Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The death of the 401K?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
eilen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 07:29 AM
Original message
The death of the 401K?
House Democrats recently invited Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the New School of Social Research, to testify before a subcommittee on her idea to eliminate the preferential tax treatment of the popular retirement plans. In place of 401(k) plans, she would have workers transfer their dough into government-created "guaranteed retirement accounts" for every worker. The government would deposit $600 (inflation indexed) every year into the GRAs. Each worker would also have to save 5 percent of pay into the accounts, to which the government would pay a measly 3 percent return. Rep. Jim McDermott, a Democrat from Washington and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, said that since "the savings rate isn't going up for the investment of $80 billion , we have to start to think about whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that's not generating what we now say it should."

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/10/23/would-obama-dems-kill-401k-plans.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 07:31 AM
Response to Original message
1. My "dough" is already being transfered to a government account: Social Security.
And I'm not even guaranteed to see any of that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 07:33 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Yes you are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #3
11. Technically there is no guarantee.
Edited on Mon Sep-20-10 08:44 AM by Statistical
Congress *could* enact legislation ending permanently SS tomorrow.

There is no guarantee. There is no contract (like pension, insurance policy, or annuity) and thus no legal obligation to continue the program.

Now it is VERY LIKELY that everyone will collect full SS however that isn't a guarantee in the legal sense. Even SSA (and trustee report) is very careful to never indicate that any level of benefit (or any benefit at all) is guaranteed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MousePlayingDaffodil Donating Member (331 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Correct . . . .
There is no guarantee. There is no contract (like pension, insurance policy, or annuity) and thus no legal obligation to continue the program.

As the U.S. Supreme Court long ago stated. See Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 610-611 (1960)("It is apparent that the noncontractual interest of an employee covered by the Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments. . . . We must conclude that a person covered by the Act has not such a right in benefit payments as would make every defeasance of 'accrued' interests violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.")

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 07:32 AM
Response to Original message
2. Hmm... Sounds like the politicians want to get their hands on more money..
For the five sided millstone around all our necks.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 07:33 AM
Response to Original message
4. Fuck that...I'm putting away 15% (before matching), and it STILL ain't
going to be enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 07:37 AM
Response to Original message
5. Are you kidding?
I am not giving my retirement funds to the government to pay for this deficit. Its a scam on working people like Reagan's social security surplus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 07:41 AM
Response to Original message
6. A guaranteed 3% return is better than a potential 20% loss.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FormerDittoHead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 07:50 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Exactly. 3% isn't that bad. We have to shift away from ignoring RISK.
I am so tired of hearing about what returns a given investment has made without any regard to its RISK.

There is no difference between the type of cheerleading we see on CNBC and casino commercials featuring people who've won a lot of money on the slots.

Frankly, I would gladly take that "measly" 3% return in exchange for what our Dow Jones Index fund has yielded over the last 10 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
exboyfil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. The 3% over inflation is a good return
It is so good that when long term Treasury Inflation Protected Bonds were trading at 3.2% I put 40% of my IRA/401(k) funds into them. Notice I put 40% and not 100%. These bonds have increased by 30% in value, but I have no interest in trading them in. They serve as my inflation floor on my retirement.

A balanced portfolio between stocks and bonds would not have done badly over the last 10 years. The key is to allow individuals in their 401(k)s to access bonds and ETFs instead of a few lousy choices.

I will not put anything more in a 401(k) than the minimum which my company matches. I would strongly advise anyone not getting a match from putting funds into a 401(k) until they have explored all other options including Health Savings Acccounts, IRAs, Roth IRAs, and after tax investments.

The fact that long term TIPS are trading at significantly less than 3%, and this proposal is effectively a 3% TIP, indicates for now that this investment would be attractive for many. TIPS never traded much over 3% for their entire existence. It is an interesting proposal especially if it is optional (allowing partial participation etc).

The problem I have is that these are more full faith and credit of the Federal government instruments (just like the Social Security Trust Fund). The fact that we are even having discussions about changing Social Security because of its impact on the deficit makes me wonder if we would not be having the same discussions in 20 years as folks present their Treasuries for payment. Social Security should be the last thing being discussed at this point (except to increasse the cap and reduce the rate for everyone).

The original sin was the 1983 Social Security law upping the withholdings to meet future obligations. That law should only have passed with strict Balanced Budget requirements. It turns out that all those contributions were just to build a spending slush fund.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 08:19 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. One can get a guranteed 3% in a 401K right now. Actuallly a lot more than that.
Edited on Mon Sep-20-10 08:23 AM by Statistical
401K have a treasury bond fund. Exactly the same guarantee & risk as this scam.

Put all your money in T-bond fund and you have the exact same thing with three major exceptions
a) if your employer offers a match you boost return by 100%+.
b) the account is under your control and in your name.
c) you can change contribution rate (5% or if times are tough 1% or 0%, or if you are behind 10% or 15%).

