Maybe those are the facts as they see them, without any embellishment. Just because RM thinks something is hyperbole or fear-mongering doesn't make it so.

 

As to the topic at hand, this is quite possibly the worst idea I've ever heard. Why the hell should the government have any say in how I invest (the little) money they don't take from me?

 

Come on..that's hyperbole....designed to evoke an emotional response. I respect CWF, but it is.

Thanks Rockmom and Marvel for the earlier replies regarding civil rights.

 

Back to the original article. I wonder why the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury believes that 401K's are unfair to poor people. I am having trouble closing that loop. I see 401K's being the best, and sometimes only, incentive vehicle for the working class to put more into savings. Many companies have eliminated or reduced pensions. Many of us have little expectations out of social security. I wonder if he is aware that each 401k plan has discrimination testing so that participation is not only for the highly compensated as their participation is limited based on the relationship of investment by the not-highly compensated. Or does it just sound like a good thing to say?

Some people think it is the governments responsibility to take care of them it's that simple. Now they want to castigate and/or vilify those that have taken care of thenselves. I wonder if 15 or 20 years ago the same people that call this hyperbole and fear mongering would have said the same thing if someone expressed concern that there would be a push to mandate free contraceptives for all women?

 

Sent from my Samsung Stratosphere using Forum Runner

Thanks Rockmom and Marvel for the earlier replies regarding civil rights.

 

Back to the original article. I wonder why the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury believes that 401K's are unfair to poor people. I am having trouble closing that loop. I see 401K's being the best, and sometimes only, incentive vehicle for the working class to put more into savings. Many companies have eliminated or reduced pensions. Many of us have little expectations out of social security. I wonder if he is aware that each 401k plan has discrimination testing so that participation is not only for the highly compensated as their participation is limited based on the relationship of investment by the not-highly compensated. Or does it just sound like a good thing to say?

 

We agree wholeheartedly on the above, Doomer.

Some people think it is the governments responsibility to take care of them it's that simple. Now they want to castigate and/or vilify those that have taken care of thenselves. I wonder if 15 or 20 years ago the same people that call this hyperbole and fear mongering would have said the same thing if someone expressed concern that there would be a push to mandate free contraceptives for all women?

 

Sent from my Samsung Stratosphere using Forum Runner

 

I'll just address one thing....there isn't a mandate for free contraceptives for all women...merely that insurance coverage include them.

I'll just address one thing....there isn't a mandate for free contraceptives for all women...merely that insurance coverage include them.

 

In other words all women will have access to free contraceptives because of a government mandate. Semantics. IMHO just another example of the taker mentality that many on the left have.

Thanks Rockmom and Marvel for the earlier replies regarding civil rights.

 

Back to the original article. I wonder why the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury believes that 401K's are unfair to poor people. I am having trouble closing that loop. I see 401K's being the best, and sometimes only, incentive vehicle for the working class to put more into savings. Many companies have eliminated or reduced pensions. Many of us have little expectations out of social security. I wonder if he is aware that each 401k plan has discrimination testing so that participation is not only for the highly compensated as their participation is limited based on the relationship of investment by the not-highly compensated. Or does it just sound like a good thing to say?

 

I'm not sure what he might mean, but I can see where the barrier is for low income people in deciding to participate in a 401K. Let's say you have a family of 4 making $35K, both eligible to participate with a company match of 4%. It's a really tough sell to tell them that even if they participate at 1% each it's a good thing because their employer matches that 1%. In reality they'd each pay in about $180 and get $180 matched annually. However, if they're living paycheck to paycheck, every little penny seems paramount, and the promise of a matching $180 hardly seems worth the risk.

 

In other words all women will have access to free contraceptives because of a government mandate. Semantics. IMHO just another example of the taker mentality that many on the left have.

 

I have no doubt you will never be for anything that addresses a woman's health concern.

That's not it at all and if I might ad typical of the "war on women" mentality that Obama and his disciples fostered. Why are women's health issues to be considered so important that they above most others. I used to be fat, obesity is a known health risk, why not mandate that insurance companies cover all expenses for weight reduction? The left did a masterful job in the last election of painting those of us that oppose Obamacare as being opposed to women's health issues and it looks like you bought into that line of thinking. I have a question, when Obamacare takes full effect and Medicare reimbursements are slashed how is that going to affect the livelihood of your other child?

 

Again the left believes that the government can do a better job of deciding how people should be taken care of then the individual and this is just another example of it.

That's not it at all and if I might ad typical of the "war on women" mentality that Obama and his disciples fostered. Why are women's health issues to be considered so important that they above most others. I used to be fat, obesity is a known health risk, why not mandate that insurance companies cover all expenses for weight reduction? The left did a masterful job in the last election of painting those of us that oppose Obamacare as being opposed to women's health issues and it looks like you bought into that line of thinking. I have a question, when Obamacare takes full effect and Medicare reimbursements are slashed how is that going to affect the livelihood of your other child?

 

Again the left believes that the government can do a better job of deciding how people should be taken care of then the individual and this is just another example of it.

 

When I am home and can spend more time replying, I'll be happy to answer your post in full. Although, it's probably wasted effort on my part.

Thanks Rockmom and Marvel for the earlier replies regarding civil rights.

 

Back to the original article. I wonder why the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury believes that 401K's are unfair to poor people. I am having trouble closing that loop. I see 401K's being the best, and sometimes only, incentive vehicle for the working class to put more into savings. Many companies have eliminated or reduced pensions. Many of us have little expectations out of social security. I wonder if he is aware that each 401k plan has discrimination testing so that participation is not only for the highly compensated as their participation is limited based on the relationship of investment by the not-highly compensated. Or does it just sound like a good thing to say?

 

Could he mean that because they may not pay income taxes they are not getting the benefit of delaying the tax on the income?

Could he mean that because they may not pay income taxes they are not getting the benefit of delaying the tax on the income?

 

I would assume like other current legal - and encouraged - deductions eventually the case will be made that 401K contributors are cheating the federal government.

 

We probably all know a family that has had to tap into their 401K after getting laid off. And some have had to tap into to live or keep their house. According this supposedly all-caring government this is not a 'hardship'. Its worth repeating - eating and keeping your house from getting foreclosed on is not considered a 'hardship' by the IRS. So the Feds want their 10% 'penalty' (extra tax) if you are under 55 and need the money to do those things. I know of no one who has had to access their 401K after getting laid off that has gotten relief from the 10%.

 

Fade to Beatles 'Taxman'......

I have no doubt you will never be for anything that addresses a woman's health concern.

 

No one is denying anyone birth control, just pay for it yourself.

JFK would be ashamed of today's Democractic Party.

All of us should be ashamed of our educational system to have allowed such a total disregard for our Constitution.

The "The Greatest Generation" would be ashamed of the wiiligness of those who are so lazy in thinking and/or work habits to believe that government owes them a living.

I'll just address one thing....there isn't a mandate for free contraceptives for all women...merely that insurance coverage include them.

 

Next it will be free adderal for all college students so they can get through college. Heck, I'm prolly paying for 20 kids college education + full tuition for my two. Might as well cover the adderal to help them study.:irked:

Thanks Rockmom and Marvel for the earlier replies regarding civil rights.

 

Back to the original article. I wonder why the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury believes that 401K's are unfair to poor people. I am having trouble closing that loop. I see 401K's being the best, and sometimes only, incentive vehicle for the working class to put more into savings. Many companies have eliminated or reduced pensions. Many of us have little expectations out of social security. I wonder if he is aware that each 401k plan has discrimination testing so that participation is not only for the highly compensated as their participation is limited based on the relationship of investment by the not-highly compensated. Or does it just sound like a good thing to say?

 

Exactly. I've gotten a lot of money back the past four years due to the fact that not enough people here have participated. Funny thing is, many of those people don't have $50/month to contribute to their 401k, but don't bat an eye at having a $25 bar tab each Friday and Saturday????