Post by: landofconfusion80 on December 26, 2014, 02:46:51 PM
Quote
NewDeal_Dem (340 posts)
401(k)s are a sham: Duped by a DIY retirement dream, elderly face staggeringly low living standards
“For retirement, the answer is 4-0-1-k,†proclaimed Tyler Mathisen, then editor of Money magazine in 1996. “I feel sure that someday, like a financial Little-Engine-That-Could, it will pull me over the million-dollar mountain all by itself.â€
For this sentiment, and others like it, Mathisen was soon rewarded with an on-air position at financial news network CNBC, where he remains to this day. As for the rest of us? We were had.
The United States is on the verge of a retirement crisis. For the first time in living memory, it seems likely that living standards for those over the age of 65 will begin to decline as compared to those who came before them—and that’s without taking into account the possibility that Social Security benefits will be cut at some point in the future.
The culprit? That same thing Mathisen celebrated: the 401(k), along with the other instruments of do-it-yourself retirement. Not only did they not make us millionaires as self-appointed pundits like Mathisen promised, they left very many of us with very little at all...
According to a recent report issued by the National Institute on Retirement Security, the median amount a family nearing retirement has saved for their post-work lives is $12,000. As for the magical 401(k)? If a household where the earners are between the ages of 55 and 64 does have a retirement account, they barely hit the six-figure mark at $100,000—a far cry from $1 million we’re told we need.
Yet whether the stock market goes up, down or sideways, the financial services sector makes out when it comes to your retirement accounts. How much do they earn? Astonishingly, we don’t know the answer. In 2008, Bloomberg magazine polled a group of pension consultants and came to the conclusion that 401(k) fees alone totaled $89.1 billion annually...
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/06/big_finance_lied_401ks_will_not_save_aging_americans_partner/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
The IRS recently changed the rules for IRA rollovers, which means that now you can only rollover one IRA a year, once a year. Does anyone understand the ramifications of this?
It ticks me off because I feel like it's designed to get you to put all the money in one IRA so it's easier to steal.
So it's somebody else's responsibility that you didn't save enough for your golden years? Of course it is.....
Quote
silverweb (14,410 posts)
3. SO glad I mistrusted this from the start!
As soon as I heard that Wall Street was part of the scheme, I backed away. Family criticized my decision, but I just didn't trust the idea.
My brother lost 2/3 of his IRA between 2007-2009, then was penalized for taking early withdrawal of the rest.
Wall Street is nothing but a legalized gambling racket with other people's money, favoring "the house."
Shameless 2nd hand bouncy.... but here's the money shot:
Quote
HERVEPA (4,287 posts)
11. If he lost 2/3, he put his money in some very high risk investments
That was his choice. Otherwise he shouldn't have lost more than 1/3.
The Perveha primitive might be getting a pizza soon...
Quote
HERVEPA (4,287 posts)
19. The 401k plan almost definitely igave him choices of where to invest. If he lost 2/3
he didn't take the time to read very basic info.
well this is awkward....
Quote
jberryhill (35,655 posts)This primitive stumbles upon the truth...
122. do you know that half the population is below average intelligence?
And they deserve to be shit on every day. Is that it?
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/60/80/dc/6080dc78f19f44ae7c68cd873dfb5eba.jpg)
Post by: BattleHymn on December 26, 2014, 02:50:17 PM
Post by: Wineslob on December 26, 2014, 03:19:59 PM
Quote
I feel like it's designed to get you to put all the money in one IRA so it's easier to steal.
Ya, show me where this has actually happened.
Post by: Chris_ on December 26, 2014, 03:22:11 PM
The only people I hear about wanting to steal other's 401ks usually have (D) next to their name.
Ya, show me where this has actually happened.
Post by: I_B_Perky on December 26, 2014, 06:33:24 PM
Weren't 401k plans a loophole to avoid some sort of confiscatory move by the government back in the seventies, under Carter?
I believe your are correct BH. If I remember correctly it was some loophole that some tax guru figured out for some of his investment clients. It really did not become popular until all the big steel companies and others starting going tits up in the late 70's/early 80's and it was discovered the companies had not kept their pension plans separate and had used most of the money to keep themselves in business. Workers left and right got screwed. The 401k then became the retirement vehicle, with the government's blessing, since it was your money and the company could not get their hands on it.
