the past 10 years?

How about any of Vanguard's target funds? https://personal.vanguard.com/us/fun...t#targetAnchor -- nope. Most average over 5% since inception, close to 10 years ago. And the 10 year industry average when available is positive too.
Maybe, Fidelity's target funds? Fidelity Investments - Mutual Fund Research nope. All 10 year returns are positive.

Hmmm... maybe those ones just got lucky. I mean, based on what you're saying, investors lose money when they save, so maybe the S&P 500 is just down for the past 10 years, and these companies got lucky.

S&P 500: INDEXSP:.INX quotes & news - Google Finance Dec 2002 -- $895 , today -- $1414; nope that's not it

Maybe the bond market is down? Dow Jones Corporate Bond Index: INDEXDJX-DJCBP quotes & news - Google Finance Dec 2002 -- $105 , today -- $122

And each of those does not include the dividends or interest they paid out.

But wait, people saving for retirement don't just save for 10 years and call it quits, they invest longer. What we need is returns over long periods of time, like say: CAGR of the Stock Market: Annualized Returns of the S&P 500

Please find us any 20+ year period of time that has negative returns.


I'm sorry man, I just can't seem to find any evidence that proves that mutual funds on average are losing investors money over long periods of time (like say, saving for retirement in a 401k).

Further hints that you are a sales/marketing professional, and not a true finance guy who knows what he is talking about.

Go back and re read my post. I said many managed funds "under perform" the market. This is different from an outright decline in investments. If the market returns were 10%, but a fund returned 8% over the same time, the fund then is considered to have under performed the market. And such funds also charge a "management" fee. Of course, no one forces people to invest in these funds, and I was just bringing that to the attention to people reading this post.

The typical financial advisor takes advantage of the naivete of the average investor, and sells them funds from his company, that (are most likely to) under perform the market.

Index Funds vs. Actively-Managed Funds

https://institutional.vanguard.com/iwe/pdf/ICRPI.pdf

Vast majority of actively managed funds underperform the market due to two reasons.
1. management fee (most important reason by far)
2. Managerial incompetence.

Research suggests that at the end of a 30 year investment period (say at retirement), the difference between someone who consistently invested in a no (or ultra low) fee index fund, and one who invests in the typical managed fund, is about 30% of portfolio. That 1% adds up over time.

So folks, the next time a front office "advisor" sells you a junk fund from his company, please be sure to decline it. Go for fee based advisors who actually know what they talk about.

What evidence is there that the government is trying to convert your 401k to a Social Security like program? None. -- so therefore, they're trying to steal our hard earned money, right?

While the government may not confiscate or take adverse action just yet, elitist economists (the kind that think they know what to do with OUR money), are setting the stage with their bogus studies. They are conditioning the general public of low expectations, so when the time comes adverse action by the government becomes accepted.

For example, majority of Americans under 30 believe that social security will not be around when they retire. Ever wonder how this was achieved? (The Govt still claims that SS will still be around...but most under 30 don't believe that).