# Pensions seized in Europe - Will it happen here?



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

A lot of us are dependent upon some sort of pension or retirement savings plan and it's been part of our prep for our old age. 

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/T...email&sms_ss=email&at_xt=4d238d7141499ee7%2C0

Under current austerity measures, the governments of Europe have been making noises about how much money is sitting in pension and retirement accounts. Hungary has actually taken steps to do something about it and other nation-states are expected to follow suit, provided of course that there isn't a bloody revolution in Hungary. Hungarians were forced to turn over all their savings to the government, or to forgo the pensions. Now these are not government pensions specifically, but ALL pensions. They appear to be state pensions because a long time ago the state took over control of all pensions.

What will you do when a failing economy forces the American government to give you that same hard choice?


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2011)

I think it's looking more likely with every passing month.


----------



## Sarabeth (Sep 14, 2008)

My SIL works for the county - a great job - but it worries me how she is really counting on her pension. She is years from retirement, but still. They have no savings, no food storage, etc. If her pension is taken away, what would happen? Although I get it - if the money isn't there, it just isn't there. It just is sad.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

A.T. Hagan said:


> I think it's looking more likely with every passing month.


Then this will REALLY burn your butt.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...al-with-prudential-over-soldier-benefits.html

"The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs failed to inform 6 million soldiers and their families of an agreement enabling Prudential Financial Inc. to withhold lump-sum payments of life insurance benefits for survivors of fallen service members, according to records made public through a Freedom of Information request."

So the monies they DID have control over they already stole. You'd better believe they're eyeing the estimated $3 trillion dollars in 401k plans with extreme hunger.

Your possessions are never secure from a ravenous state which knows no constitutional limits.


----------



## shanzone2001 (Dec 3, 2009)

I know that STRS is in trouble. I wonder what will be left for me when I retire from teaching? (That was a rhetorical question!)
I didn't know until I began teaching that teachers do not qualify for social security because we pay into STRS. 
It most likely won't matter either way since I can't count on either one of those programs when I retire.


----------



## Callieslamb (Feb 27, 2007)

It's probably a good bet to not count on anything other than youself and the money you save. If we can even keep that. It will be nice if pension funds survive, but I wouldn't count on it. Many companies now don't offer pensions - they offer the 401K savings matching instead.


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

Ernie said:


> Then this will REALLY burn your butt.
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...al-with-prudential-over-soldier-benefits.html
> 
> ...



The problem is with Pru, not the VA. The feds got nothing out of this.
And they are not going to take 401ks. Wish that nonsense would go away.

Edited to add:
It is still a disgusting practice


----------



## Cyngbaeld (May 20, 2004)

I think you trust the gov more than I do. They already stole our social security funds.


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

Cyngbaeld said:


> I think you trust the gov more than I do. They already stole our social security funds.


How so?


----------



## tab (Aug 20, 2002)

This is one of those things that keeps me awake. Cannot remember where, but this is on the table here. Maybe not an out right takeover, at first, but get the finger in the pie. I will see if I can find the article. I am looking at loosing a good chunk of my life spent trying to prep on multiple layers for old age.....


----------



## tab (Aug 20, 2002)

There seems to be those that only post things like no, crazy, not happening and it always seems to be in threads Ernie starts. I think he has been up in gc and now has stalkers .


----------



## oregon woodsmok (Dec 19, 2010)

I'd do a lot better with saving up for my own retirement if the government would stop taking so much of what I earn in taxes and leave me just a little bit of it.


----------



## oneokie (Aug 14, 2009)

shanzone2001 said:


> I know that STRS is in trouble. I wonder what will be left for me when I retire from teaching? (That was a rhetorical question!)
> I didn't know until I began teaching that teachers do not qualify for social security because we pay into STRS.
> It most likely won't matter either way since I can't count on either one of those programs when I retire.


The school system where you work does not allow personel to contribute to both?

Texas and Oklahoma both at one time allowed teachers to choose which they wanted to contribute to. Mother made the choice to contribute only to the TRS and got a very rude awakening when she retired.

Schools in Oklahoma had the same choices. Many, many teachers are now still teaching so that they can earn their 40 quarters to qualify for SS. Many of those will have close to 40 years service when they can draw SS.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

The feds have already been making noise to not allow people to access their 401K amounts prior to retirement age and they are even talking about raising that age. The Mrs and I have multiple pensions including SBS, PERS, TSB, a Military pension and my separate small state pension (that could disappear in a wink) most of which we cant access for many more years but we cashed out what we could and took the hit.

We now have a sizable savings and retirement stash that we control. The taxes and 10%penalty hurt but the piece of mind was worth it for us and if we ever get SS it will be a bonus and not expected or required for our survival.


----------



## Bruenor (Oct 2, 2008)

I work in the mutual fund industry, and with each new day I continue to believe that the best retirement fund is *land.*


----------



## timfromohio (Jun 19, 2007)

oregon woodsmok said:


> I'd do a lot better with saving up for my own retirement if the government would stop taking so much of what I earn in taxes and leave me just a little bit of it.


Amen to that! I'd sign a document in blood right now promising to never ask for anything from anybody and die alone in a cardboard box under an overpass somewhere if they'd quit robbing each paycheck to fund the ponzi scheme, AKA social security, funds that I'll never see a dime of!


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Bruenor said:


> I work in the mutual fund industry, and with each new day I continue to believe that the best retirement fund is *land.*


And every time I read/hear somebody in your industry say that, it makes me feel better. 

Now, the only trick is managing to hold on to that land.


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

I must be ahead of the curve on this one. I have already concluded that the retirement DH and I would/should have depended on is only in theoretical dollars. I went through the stages of grief over a lack of fairness and reality biting big time long ago...

I see any investment system that you do not have complete control over at every moment such as SSI or 401k as tantamount to gambling in vegas. We are obligated to feed the one armed bandits and IF we ever get some tokens back with the sounds of bells and whistles we will be thrilled for the entertainment value, nothing more.

By the time I am old enough to retire by todays SS stadards the age will go up. By the time I hit that age the funds will be dry. When calling the SS .gov 1-800 # the recording even says so while I am on hold for days. I have to give them credit for being upfront about it. No surprise cat food dinners for this lady someday.

As for DH's 401, ha ha ha ha ha. His employer changes their policy biannually as their morally and ethically bankrupt accountant sees fit. The portion of his benefits package that he was promised upon hire has dwindled down significantly while they expect twice the work. Now, all promised bonuses get thrown into the 401k where DH won't be vested for another 7 years. In the meantime the employer does everything they can to rid themselves of employees before they are vested. In that way his salary/guaranteed bonus structure will be kept by the 401k fund and it's owners who manage to survive until retirement age. (aka only a select few leg hangers)

In this economy a job is a blessing but DH and I would rather have blunt honesty than elaborate accounting and lies. 


Ernie, I'm surprised you aren't foaming at the mouth about the new personal tax increase in our fair state. Over $1000 a year for a family of 4. 

Pretty soon we will all be so tax and pension poor that we will be FORCED onto the .gov dole. :flame: You think it was planned this way? (that was a joke)


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

Anyone depending on pensions is a mighty faith filled person. 

I doubt if the raid would take place before Jan 2013. If [trying to stay non political ] the same actors are in power after '13, it could be a done deal.

Shanzone... maybe if you lived in Tx, your teacher retirement funds fears could be allayed. I read back in November an article, about the once controversial person in charge of Tx TRS. He'd cashed (TTRS funds) out of the stock market before the 2008 troubles, and bought gold when it was a third of what it is now. The TRTS is sitting on a hoard of gold, and (from what I read) not fearing a thing.


----------



## jlrbhjmnc (May 2, 2010)

A.T. Hagan said:


> I think it's looking more likely with every passing month.


We do, too. What good is a "tax-advantaged" savings vehicle that they are hoping to take from you?

*For Deacon Mike*: This has been seriously discussed in the United States by policy makers.

http://www.retirement-usa.org/

This is a AFL-CIO/SEIU website. They have a great deal of influence on Congress.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

hintonlady said:


> Ernie, I'm surprised you aren't foaming at the mouth about the new personal tax increase in our fair state. Over $1000 a year for a family of 4.