Post by: JohnnyReb on December 26, 2014, 06:48:49 PM
Post by: Ralph Wiggum on December 26, 2014, 06:50:58 PM
Post by: Mr Mannn on December 26, 2014, 07:39:42 PM
Quote
NewDeal_Dem (340 posts)Translation: "If only Obama and the govt would take over all the retirement accts and redistribute the wealth to we who never planned ahead."
401(k)s are a sham: Duped by a DIY retirement dream, elderly face staggeringly low living standards
Post by: landofconfusion80 on December 26, 2014, 08:59:19 PM
Post by: tanstaafl on December 26, 2014, 09:40:59 PM
It's an investment. If you don't seek out advice from a professional, then you might as well bury your savings in the back yard. Since I was able to start one during the Reagan years, contributing the max allowed by my employer, it has grown by leaps and bounds, with a few speed bumps during Democrat administrations.
And the answer to the question regarding confiscation, only the Reverund Jackson postulated that tax-deferred savings should only be allowed one investment tangent. To wit: Invested in Public Housing. Might as well burn it as do that.
Post by: BattleHymn on December 26, 2014, 09:50:22 PM
Just as a notice: On more than one occasion, the primitives have discussed their life savings. The most common number appears to be >$100.
Wait, did you mean <$100, or possibly ~$100?
$100 in the pocket for most primitives is the equivalent to winning the Powerball.
Post by: 98ZJUSMC on December 26, 2014, 10:53:22 PM
Quote
jberryhill (35,655 posts)
122. do you know that half the population is below average intelligence?
The figure for 2012 was 52%. :whistling:
Post by: USA4ME on December 26, 2014, 11:27:01 PM
Everybody loves 401K's and the stock market when the economy is exploding and you can't hardly pick a stock that loses money. But when things get tough and the money isn't growing just by being there, it's the fault of the investment instrument, or the mysterious people in control behind the curtain, and never the fault of the investor.
Like all things in life, libs want a sure thing using someone else's money where they get the benefit. And if they don't get what they want, then it's those dastardly corporations and Wall Street and those robber barons twisting screws and throwing wrenches and gumming up the works where only they will benefit.
Ah, the life of the perpetually angry and simpleminded. Yes, liberalism is a mental disorder, but it runs so much deeper than just that.
.
Post by: tanstaafl on December 27, 2014, 07:54:36 AM
As if pensions wouldn't have also gone south in a market turndown, too.
Everybody loves 401K's and the stock market when the economy is exploding and you can't hardly pick a stock that loses money. But when things get tough and the money isn't growing just by being there, it's the fault of the investment instrument, or the mysterious people in control behind the curtain, and never the fault of the investor.
Like all things in life, libs want a sure thing using someone else's money where they get the benefit. And if they don't get what they want, then it's those dastardly corporations and Wall Street and those robber barons twisting screws and throwing wrenches and gumming up the works where only they will benefit.
Ah, the life of the perpetually angry and simpleminded. Yes, liberalism is a mental disorder, but it runs so much deeper than just that.
.
My investing philosophy, that I have used successfully over the past 30 years is this:
Never run with the herd.
Pay attention to the number of hogs at the slop trough.
When the evening news carries starts stories on the 'soaring' stock market - SELL.
Post by: jtyangel on December 27, 2014, 08:49:34 AM
I don't deny either one. I tend to think there actually is room for both in a well-planned retirement plan if one has access to both and especially if one is unwilling to navigate the investment waters oneself or exclusively, and would like a certain amount of the retirement plan to be defined. However, those types of pension plans have gone and are going the way of the dodo anyway.
