I Really Hope They're Not Seriously Considering This

[rowyn]

The House Committee on Education and Labor hears testimony on nationalizing* pensions and 401(k) accounts.

Dear Congress:

I do not want a bailout. I do not want to be punished for having chosen to save for my retirement by having my savings taken away from me. I do not want my retirement savings to go bankrupt by the time I'm 65 the way the existing Social Security Administration is going to. In short:

DO NOT WANT.

Please keep your grubby hands off of my investments. K thx.

Love and kisses,
Rowyn

* Edit: shaterri looked at the actual testimony (which I can't do at the moment, so see his comment below), and apparently the article linked above is at the least inflammatory if not outright fabrication: the testifying speaker doesn't advocate "confiscating" existing 401(k)s or pensions. I feel better. Thanks, Shaterri! And I'm sure Congress wouldn't take her seriously even if she had. Really. 99.9% sure, anyway.

Comments

[rowyn]

Well, being seriously considered by someone, I suppose. I don't think by Congress, though. Shaterri looked at the actual testimony and said it didn't even include anything like the "confiscate existing accounts" the article contended. Which was the part that really ticked me off.

Not that I want the tax breaks for retirement savings to go away, either, mind, but at least doing that isn't a bait-and-switch. And I gather the committee wasn't too impressed by that part of the proposal, either. I really need to stop talking about this until I get a chance to look at the record for myself. :)

[level-head.livejournal.com]

The $600 is apparently the government's contribution. The prepared speech, oddly, contains many typos and in some cases is quite unclear.

But it's clear that this is an immediate proposal, not gradual -- she is advocating that 401(k) contributions be valued at "mid August" levels, which makes no sense for anything that is not immediate.

Again and again, this is pushed as "fair" because it is taking money from high income earners to fund those too poor to save money.

And the 401(k) system is described as a "failure" because it is not helping poor people.

===|==============/ Level Head

[level-head.livejournal.com]

She is talking immediate, "short term", swap out of 401(k)s and into this "mandated savings program".

And she contents that Social Security is fine, and the only failure is 401(k)s -- perhaps because the money is not in government hands to "spread the wealth". Specifically, she said:

American workers know we have a short term and long term pension crises but it
is not with Social Security but with the voluntary, self-directed, commercial- account -
based pension system.

The article takes an alarmist tone -- but there is much to be alarmed about in her testimony.

Yes, there were others testifying, but the article was specifically talking about and quoting her. Her testimony implies confiscation but does not use the word. And it clearly is speaking to immediate action, and it clearly wants to bring an end to private savings programs, and "exchange" them for GRAs.

===|==============/ Level Head