Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Des Moines Register)   Hillary wants to introduce American workers to "the miracle of compound interest" by using government money in 401(k) plans, because such a miracle can only come when the government gives you money for retirement   (desmoinesregister.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

350 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Oct 2007 at 4:46 PM (8 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



262 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2007-10-10 05:51:44 PM  
FlashLV: Screw anyone who makes over $100K!

Someone has to pay for it, it might as well be people who actually make money.
 
2007-10-10 05:52:46 PM  
hitchking: That's delightfully absurd

What? We have less government control over every item that was listed and that makes us less free?

Gotcha.
 
2007-10-10 05:53:14 PM  
Dancin_In_Anson: That we are freer than any other nation on the planet...

Actually, the US is ranked 6th in Economic Freedom, 20th in Government/Tax freedom, and 19th in Individual Freedom.

Overall we're tied with GB for 7th place. Link (new window)
 
2007-10-10 05:54:10 PM  
boomaze:
I have no problem with that definition really. But you know that isn't how its used. And you must also know that America is about as far away from "socialism" as you can get.


Public Schools, EPA, FDA, USDA, NSA, CIA, Medicare/Medicaid, Federal Reserve, IRS, Oil Tax, Cigarette Tax, Income Tax, etc...

You were being sarcastic, right?
 
2007-10-10 05:54:29 PM  
Shaggy_C: So...let me get this right. You'd pass up the option to get a free 100% return on 401(k) investments up to $1000 each year?

I get that ALREADY. Run the numbers, your contribution to your 401k comes right off of your income figure in column (whatever) on our 1040. If I pay 8k into my 401k, not only do I do I get an sizable matching from my employer already, I drop into a different taxable income bracket.

Throw in a few deductions for mortgage, kids, etc, I get a good deal of my withholdings back. (Anyone who gives me grief about giving the feds an interest free loan has never had to pay penalties and interest if they miscalculate their deductions.)

So what will this plan realistically do? NOTHING for most people. If they had any grasp of economics they would be paying into their 401k already.

And because it's matching it's at best hollow. If you are going to provide a benefit, provide a benefit. This is essentially giving to those that already know WTF they are doing. We aren't the problem. It's the fools who make 6 figures and still manage to live hand to mouth.

I call it "Rich Poverty". And it's entirely too common.
 
2007-10-10 05:56:09 PM  
Shaggy_C: Actually, the US is ranked 6th in Economic Freedom, 20th in Government/Tax freedom, and 19th in Individual Freedom

It would seem that the remedy then would be to give over more control of how we live are lives then eh?
 
2007-10-10 05:56:24 PM  
Hank Rearden
Public Schools, EPA, FDA, USDA, NSA, CIA, Medicare/Medicaid, Federal Reserve, IRS, Oil Tax, Cigarette Tax, Income Tax, etc...

You were being sarcastic, right?


No, I wasn't. This is control of production. Capitalism needs these things too. Just because you have a social program that FREE CAPITAL gets taxed for, it ain't socialism. Jesus Christ.
 
2007-10-10 05:57:19 PM  
Dancin_In_Anson

boomaze: No right-winger/conservative/neo-con/born again libertarian in these htreads has a clue what it means

That we are freer than any other nation on the planet...


Classic
 
2007-10-10 05:57:19 PM  
Prez Hillary sez LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT
 
2007-10-10 05:57:47 PM  
hitchking: FlashLV: Um, people making over $100k a year won't be able to get this, so it's more of an entitlement, no?

???

A targeted tax cut is an entitlement? Were the portions of Bush tax cuts that only applied to the top income tax bracket an entitlement?


No, because the money was not given to them. This gives people money (based upon where the funding is coming from.) This is a handout because it is possible to recieve more money from the got than you paid in. The Bush tax cuts on income were pretty close to being equal across the board (percentage wise) that it can be infered that the govt decided it was taking too much in and decided to not take from people equally. Targeted tax cuts on income are wrong. If the govt wants to cut taxs they can cut them equally.
 