There is no need for a "guaranteed savings account" which will be stolen to pay for foreign wars. Then in 30 years we will hear about "entitlement reform" and the need for "everyone to tighten their belts". Some future President in 2040 will set up a Presidential Comission to figure out how to cut payments from these "guaranteed retirement accounts".

No thanks I like my 401K. It is in my name, it is administered by third party, it is insured (SIPC), and I can leave it to my wife.

401K doesn't HAVE to equal 100% stocks. 401K is simply a bucket. You can put anything you want in the bucket (From virtually risklyess = T-bonds, to extreme risk small cap foreign stocks).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
exboyfil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. No the proposal at the time
was for an inflation adjusted 3% which is a different thing. LT TIPS bonds are trading around 2% over inflation right now. If you offered me 3% over inflation, I would sell my TIPS (which have increased 30% in value since I purchased them) and purchase these new instruments. That is if I can trust the government.

As far as this scheme helping to finance foreign wars, purchasing T bonds does the same thing (actually participating in Social Security does as well but that is not optional).

I think the 3% over inflation is just another promise that a future deficit commission will say we cannot afford. I like your idea about ownership of your own money though. Is a contrary opinion on this board.

Would things have been different if, in 1983, the decision was to ratchet down future benefits and not increase withholdings? Force the extra withholdings to go into a private account of diversified assets (bonds and stocks). The bond fund to include OECD sovereign debt along with Blue Chip corporate debt. The stock fund to be a widely diversified fund. Possibly throw a little commodities in the mix? Anything to keep from turning over $2T+ to the Federal pigs.

It is a betrayal by the Democratic Party to even have Social Security as a discussion point for any deficit commission. That $2T+ was taken from the blood and sweat of millions of workers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 08:14 AM
Response to Original message
9. lol
Yeah, this idea is going places!

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
13. Nice way to mislead. That is from 2008. It was NEVER going to happen, but nice try /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eilen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. I stand corrected.
I apologize. I saw this article and posted it in haste prior to leaving for work. I just looked at factcheck and it is an utter crock. I wish I could take the post down.
If anyone is interested in what the government is contemplating regarding retirement plans, Sen Kerry has a bill out

Bill Would Create Automatic IRA Enrollment Program
Posted on August 13, 2010 by Ilyse Schuman

A bill introduced in both the House and Senate would establish an automatic individual retirement account (IRA) enrollment program for employees at firms with more than 10 employees that do not already maintain a qualified retirement plan. According to a press release, the Automatic IRA Act of 2010 (H.R. 6099, S. 3760) is based on a proposal in the President’s FY 2011 budget, and builds upon the success of the 401(k) auto enrollment program promoted by the Pension Protection Act of 2006. Under the terms of the proposed legislation, contributions would be voluntary, and employers would be entitled to a tax credit of up to $250 for each of the first two years of the program’s operation to cover any expenses incurred in setting up the automatic enrollment (“Auto IRA”) accounts. Other key provisions affecting employers include the following:

The automatic enrollment requirement will apply only to firms (excluding government or religion-based organizations) that have been in business for at least two years with 10 or more employees that have each earned more than $5,000 in the prior year.
Employees eligible to take part in the voluntary enrollment program must be at least 18 years old and have been employed for at least three months.
Employers that fail to provide Auto IRA enrollment would be subject to an excise tax of $100 for each employee who was supposed to be covered. If the failure was unintentional, employers would have the ability to self-correct to avoid a penalty.

Employers would contribute a default percentage of 3% (or another amount to be set via regulation) of an employee’s paycheck into the employee’s Auto IRA account.

An employer would be able to select (or allow employees to chose) an IRA provider to which all Auto IRA contributions from their employees would be sent. The bill would direct the Treasury Department to create a website to help employers locate appropriate providers. In the alternative, an employer would be able to send contributions for the purchase of a retirement bond (or R-bond) to be established by the Treasury Department.

An employer would have no fiduciary liability under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) for its employees’ investment decisions. An employer’s sole disclosure responsibility would be to provide the employee with a standardized form explaining the program and investment decisions.

An employer would be prohibited from self-dealing, and would be required to transmit the employee contributions by the end of the month following the month in which the cash would have been paid had it not been contributed to the Auto IRA. Employers that fail to do so would be subject to an excise tax.

A small employer that adopts a new qualified plan would be entitled to a tax credit of up to $1,000 or 50% of the employer’s start-up costs, whichever is the lesser amount. This credit would be available for up to three years.

Automatic enrollment plans would not be subject to employer matching contributions.
The version of this legislation introduced in the House has been referred to the House Committee on Education and Labor. The Senate companion bill has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee.