To heck with Illinois. I'm moving.


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

Ernie said:


> To heck with Illinois. I'm moving.


I could swear I heard you say that before.

I feel the same way except my in laws/neighbors can be a little more taxing than the state. :grit:

Maybe the New Madrird could rattle Chity-cago off our rears?


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

jlrbhjmnc said:


> *For Deacon Mike*: This has been seriously discussed in the United States by policy makers.
> 
> http://www.retirement-usa.org/
> 
> This is a AFL-CIO/SEIU website. They have a great deal of influence on Congress.


I find nothing about seizing 401ks in that website. In fact, I found this:



> People will always be able to save money on top of the Retirement USA plan -- in 401(k)s and other savings plans. But 401(K) plans alone do not provide sufficient retirement income for most people. Thatâs why we need a new system to provide a basic level of retirement savings on top of Social Security and to provide true retirement security.


I also found this


> Guaranteed Retirement Account Plan, presented by Teresa Ghilarducci. The GRA proposal mandates a contribution of five percent of earnings (up to the Social Security wage base) for all workers â evenly divided between employer and employee. The employeeâs share of the contribution would be offset by a $600 refundable tax credit, which would completely cover the contribution obligation of an employee with income up to $24,000. The contributions of husbands and wives would be combined and divided equally between their individual accounts.


So now I know what this is about. Teresa Ghilarducci testified to a congressional committee a few years ago and mountain was made of a mole hill.

This is not and had never been "seriously discussed ... by policy makers." This quite simply, nonsense. No one is going after 401ks. You can read more about it here


----------



## tgmr05 (Aug 27, 2007)

Deacon Mike said:


> How so?


Oh, you are right. My social security monies that I have contributed are safely stored in some bank account somewhere, ...right??? No, wait they are being invested in something that will grow to give me a higher return, like paying current retirees, who no longer contribute to SS, or being used to shore up necessary budget concerns with IOUs issued for my future payout. Wait, now how does that benefit me?? Exactly how is the money I contributed NOT being stolen? Are you saying that Bernie Madoff actually came up with a plan that was legal?? He was simply using current contributors to pay off older investors, and other necessary expenses while guaranteeing future payouts would be OK.etc, etc,.... Just like SS....Only SS is larger, and run by politicians, which, I suppose makes it legal, somehow???


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

tgmr05 said:


> Oh, you are right. My social security monies that I have contributed are safely stored in some bank account somewhere, ...right??? No, wait they are being invested in something that will grow to give me a higher return, like paying current retirees, who no longer contribute to SS, or being used to shore up necessary budget concerns with IOUs issued for my future payout. Wait, now how does that benefit me?? Exactly how is the money I contributed NOT being stolen? Are you saying that Bernie Madoff actually came up with a plan that was legal?? He was simply using current contributors to pay off older investors, and other necessary expenses while guaranteeing future payouts would be OK.etc, etc,.... Just like SS....Only SS is larger, and run by politicians, which, I suppose makes it legal, somehow???


Your post is not very rational. 

Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme is fundamentally illegal with the intent of never paying back those that participate.

Social Security was always a pay go system until the early 80's when it was changed to build a buffer for the retirement of the baby boomers. Since that time the trust fund has built up to about $2.5 trillion today.

By law the trust fund has to be invested in something backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. The funds are therefore invested in Treasuries. 

I still see no "theft"


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

Ernie said:


> To heck with Illinois. I'm moving.


I saw an ad in the local paper today for 77 acres of pastureland, not five miles from here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Deacon Mike and others, who still believe in SS. I take my hat off to you.

I look at my retirement funds every single day. They grow a tiny bit each and every day. Pine trees growing on your own land is a marvelous thing.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Ernie said:


> To heck with Illinois. I'm moving.