Now that saId, dummies indeed like to demonize a 401k for antiquated reasons like Scrooge McDuck as CEO or for reasons that R expected based on risk and experience level of the investor. They also have a disconnect that market conditions are often linked to the economic policies of those in power so if they are unhappy with downturns they should probably look to those they elect that help of policies in place that helped to create downturns. while doing so remembering that a defined benefit pension plan is not exempt from the effects of the market either so that the company whether they can or not will be eating those losses someday or having to default on the pension altogether leaving the individual with nothing. These idiots also they do not realize just how many strides over the last 20 years have been made towards improving ethics accounting and disclosure in companies far more than has been made for the fraud that goes on amongst themselves as welfare and disability recipients I might add
The bottom line is they want a risk-free vehicle for retirement and there just is not one. Instead, what it boils down to is who absorbs the risk in the end and many people are willing to accept the responsibility of the risk themselves to have the freedom to invest in their retirement as they choose ie the 401 K where others do not want to absorb the risk and would rather be company or the government absorb the risk and hedge their bets that they will be able to absorb the rest and they will still get a payment via pension plans and Social Security but what they don't get is they are taking a risk as well of the company or government being able to absorb that and that may not be the case which is what happens the steel workers in the past and what is happening to Detroit City workersTnow. they are all so infantile in the assumption that one will make the same as they did working on a pension plan. History has proven that companies fall under the weight of those plans when enough people are retired and outlive the actuary tables and the defined benefit is out of line for the investments that have been made over the years and the contribution made to the accounts
Post by: landofconfusion80 on December 27, 2014, 09:02:04 AM
Wait, did you mean <$100, or possibly ~$100?
$100 in the pocket for most primitives is the equivalent to winning the Powerball.
Just caught that myself. serves me right for posting on a one day work week. lol
Anyway, I always take great pleasure in talking with these types of people about the stock market. I had one try to tell me that his money was safer in a small business than actually investing. 2 years later, his shop was boarded up and thousands were lost due to a multitude of reasons. Not knocking on small businesses, but the lack of knowledge people have about basic investing is staggering.
Post by: Ralph Wiggum on December 27, 2014, 09:04:35 AM
I have recently learned how to figure the breakdown beloved vehicle of retirement of the dummies: the defined benefit pension plan and I hate to tell you idiots but a large portion of that is invested the same markets that one would invest in a 401k. When you talk about people being stupid you are talking about people who should probably utilize the advice of a third party to invest their retirement money rather than doing it themselves; that's really the only difference were discussing here and the nice thing about the 401 K is that while it is not professionally managed it is your money and is protected from any company or entity confiscating it for their own means. The same cannot be said in the past of the defined benefit pension planhowever the obvious attraction for someone unwilling to navigate their own investments of this plan is the security of a defined payment or something they can anticipate at the end of their working years.Oh come on. Easier just to blame Bush/Cheney and the "evil" banksters and Wall Street goons!!!
I don't deny either one. I tend to think there actually is room for both in a well-planned retirement plan if one has access to both and especially if one is unwilling to navigate the investment waters oneself or exclusively, and would like a certain amount of the retirement plan to be defined. However, those types of pension plans have gone and are going the way of the dodo anyway.
Now that saId, dummies indeed like to demonize a 401k for antiquated reasons like Scrooge McDuck as CEO or for reasons that R expected based on risk and experience level of the investor. They also have a disconnect that market conditions are often linked to the economic policies of those in power so if they are unhappy with downturns they should probably look to those they elect that help of policies in place that helped to create downturns. while doing so remembering that a defined benefit pension plan is not exempt from the effects of the market either so that the company whether they can or not will be eating those losses someday or having to default on the pension altogether leaving the individual with nothing. These idiots also they do not realize just how many strides over the last 20 years have been made towards improving ethics accounting and disclosure in companies far more than has been made for the fraud that goes on amongst themselves as welfare and disability recipients I might add
The bottom line is they want a risk-free vehicle for retirement and there just is not one. Instead, what it boils down to is who absorbs the risk in the end and many people are willing to accept the responsibility of the risk themselves to have the freedom to invest in their retirement as they choose ie the 401 K where others do not want to absorb the risk and would rather be company or the government absorb the risk and hedge their bets that they will be able to absorb the rest and they will still get a payment via pension plans and Social Security but what they don't get is they are taking a risk as well of the company or government being able to absorb that and that may not be the case which is what happens the steel workers in the past and what is happening to Detroit City workersTnow. they are all so infantile in the assumption that one will make the same as they did working on a pension plan. History has proven that companies fall under the weight of those plans when enough people are retired and outlive the actuary tables and the defined benefit is out of line for the investments that have been made over the years and the contribution made to the accounts
Post by: jtyangel on December 27, 2014, 09:28:15 AM
Oh come on. Easier just to blame Bush/Cheney and the "evil" banksters and Wall Street goons!!!