A complete summary of the legislation can be found here. (pdf) http://www.house.gov/neal/pdfs/Summary_Auto_IRA_Act_2010.pdf

The Dept of Labor had pubic hearings-- I haven't viewed it to see what was all discussed but here it is:
U.S. Department of Labor publishes agenda for September 14-15 joint hearing on lifetime income options for retirement plans
Washington — Today the U. S. Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) released the agenda for the upcoming joint hearing with the Department of the Treasury on lifetime income options for retirement plans. Accompanying the agenda are copies of the witnesses’ requests to testify and testimony outlines. The hearing begins at 9:00 a.m. (EST) on September 14 and 15, 2010. The hearing will be held in the Labor Department’s main auditorium, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW in Washington, D.C.
A live webcast of the hearing will be available on EBSA’s Web site at www.dol.gov/ebsa.

Witnesses will address issues relating to:
certain specific participant concerns affecting the choice of lifetime income relative to other options;
information to help participants make choices on the management and spend down of retirement benefits;
disclosure of account balances as monthly income streams;
the fiduciary safe harbor for selection of lifetime income issuers or products; and
alternative designs of in-plan and distribution lifetime income options.


Other than that, the administration has looked to find ways to make the fees that banks and investment houses charge more transparent.
Again sorry. If I could remove this thread I would.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eilen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. I stand corrected.
I apologize. I saw this article and posted it in haste prior to leaving for work. I just looked at factcheck and it is an utter crock. I wish I could take the post down.
If anyone is interested in what the government is contemplating regarding retirement plans, Sen Kerry has a bill out

Bill Would Create Automatic IRA Enrollment Program
Posted on August 13, 2010 by Ilyse Schuman

A bill introduced in both the House and Senate would establish an automatic individual retirement account (IRA) enrollment program for employees at firms with more than 10 employees that do not already maintain a qualified retirement plan. According to a press release, the Automatic IRA Act of 2010 (H.R. 6099, S. 3760) is based on a proposal in the President’s FY 2011 budget, and builds upon the success of the 401(k) auto enrollment program promoted by the Pension Protection Act of 2006. Under the terms of the proposed legislation, contributions would be voluntary, and employers would be entitled to a tax credit of up to $250 for each of the first two years of the program’s operation to cover any expenses incurred in setting up the automatic enrollment (“Auto IRA”) accounts. Other key provisions affecting employers include the following:

The automatic enrollment requirement will apply only to firms (excluding government or religion-based organizations) that have been in business for at least two years with 10 or more employees that have each earned more than $5,000 in the prior year.
Employees eligible to take part in the voluntary enrollment program must be at least 18 years old and have been employed for at least three months.
Employers that fail to provide Auto IRA enrollment would be subject to an excise tax of $100 for each employee who was supposed to be covered. If the failure was unintentional, employers would have the ability to self-correct to avoid a penalty.

Employers would contribute a default percentage of 3% (or another amount to be set via regulation) of an employee’s paycheck into the employee’s Auto IRA account.

An employer would be able to select (or allow employees to chose) an IRA provider to which all Auto IRA contributions from their employees would be sent. The bill would direct the Treasury Department to create a website to help employers locate appropriate providers. In the alternative, an employer would be able to send contributions for the purchase of a retirement bond (or R-bond) to be established by the Treasury Department.

An employer would have no fiduciary liability under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) for its employees’ investment decisions. An employer’s sole disclosure responsibility would be to provide the employee with a standardized form explaining the program and investment decisions.

An employer would be prohibited from self-dealing, and would be required to transmit the employee contributions by the end of the month following the month in which the cash would have been paid had it not been contributed to the Auto IRA. Employers that fail to do so would be subject to an excise tax.

A small employer that adopts a new qualified plan would be entitled to a tax credit of up to $1,000 or 50% of the employer’s start-up costs, whichever is the lesser amount. This credit would be available for up to three years.

Automatic enrollment plans would not be subject to employer matching contributions.
The version of this legislation introduced in the House has been referred to the House Committee on Education and Labor. The Senate companion bill has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee.

A complete summary of the legislation can be found here. (pdf) http://www.house.gov/neal/pdfs/Summary_Auto_IRA_Act_2010.pdf

The Dept of Labor had pubic hearings-- I haven't viewed it to see what was all discussed but here it is:
U.S. Department of Labor publishes agenda for September 14-15 joint hearing on lifetime income options for retirement plans
Washington — Today the U. S. Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) released the agenda for the upcoming joint hearing with the Department of the Treasury on lifetime income options for retirement plans. Accompanying the agenda are copies of the witnesses’ requests to testify and testimony outlines. The hearing begins at 9:00 a.m. (EST) on September 14 and 15, 2010. The hearing will be held in the Labor Department’s main auditorium, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW in Washington, D.C.
A live webcast of the hearing will be available on EBSA’s Web site at www.dol.gov/ebsa.

Witnesses will address issues relating to:
certain specific participant concerns affecting the choice of lifetime income relative to other options;
information to help participants make choices on the management and spend down of retirement benefits;
disclosure of account balances as monthly income streams;
the fiduciary safe harbor for selection of lifetime income issuers or products; and
alternative designs of in-plan and distribution lifetime income options.


Other than that, the administration has looked to find ways to make the fees that banks and investment houses charge more transparent.
Again sorry. If I could remove this thread I would.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC