Concerned

[LivingAlmostLarge]

Actually what is being discussed for healthcare is higher taxes. Way more likely than confiscating your 401k. Which is what everyone but you seem to acknowledge.

Do I like it? No, but I certainly don't think 401k confiscation is important enough to warrant thinking about.

I'm more like to be listening to increasing the age of SS, if they double the tax on it, and if they implement a VAT or flat tax.

Those I think are realities coming to roost a lot sooner than confiscating a 401k. And I'm a lot more interested in which people think the easiest to implement and occur.

I notice when MM and DS and others mention the reasons 401k won't be confiscated you ignore it, you keep trying to pick on my posts.

My posts make a lot of sense. You are going to do X, Y, Z and it will affect most people sooner rather than later unfortunately.

Some people like DS doesn't even have 401ks. Thus why should they bother confiscating it? He make $120k/year and doesn't have a 401k. I'm sure he's not alone. There are other freelancers/selfemployed people making good money without a 401k.

But it's A LOT easier to hit them with a higher tax off the top like SS and Medicare. I think it's a lot more realistic.

Whether it should happen is debatable. Whether it will happen? I think it will easilly.

[maat55]

[QUOTE]

Actually what is being discussed for healthcare is higher taxes. Way more likely than confiscating your 401k. Which is what everyone but you seem to acknowledge.

I'm not saying that 401k confiscation is a near future occurance, but a down the road occurance. I know that healthcare is going to be funded with higher taxes.

I'm more like to be listening to increasing the age of SS, if they double the tax on it, and if they implement a VAT or flat tax.

Personally, i'm not for any fix for SS and Medicare other than fazeout. It does not matter what they do to keep it in place, it will be ran inefficiently and most likely on deficits.

I notice when MM and DS and others mention the reasons 401k won't be confiscated you ignore it, you keep trying to pick on my posts.

Your not hearing me. Under normal circumstances, I agree with all of you. Where we differ is that you do not see the possibility of a future collapse. When the depression occured, there was no SS, medicare, medicaid etc., and there was a lower cost of living and the dollar was of more value. Our economy was industial based and we were alble to grow out of the debt.

That is not the case today. Our current debt and obligations are tremedous and our ability to cover them is much worse than the depression. At some point the government will resort to drastic measures, IMO. This is when I see 401k confiscations in order to help fund emergency needs at that time.

Ultimatly, we do not know what will happen in an collapse or if it will happen at all. The question is: if it does occur, where is the best place to be positioned? I've found that in my area of the country, real estate would have been the safest place for ones nestegg due to our prices stayed fairly level, but my mutual funds lost value. It is also difficult for the government to confiscate equity in your home as opposed to 401k's.

I know I sound like a dooms dayer, but I happen to believe we are headed for very choppy waters in the future. I'm just trying to think ahead.

[PetMom]

Maat you nailed it right there - how easy it is to confiscate (or tax) more fluid assets that are just sitting there ripe for the taking.

When people used to live in a home they owned, they did not need a reitrement fund, had a country doctor that made housecalls and produced rather than consumed in their household (think about how we need to pay for everything now - even our entertainment, clothing, food) they were not at the mercy of the tax men (or what self sufficient mountain people used to call Revenuers).

I think we have more levels of govt. accessing our benefits (or entitlements as some will call it) and/or assets by putting restrictions on them, using taxes or other means to get at this money.

Also almost every transaction we do is taxed now, even bartering is a taxable transaction even though no money changes hands.

The govt. has to do this for money and when they need even more they will find out how to get more.

People usually now don't have what is called a hard asset that they can hold in their possession.

I have been studying what is called the retirement tsunami and many people are concerned that paying huge retirement/medical benefits are causing local and state govts. to buckle (CA is a big example now of this).

Locally, city workers are meeting to discuss how some recent reitrees in the age 55 - 65 age group had a lot of their medical benefits yanked and now pay $1,000.00 a month for coverage from their what they thought was a generous retirement guaranteed.

They are shell shocked.

Was I that surpried? No. Just did not think this would happen so quickly and so efficiently. But these govts. are needing to do this. The hapless already retired worker is sitting there tyring to figure what to do and town hall meetings are getting them nowhere. They never thought to pay attention to the doom and gloom about what might happen to their one big asset - retirement/medical benefits.

My concern is that one good regular retirement fund is not going to cut it and many people are realizing this.

Having just a 401k could leave a retiree vulnerable to any contingencies that could happen with all the levels of govt.

A mix of hard and diversified asset accounts seems to be a good start.

But don't forget a hard asset such as a paid for home can have property taxes raised, some big houses in high taxing areas can have easily $600.00 a month in property taxes.

You can bet the people in these homes for years did not think it could get that high but it has.

The columnist mentioned on this thread was giving out job hunting tips to the over 65 crowd even though he got to the source of the 401k urban legend.

Who would have thought that would be written up?

[maat55]

Maat you nailed it right there - how easy it is to confiscate (or tax) more fluid assets that are just sitting there ripe for the taking.

When people used to live in a home they owned, they did not need a reitrement fund, had a country doctor that made housecalls and produced rather than consumed in their household (think about how we need to pay for everything now - even our entertainment, clothing, food) they were not at the mercy of the tax men (or what self sufficient mountain people used to call Revenuers).

I think we have more levels of govt. accessing our benefits (or entitlements as some will call it) and/or assets by putting restrictions on them, using taxes or other means to get at this money.

Also almost every transaction we do is taxed now, even bartering is a taxable transaction even though no money changes hands.

The govt. has to do this for money and when they need even more they will find out how to get more.

People usually now don't have what is called a hard asset that they can hold in their possession.

I have been studying what is called the retirement tsunami and many people are concerned that paying huge retirement/medical benefits are causing local and state govts. to buckle (CA is a big example now of this).

Locally, city workers are meeting to discuss how some recent reitrees in the age 55 - 65 age group had a lot of their medical benefits yanked and now pay $1,000.00 a month for coverage from their what they thought was a generous retirement guaranteed.

They are shell shocked.

Was I that surpried? No. Just did not think this would happen so quickly and so efficiently. But these govts. are needing to do this. The hapless already retired worker is sitting there tyring to figure what to do and town hall meetings are getting them nowhere. They never thought to pay attention to the doom and gloom about what might happen to their one big asset - retirement/medical benefits.

My concern is that one good regular retirement fund is not going to cut it and many people are realizing this.

Having just a 401k could leave a retiree vulnerable to any contingencies that could happen with all the levels of govt.

A mix of hard and diversified asset accounts seems to be a good start.

But don't forget a hard asset such as a paid for home can have property taxes raised, some big houses in high taxing areas can have easily $600.00 a month in property taxes.

You can bet the people in these homes for years did not think it could get that high but it has.

The columnist mentioned on this thread was giving out job hunting tips to the over 65 crowd even though he got to the source of the 401k urban legend.

Who would have thought that would be written up?

I saw a stat where under Bush, 1.8 million jobs were created. Of them, 1.6 were government.

Between government and many corporations offering retirement healthcare benefits they cannot sustain and americans thinking they are entitled to no limit healthcare provision and an economy quickly headed to third world, how are these obligations going to be paid?

Americans have gotten spoiled on an lifestyle they cannot sustain and everyone is ignoring the future brickwall we are headed at.

My fear is that because the government and the people will not make the hard choices now, the country will have to resort to drastic measures later. This could lead to unconstitutional confiscation of assets.

And your right, even property may not be safe, but the thing with property, you cannot pick and choose who you tax. Raising taxes in one area and not another would lead to problems.

Sorry Jeffrey if I am working you to death.