I just laugh that thier dumb asses don't get thier beloved d pension plans are gasp in investments as well. They are the institutional investors they loathe so much. The ones who help influence the markets to begin with because of the sheer size of money movement when anything is done by them. Dumb asses
Post by: Ralph Wiggum on December 27, 2014, 09:35:17 AM
I just laugh that thier dumb asses don't get thier beloved d pension plans are gasp in investments as well. They are the institutional investors they loathe so much. The ones who help influence the markets to begin with because of the sheer size of money movement when anything is done by them. Dumb assesThey are the self-proclaimed smartest group of people on the internet, don'tcha know?
Post by: DumbAss Tanker on December 27, 2014, 10:38:58 AM
The current Federal civil service retirement system (Not the one the talking heads on Fox Biz love to bash, which ceased to exist for new hires 30 years ago) is a pretty optimal mixture of a largely-optional 401K-like vehicle and a (Quite) modest defined-benefit program, integrated into Social Security on top of that, and it actually works pretty well (The older system which ended in the 80s, where Fox Biz financial commentators apparently live, was a rather high defined-benefit-only system that was, however, exempt from Medicare and Social Security). In fairness to the talking heads, a lot of state, municipal, and school system retirements are based on a system like the defunct Federal one, and they just suck at being able to make the distinction between those systems and the Federal one when they start blathering about the cost of government pensions.
The 401K-like part, called the TSP, matches the first 5% of employee contributions (So it's like throwing away 5% of your paycheck to refrain from participation), in a slightly nonlinear way, and allows the employees to contribute up to an additional unmatched 5% of their own. The six current investment options are extremely broad based and rigid (No cafeteria plan there), but range from a US government bond fund (Minimum risk but minimum return) to what is essentially an S&P index fund (The highest risk option but also definitely the highest return over the history of the program), with the employee having complete freedom to split both current contributions and existing balance up among the funds as he or she sees fit...but to only change it twice a month max, and with a (Real, not Pitt variety) '24 business hour' time to implement the change once it's put into the system.
Not much of anybody is going to get a million bucks from TSP, but a lot of aggressive and attentive people would end their career with between 200K and 500K in it if they maximized their investment and generally picked wisely in choosing and changing their allocations within TSP over the years. Damned few people could live on that for the rest of their lives, unless they cashed in their chips just a few years after retiring, but combined with the limited defined benefit (Which is in the same ballpark as the civil service retiree's SS paycheck if they drawn at the earliest opportunity) it is enough to retire in reasonable comfort, provided one did not spend one's working life blowing every dime and living on credit cards.
Post by: obumazombie on December 27, 2014, 10:49:47 AM
If you put it in a security or otherwise like investment, the typical rate of return you could expect is anywhere from 1 to 3% over the last 10 to 15 years.
That's $10,000.00 to 30,000.00 annually.
You will be right on the verge of poverty, in it, or right above it.
If you have your house paid off, and no debt, you might be able to get by on that.
But you won't be living like a king.
Post by: jtyangel on December 27, 2014, 12:37:22 PM
Very good post, Jetty, but then your analysis is usually excellent.
The current Federal civil service retirement system (Not the one the talking heads on Fox Biz love to bash, which ceased to exist for new hires 30 years ago) is a pretty optimal mixture of a largely-optional 401K-like vehicle and a (Quite) modest defined-benefit program, integrated into Social Security on top of that, and it actually works pretty well (The older system which ended in the 80s, where Fox Biz financial commentators apparently live, was a rather high defined-benefit-only system that was, however, exempt from Medicare and Social Security). In fairness to the talking heads, a lot of state, municipal, and school system retirements are based on a system like the defunct Federal one, and they just suck at being able to make the distinction between those systems and the Federal one when they start blathering about the cost of government pensions.
The 401K-like part, called the TSP, matches the first 5% of employee contributions (So it's like throwing away 5% of your paycheck to refrain from participation), in a slightly nonlinear way, and allows the employees to contribute up to an additional unmatched 5% of their own. The six current investment options are extremely broad based and rigid (No cafeteria plan there), but range from a US government bond fund (Minimum risk but minimum return) to what is essentially an S&P index fund (The highest risk option but also definitely the highest return over the history of the program), with the employee having complete freedom to split both current contributions and existing balance up among the funds as he or she sees fit...but to only change it twice a month max, and with a (Real, not Pitt variety) '24 business hour' time to implement the change once it's put into the system.
Not much of anybody is going to get a million bucks from TSP, but a lot of aggressive and attentive people would end their career with between 200K and 500K in it if they maximized their investment and generally picked wisely in choosing and changing their allocations within TSP over the years. Damned few people could live on that for the rest of their lives, unless they cashed in their chips just a few years after retiring, but combined with the limited defined benefit (Which is in the same ballpark as the civil service retiree's SS paycheck if they drawn at the earliest opportunity) it is enough to retire in reasonable comfort, provided one did not spend one's working life blowing every dime and living on credit cards.
I was thinking exactly of FERS and TSP when I mentioned a combined approach. Great minds. Places like Nationwide which is privately owned also offer a combined approach to retirement.
Post by: txradioguy on December 27, 2014, 12:39:51 PM
Quote
401(k)s are a sham: Duped by a DIY retirement dream, elderly face staggeringly low living standards
And the next trial balloon goes up in the attempt to nationalize our retirement plans.
Progressives can't stand the fact that there is $17 trillion locked away in 401(K) and other types of IRA's that they can't get their hands on.
They started in 2010 trying to get their hands on that money and tried again in 2012.
Expect another push over the next two years to demonize the eeeeeevil private retirement account system and how much better it could be run if the Feds were in control. There will be horror stories of "retirement dreams shattered when the company folded and with it, their company funded retirement nest egg".
Then we'll hear the advantages of federal retirement plans, union retirement plans and how wonderful it would be if you never had to worry about retirement because the Federal Government put your retirement in it's capable hands.
Post by: Ralph Wiggum on December 27, 2014, 02:56:04 PM
And the next trial balloon goes up in the attempt to nationalize our retirement plans.It would not surprise me in the least to see some attempt to confiscate private or company based 401k, 403b or other similar retirement savings. For the general good of the government, probably to help pay for all the illegals they desire to flood our country.
Progressives can't stand the fact that there is $17 trillion locked away in 401(K) and other types of IRA's that they can't get their hands on.
They started in 2010 trying to get their hands on that money and tried again in 2012.
Expect another push over the next two years to demonize the eeeeeevil private retirement account system and how much better it could be run if the Feds were in control. There will be horror stories of "retirement dreams shattered when the company folded and with it, their company funded retirement nest egg".
Then we'll hear the advantages of federal retirement plans, union retirement plans and how wonderful it would be if you never had to worry about retirement because the Federal Government put your retirement in it's capable hands.
Post by: Carl on December 27, 2014, 03:00:52 PM
Post by: txradioguy on December 27, 2014, 03:08:31 PM
It would not surprise me in the least to see some attempt to confiscate private or company based 401k, 403b or other similar retirement savings. For the general good of the government, probably to help pay for all the illegals they desire to flood our country.
It's already beginning to happen:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2013/02/the_feds_want_your_retirement_accounts.html
As this TIME article notes...he's already tried to cap the amount you can put into an IRA. Remember his "no one needs more than $3 million to retire on" crack?
Quote
resident Obama’s budget, just sent to Congress, proposes to cap tax-advantaged savings across all accounts at $3 million in order to raise $9 billion over 10 years.
<snip>
The cap proposal is a clear play to unlock some of the $10 trillion sitting in IRA and 401(k) accounts, which have become the primary retirement savings vehicles in America. Congress pried this door open a few months ago by toying with a law forcing heirs to liquidate an IRA within five years—almost certainly triggering otherwise avoidable income-tax payments. We may see that yet.
http://business.time.com/2013/04/10/obamas-budget-would-cap-tax-advantaged-savings/
Post by: Ralph Wiggum on December 27, 2014, 03:44:51 PM
It's already beginning to happen:Oh yeah, I know the pointy-headed idealists with freshly minted Harvard & Yale degrees that Obama surrounds himself with are crafting lots of things like this. Trial balloons have been floated from time to time as well. Think Jesse Jackson came out several years ago strongly in favor of attempting a move to do this. Perhaps worth a google search if one is so inclined.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2013/02/the_feds_want_your_retirement_accounts.html
As this TIME article notes...he's already tried to cap the amount you can put into an IRA. Remember his "no one needs more than $3 million to retire on" crack?
http://business.time.com/2013/04/10/obamas-budget-would-cap-tax-advantaged-savings/
Post by: txradioguy on December 27, 2014, 03:48:24 PM
Oh yeah, I know the pointy-headed idealists with freshly minted Harvard & Yale degrees that Obama surrounds himself with are crafting lots of things like this. Trial balloons have been floated from time to time as well. Think Jesse Jackson came out several years ago strongly in favor of attempting a move to do this. Perhaps worth a google search if one is so inclined.
I wonder if a move like this happens, it would finally wake up the idiots at the Chamber of Commerce and the other crony capitalists that play both sides of the political spectrum to the fact that the Progressives aren't their friends?
Post by: Ralph Wiggum on December 27, 2014, 04:45:53 PM
I wonder if a move like this happens, it would finally wake up the idiots at the Chamber of Commerce and the other crony capitalists that play both sides of the political spectrum to the fact that the Progressives aren't their friends?One can hope.
It really bothers me when leaders, whether of a company or a country only wants "yes-men" or people around them. In Obama's case, by all accounts he surrounds himself with both high & lower level advisors who have rarely if ever worked in the private sector. They only know of pie-in-the-sky idealism of what they've been spoonfed in college classes.
Successful business people, from CEO to CFO on down rely on hearing contrary or differing opinions and points of view. I'm talking big companies, medium and smaller, as I've worked in various capacities in each.
Post by: Conservative Libertarian on December 27, 2014, 05:01:43 PM
One can hope.
It really bothers me when leaders, whether of a company or a country only wants "yes-men" or people around them. In Obama's case, by all accounts he surrounds himself with both high & lower level advisors who have rarely if ever worked in the private sector. They only know of pie-in-the-sky idealism of what they've been spoonfed in college classes.
Successful business people, from CEO to CFO on down rely on hearing contrary or differing opinions and points of view. I'm talking big companies, medium and smaller, as I've worked in various capacities in each.
If the government was going to confiscate my retirement account, I would be worth the tax hit to remove it all. At least, you would still have what was left over.
Post by: BattleHymn on December 27, 2014, 05:13:29 PM
If the government was going to confiscate my retirement account, I would be worth the tax hit to remove it all. At least, you would still have what was left over.
Yes. I think if they try to do something like this, it will be done as quickly as possible, for this reason.
Post by: Conservative Libertarian on December 27, 2014, 05:26:50 PM
Yes. I think if they try to do something like this, it will be done as quickly as possible, for this reason.
One would have to do their best to see it coming.
Post by: zeitgeist on December 27, 2014, 05:32:50 PM
Yes. I think if they try to do something like this, it will be done as quickly as possible, for this reason.(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Executive_Order_6102.jpg)
Ah yes, Executive Orders... :whistling:
Post by: Carl on December 27, 2014, 06:19:10 PM
I am still convinced that any attempt at this would still mean blood running in the streets.
Post by: Ralph Wiggum on December 27, 2014, 06:42:07 PM
There are lots of (mostly) leftist bureaucrats that would love the idea of confiscation of 401k and IRA monies to fund another ponzi retirement,dependency scheme.The powers that be on Wall Street, who quite often fund both sides of the spectrum, would be absolutely furious. Unless they had advanced warning & got enough money out.
I am still convinced that any attempt at this would still mean blood running in the streets.
Post by: Carl on December 27, 2014, 06:59:57 PM
The powers that be on Wall Street, who quite often fund both sides of the spectrum, would be absolutely furious. Unless they had advanced warning & got enough money out.
There is virtually no legal vehicle such a thing could happen short of complete dictatorship.
Now,I can imagine some sort of shell game "if you like your health care plan..." voluntary trade off being offered but even then can`t see how it can be lied past the first generation of recipients or funded without punishing older holders of 401Ks.
Post by: freedumb2003b on December 27, 2014, 07:25:16 PM
A million dollars is not what it used to be.
If you put it in a security or otherwise like investment, the typical rate of return you could expect is anywhere from 1 to 3% over the last 10 to 15 years.
That's $10,000.00 to 30,000.00 annually.
You will be right on the verge of poverty, in it, or right above it.
If you have your house paid off, and no debt, you might be able to get by on that.
But you won't be living like a king.
The rule of thumb is a safe (not insanely safe such as a CD) investment portfolio holds at a 4% withdrawal rate.
Many can make it on $40K a year if you include SS (figure $15K).
Since I don't believe SS will be there but I do have a series of investments and a small pension, I will be OK with $2 million in my 401(K), which I should hit in 8 years.
Post by: txradioguy on December 27, 2014, 07:28:14 PM
There is virtually no legal vehicle such a thing could happen short of complete dictatorship.
IMO....we're pretty much there already.
Post by: zeitgeist on December 27, 2014, 08:27:23 PM
A grateful public willingly complies. Sure, there will be a few strays who try to bolt the stampede but they will be like those few who didn't turn in their gold back in 1933. Banks and financial markets are under the thumb of the guy who prints the money. Those holding hard asset, gold, silver, diamonds, and the like, will be able to negotiate without the fiat dollar but anyone else who wants to be in the game has to buy chips from the house of Obama. A bird in the hand being offered to convert your now next to worthless 401 whatever into a guaranteed buy in at its previous value, ensuring enhanced social security payments. And that is just one example of what could happen. Now I am not saying it will happen but anything can happen.
Post by: BlueStateSaint on December 28, 2014, 09:35:29 AM
What they want is a lavish retirement of a guaranteed amount that is paid for by others with no care of the exact ramifications or desire to have ever contributed themselves.
Steve the Les(s)er was on Cavuto's show a few years ago, arguing for this exact idea. I remember watching it.
Post by: Big Dog on December 28, 2014, 10:31:07 AM
It is not hard to play devil's advocate on this. Let's say there is a flash crash or other 'unexplained' disturbance in the force (called the market) which wipes out large amounts of value in 401k and other alphabet retirement savings, trading curbs kick in. Uncle Barry steps to the podium and calls for a national moratorium on these unsafe vehicles while offering to make whole the amounts by converting them to a quasi-government guaranteed pension system buttressed by enhanced social security. A private public partnership with Wall Street. WIN / WIN (for Wall Street and Uncle Barry) The investment board will be made up of the best and brightest and regulated by Uncle Sam. The sick will be healed!! Praise Obama.
A grateful public willingly complies. Sure, there will be a few strays who try to bolt the stampede but they will be like those few who didn't turn in their gold back in 1933. Banks and financial markets are under the thumb of the guy who prints the money. Those holding hard asset, gold, silver, diamonds, and the like, will be able to negotiate without the fiat dollar but anyone else who wants to be in the game has to buy chips from the house of Obama. A bird in the hand being offered to convert your now next to worthless 401 whatever into a guaranteed buy in at its previous value, ensuring enhanced social security payments. And that is just one example of what could happen. Now I am not saying it will happen but anything can happen.
Who is John Galt?
Post by: obumazombie on December 28, 2014, 10:45:38 AM
Post by: Big Dog on December 28, 2014, 10:48:59 AM
As William Rivers Pitiful would say, He. ****ing. Knows.
Post by: zeitgeist on December 28, 2014, 12:12:54 PM
^Just a guy who carried the weight of the world on his shoulders.My vote would be for 'the man who stopped the engine of the world'.
Post by: Texacon on December 28, 2014, 01:02:45 PM
It is not hard to play devil's advocate on this.
This is way too believable and scary as hell!
In this scenario I have one saving factor in that we own several investment properties. I could imagine the government wanting to seize those as well though.
Scary.
KC
Post by: Big Dog on December 28, 2014, 01:11:51 PM
My vote would be for 'the man who stopped the engine of the world'.
:clap: :clap: :clap:
Just shrug.