2007-10-10 05:58:52 PM  
Evil Twin Skippy: And because it's matching it's at best hollow. If you are going to provide a benefit, provide a benefit. This is essentially giving to those that already know WTF they are doing. We aren't the problem. It's the fools who make 6 figures and still manage to live hand to mouth.

I see your point. All this is going to do is encourage employers to contribute less to their employees' 401(k) plans, unless tax write-offs remain in place for the businesses. It will encourage the poor to get them though, and that's not a bad thing.
 
2007-10-10 05:59:06 PM  
A quick scan of the Bloomberg article also did not turn up the magic word 'refundable'. It is not entirely clear to me whether or not the 'dollar-to-dollar match' is the exact same bit as the 'tax credit'; one normally thinks of the 'match' as a deposit into that account, while a tax credit reduces the amount of income tax while leaving that account balance unchanged. There are at least two possible meaningful differences there -- one is that a non-refundable federal income tax credit will not be more valuable than one's federal income tax burden (which is probably fairly low, for those making less than $30K/year). The other difference is that if one contributes the maximum permitted, and the 'match' is actually a simple tax credit and not a deposit earmarked for this account, then the tax credit (even if it is refundable) could not be added without exceeding the contribution limit.
 
2007-10-10 05:59:17 PM  
boomaze: So much stupid. I love when people even deny the facts of history for their modern dumbass political arguments. I mean this is just SO frkkING STUPID

How am I denying history? The New Deal was a disaster over the long term. FDR created economic uncertainty, punished the successful (wealthy), and used government money to buy votes.

Yes there were great successes like the Hover dam, the TVA, and such. But as a whole, the new deal failed to bring the US out of the great depression. You are the one making my argument a Dem vs Repub argument. Hoover did some markup moves when he was in office that certainly made the situation worse.

I'm not saying regulation or government spending is a bad thing. But too much is just as bad as too little.
 
2007-10-10 06:00:01 PM  
Dancin_In_Anson: What? We have less government control over every item that was listed and that makes us less free?

The list was about taxation and spending. If low levels of those are your criteria for freedom, then you are bested by Japan, Korea, and Mexico, and that's just countries in the OECD.

If you're thinking of economic freedom in general, then let me refer you to a study by the Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/index/countries.cfm) which puts the US at #4.
 
2007-10-10 06:00:02 PM  
Saiga410: No, because the money was not given to them. This gives people money (based upon where the funding is coming from.) This is a handout because it is possible to recieve more money from the got than you paid in. The Bush tax cuts on income were pretty close to being equal across the board (percentage wise) that it can be infered that the govt decided it was taking too much in and decided to not take from people equally. Targeted tax cuts on income are wrong. If the govt wants to cut taxs they can cut them equally.

Why are targeted tax cuts on income wrong? Why shouldn't people who make more money pay more as a percentage?
 
2007-10-10 06:00:56 PM  
boomaze: Hank Rearden
Public Schools, EPA, FDA, USDA, NSA, CIA, Medicare/Medicaid, Federal Reserve, IRS, Oil Tax, Cigarette Tax, Income Tax, etc...

You were being sarcastic, right?

No, I wasn't. This is control of production. Capitalism needs these things too. Just because you have a social program that FREE CAPITAL gets taxed for, it ain't socialism. Jesus Christ.


Control of production is not Capitalism, its socialism. 'Control' and 'Regulation' are the key words here.

Don't get wrong, I don't mind the government playing with social policies, but they have NO place in the economy.
 
2007-10-10 06:02:13 PM  
Mr. Anon: Why are targeted tax cuts on income wrong? Why shouldn't people who make more money pay more as a percentage?

Because the law should treat everyone equally. No strings, no modifiers, no nothing.
 
2007-10-10 06:02:55 PM  
Saiga410: This is a handout because it is possible to recieve more money from the got than you paid in.

If you make under $100,000 it'd be pretty tough for you to save pay less than $1000 in taxes and still save that much for retirement. Virtually no one would be getting back more money than they paid in taxes.

It's a tax cut. You may hit a mental "blue screen of death" by realizing that you're arguing against a tax cut, but at least be straight up about what this is.
 
2007-10-10 06:02:57 PM  
scseth: Evil Twin Skippy: Instead of the Feds deciding to tax me, and then give it back in the form of 401k "matching", how about not taxing me for it at all.

Because its meant to be an incentive for people to save money.


You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. People are not going to save money while the value of the dollar continues to be eaten by inflation.

And locking people's money in 401ks benefits one and only one sector: Mutual Funds. It's not money that can be readily converted into operating capital for a new business. At best you can borrow against is at a significant penalty.

And unlike a defined benefit plan (ala Social Security) there is nothing that keeps people from losing it ALL if the market tanks or if the invest unwisely. Which is entirely too easy to do, because the entire Mutual Fund system is a giant con game.

I'd much rather see as much or more effort going into curbing inflation and fixing or foreign energe dependence. (Though truth be told the two problems are interrelated.)
 
2007-10-10 06:03:53 PM  
Saiga410
No, because the money was not given to them. This gives people money (based upon where the funding is coming from.) This is a handout because it is possible to recieve more money from the got than you paid in. The Bush tax cuts on income were pretty close to being equal across the board (percentage wise) that it can be infered that the govt decided it was taking too much in and decided to not take from people equally. Targeted tax cuts on income are wrong. If the govt wants to cut taxs they can cut them equally.

Bullshiat. Bush's refund gave everybody that filed a w-2 $300 wether they paid a dime or not. it was a shameless handout. NAd if you think Bush has cut equally across the board, go read up.
 
2007-10-10 06:04:22 PM  
Dancin_In_Anson: Shaggy_C: Actually, the US is ranked 6th in Economic Freedom, 20th in Government/Tax freedom, and 19th in Individual Freedom

It would seem that the remedy then would be to give over more control of how we live are lives then eh?


That's pretty golden. Your initial remark was a change-of-subject from the headline topic, then, when proven wrong about it, you change the subject back to the thread topic. It's like a game of whack-a-mole.
 
2007-10-10 06:05:54 PM  
Evil Twin Skippy: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. People are not going to save money while the value of the dollar continues to be eaten by inflation.

An insane declaration. Interest rates outstrip inflation, and historical returns in the stock market are many times larger than inflation.
 
2007-10-10 06:05:55 PM  
boomaze: Classic

I'll repeat it for you too...


It would seem that the remedy then would be to give over more control of how we live are lives then eh?
 
2007-10-10 06:08:08 PM  
Why doesn't Senator Clinton just come out and admit that she is, indeed, a Socialist? She would probably get more cred from the Libs via the voting booth.
 
2007-10-10 06:08:54 PM  
Dancin_In_Anson: It would seem that the remedy then would be to give over more control of how we live are lives then eh?

Did you read my argument about how saving entails "positive externalities" and it is legitimate for the government to encourage such activities if the cost of doing so is less than the benefits? Or my argument about how this is fundamentally a tax shift away from bad taxes (taxes on saving for low-middle income people) towards less bad taxes (taxes on very large estates), so the tax system is made more efficient?
 
2007-10-10 06:09:41 PM  
Dancin_In_Anson
boomaze: Classic

I'll repeat it for you too...


It would seem that the remedy then would be to give over more control of how we live are lives then eh?



Your response didn't even make sense except as a "I love America!" repsonse. i can't even put it in context. Neither does this one. It's ok. I expect it from "conservatives"
 
2007-10-10 06:10:00 PM  
hitchking: An insane declaration. Interest rates outstrip inflation, and historical returns in the stock market are many times larger than inflation.

Past performance is no indication of future returns

People can, have, and will lose money on the market. Thus the name "market". It's a market. It's not a charity. Every gain comes at someone else's loss.
 
2007-10-10 06:11:07 PM  
And for those of you at home, most of the gains are made by insiders. Most of the losses are on the part of small investors.
 
2007-10-10 06:12:02 PM  
Why do we think the government can fix all of our problems? Isn't that exactly what those old wig wearing dudes back in the day wanted us to stay away from?
 
2007-10-10 06:14:18 PM  
hitchking: That's pretty golden. Your initial remark was a change-of-subject from the headline topic, then, when proven wrong about it, you change the subject back to the thread topic.

Wrong again, Spanky. Let's reviw, shall we?

You really don't even know what socialism is do you?

To you its just an attack word?

Do you know some countries you pay 50% in taxes and even close to 80%?

Do you know the US is one of the least taxed countries in the industrial world?

Do you know that the countries that pay more for country infrastructure have much higher productive workforces then countries that don't?


More government control = less freedom. Period. Economic or otherwise. Do you disagree?
 
2007-10-10 06:14:44 PM  
Evil Twin Skippy People can, have, and will lose money on the market. Thus the name "market". It's a market. It's not a charity. Every gain comes at someone else's loss.

That is one thing I havent seen about this plan: Who is the fund manager (or how is the money managed?). Is it like social security, is it being invested in the market, only in American funds, in mutuals, in T-bills, bonds, what?
 
2007-10-10 06:15:23 PM  
hitchking: Did you read my argument about how saving entails "positive externalities" and it is legitimate for the government to encourage such activities if the cost of doing so is less than the benefits?

Encourage? How about force?
 
2007-10-10 06:16:12 PM  
Evil Twin Skippy: Past performance is no indication of future returns

People can, have, and will lose money on the market. Thus the name "market". It's a market. It's not a charity. Every gain comes at someone else's loss.


This is a profound misunderstanding of the stock market, and markets in general. To say "every gain comes at someone else's loss" reveals a complete ignorance of markets.

jpstone: Why do we think the government can fix all of our problems?

Who on earth is arguing that government can fix all of everyone's problems? This is a minor tax shift that encourages retirement savings for people with low-middle incomes.
 
2007-10-10 06:16:50 PM  
Dancin_In_Anson


Encourage? How about force?


You'd have an argument if this program forced you yo do anything. Since it doesn't you don't.
 
2007-10-10 06:17:29 PM  
Dancin_In_Anson: Encourage? How about force?

The government is offering matching funds. That's encouragement.
 
2007-10-10 06:17:47 PM  
scseth: That is one thing I havent seen about this plan: Who is the fund manager (or how is the money managed?). Is it like social security, is it being invested in the market, only in American funds, in mutuals, in T-bills, bonds, what?

Exactly, and the devil is in the details. Technically we already have such a system. Social security takes our withholding and invests in low-interest government bonds.
 
2007-10-10 06:17:50 PM  
boomaze: Bullshiat. Bush's refund gave everybody that filed a w-2 $300 wether they paid a dime or not. it was a shameless handout. NAd if you think Bush has cut equally across the board, go read up.

The 300 dolars was not right but the tax cuts were pretty good.

Between 2002 and 3 the rates for people earning over 28K lowered 2% across the board.

Between 2000 and 2001 the same groups rates droped .5%.
 
2007-10-10 06:19:32 PM  
Saiga410

The 300 dolars was not right but the tax cuts were pretty good.

Between 2002 and 3 the rates for people earning over 28K lowered 2% across the board.

Between 2000 and 2001 the same groups rates droped .5%.


You really need to look at the higher tax brackets to get an idea what his cuts were about.
 
2007-10-10 06:21:14 PM  
boomaze: You'd have an argument if this program forced you yo do anything. Since it doesn't you don't

hitchking: The government is offering matching funds.

Where does the money come from?
 
2007-10-10 06:21:26 PM  
FlashLV
It's called harassment and trolling. I did nothing wrong, he wanted to play a game, I'm playing as well.

Poor Flash. So misunderstood.
 
2007-10-10 06:23:10 PM  
Dancin_In_Anson
Where does the money come from?

In my case, and the case of anybody else paying $1000 or more in taxes, my pocket asshole. Just can't back a Clinton tax cut huh? Your head asplode. What does this have to do with it not being forced.
 
2007-10-10 06:23:24 PM  
boomazehttp://www.unclefed.com/IRS-Forms/taxtables/2000_i1040trs.pdf
http://www.unclefed.com/IRS-Forms/taxtables/2001_i1040trs.pdf
http://www.unclefed.com/IRS-Forms/taxtables/2002_i1040trs.pdf
http://www.unclefed.com/IRS-Forms/taxtables/2003_i1040trs.pdf
http://www.unclefed.com/IRS-Forms/taxtables/2004_i1040trs.pdf

Sorry, did not want to do the html thingy
 
2007-10-10 06:26:45 PM  
Evil Twin Skippy: If I pay 8k into my 401k, not only do I do I get an sizable matching from my employer already, I drop into a different taxable income bracket.

Can you explain the portion about dropping into a different taxable income bracket? I'm confused because I thought the U.S. had marginal tax rates. The tax in the higher income bracket would only be applied to the dollars earned in the range. The tax on the rest of the dollars would be the same.
 
2007-10-10 06:27:42 PM  
Dancin_In_Anson: Where does the money come from?

No no no. We were arguing with your use of the word force in this context:

I said, Did you read my argument about how saving entails "positive externalities" and it is legitimate for the government to encourage such activities if the cost of doing so is less than the benefits?

And you responded,

Encourage? How about force?

So you were saying the government would not be *encouraging* retirement savings, but FORCING retirement savings through Clinton's plan.

This plan has nothing to do with forcing people to save for retirement. So you were wrong. I admire your balls in attempting to blatantly move the goalposts when the game was already in play, though.
 
2007-10-10 06:29:48 PM  
rahpowerThe tax in the higher income bracket would only be applied to the dollars earned in the range

The money pulled out to your 401K is not taxable income that year. I suppose if you were at the border already and pulled enough out you could drop into the a lower income tax bracket for that year.

When you withdrawl your 401k funds, presumably at retirement, presumably you are making less money and therefore taxed at a lower bracket.
 
2007-10-10 06:29:50 PM  
Saiga410

boomazehttp://www.unclefed.com/IRS-Forms/taxtables/2000_i1040trs.pdf
http://www.unclefed.com/IRS-Forms/taxtables/2001_i1040trs.pdf
http://www.unclefed.com/IRS-Forms/taxtables/2002_i1040trs.pdf
http://www.unclefed.com/IRS-Forms/taxtables/2003_i1040trs.pdf
http://www.unclefed.com/IRS-Forms/taxtables/2004_i1040trs.pdf

Sorry, did not want to do the html thingy


No prob. I'm not saying the base rates were not pretty much the same on your 1040, try looking at capital gains and such. Taxed less than labor income, which should be criminal. You like equal across the board tax rates? Why do capital gains get 15%? That is the real pisser for me.
 
2007-10-10 06:30:38 PM  
boomaze

Sorry my eye did a little snaffo. Below 30k people recieved a 5% reduction on 02. Nothing between 03-4 but they are still ahead.

Helping out the little guy
 
2007-10-10 06:31:19 PM  
You can take out a loan against your 401k, if people do this, then it isn't saving.
 
2007-10-10 06:31:28 PM  
Dancin_In_Anson: Let's take a little quiz, shall we?*

Who said:

::pointless frothy propaganda drivel removed::

* credit given to original source of this quiz later in thread along with answers...


Here's another quiz.

1) What far-right wing extremist is incapable of thinking for themselves and posts quizzes that have blatantly taken quotes out of context in order to push far-right wing extremist propaganda?

Is it:

a) Dancin_In_Anson
b) Dancin_In_Anson
c) Dancin_In_Anson
d) Dancin_In_Anson

Snopes Hillary Clinton Marxist Quotes Debunking (new window)
 
2007-10-10 06:31:39 PM  
FlashLV

You still get it if you don't pay taxes!


If you don't pay $1000 a year in taxes, you ain't gonna have $1000 to match. Ask your mom.
 
Displayed 50 of 262 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report