Got plenty of places available in Georgia.  I grew up in Illinois, still have many family members up there. I'm sure glad I got out of there before it got as bad as it has.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

texican said:


> I saw an ad in the local paper today for 77 acres of pastureland, not five miles from here.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Deacon Mike and others, who still believe in SS. I take my hat off to you.
> 
> I look at my retirement funds every single day. They grow a tiny bit each and every day. Pine trees growing on your own land is a marvelous thing.


I agree. I haven't believed in the pipedream of SS since my early 20's. Think I'll keep my trees for awhile.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

I've been looking for about 25 acres or more but for under $50k. That's all I've got in cash right now. I need good pasture, fencing, access, and water. My preference is going to be in the south, and man I would love to go back to Texas.

So far I've been looking in South Dakota, Texas, Oklahoma, and Kentucky. Haven't really found anything yet that meets my needs, but I have high hopes that sooner or later the Lord will move me to spend some of Uncle Sam's fiat currency on my family's future.


----------



## Bruenor (Oct 2, 2008)

Ernie, I'm a little partial to Indiana. Heck, I'd even come help you move if you needed help.


----------



## sticky_burr (Dec 10, 2010)

well it use to be said if you retire today you get all the money and interest back in 18 months so yea .. just saying


----------



## tgmr05 (Aug 27, 2007)

Deacon Mike said:


> Your post is not very rational.
> 
> Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme is fundamentally illegal with the intent of never paying back those that participate.
> 
> ...


Actually, a ponzi scheme does pay back those that participate, at the beginning. The folks at the end, however, are those who do not receive payments. For example, the first generation of social security recipients paid practically nothing in, yet received very generous retirement benefits that paid out much more than they put in. You cannot refute this fact. The question then becomes, what happens to the last generation who contributes to social security? AND, what happens when there are fewer contributors than those who get paid? 

Pay go, whatever you try to call it, social security is a ponzi scheme, albeit a government one. It relies on a steadily increasing stream of new participants to fund itself. If the stream gets smaller, or the system stops, the last folks in do not receive payment for what they put in. Trust fund? So what, a good ponzi scheme lasts longer because they set aside a small portion of the income stream to have a pool of money to pull from. It always runs out, though..... 

Both SS and a ponzi scheme cannot show someone their money, sure they send you forms showing how much you have contributed, but there is no account showing your balance. Just the word of the folks who started the scam that you will receive X number of dollars per month when you retire, or if you die. The only difference is in a ponzi scheme, if you want to, you can get out early enough, get all your money back, and then some. In SS, you cannot do so.....You have to play the game in SS. Imagine if Madoff could have run the same deal - once you are in, you cannot get out and take your money elsewhere, you have to continue to pay in, you can only receive so much per month when you are old, geez, his scam could have lasted waaaayyyy past his death.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

I like Indiana too, but mostly deep southern Indiana. The part they call "Inditucky". 

And I'd find a lot of work in Indianapolis. I'm there all the time as it is. Wouldn't be bad to cut down a 6 hour drive to a 1 or 2 hour one. 

I also like Indiana's new drive at not increasing taxes. It's all the rage there. I'm wondering how they're going to stay solvent and not raise taxes, but I like to think that they're planning ahead.


----------



## bourbonred (Feb 27, 2008)

Ernie, on the Kentucky side we call that Kentuckiana (specially round Louisville). You just need to keep looking in KY! The grounds cheaper than most places, I understand. But my, we are a welfare state. Poverty everywhere.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

My family originally came out of eastern Kentucky, somewhere in Estill County. According to family history, they had a lot of property there and farmed it in some sort of family community as a clan. When the Union came through though they burned us out and destroyed the courthouses, effectively erasing all the land deeds. After the war we weren't able to prove we had owned the land and so were moved on under the threat of law. The clan splintered at that point with my father's branch moving down to the Hill Country in Texas where a number of the men (being without property or trade) became Texas Rangers. Most of my kinfolk are buried in that Texas Ranger cemetery outside of Centerpoint and the living kin I still claim are all located around there. 

It would be interesting to return to Kentucky. It would be a sort of homecoming and every time I pass through those mountains there I get a chill. I believe my grave might be located somewhere back in those hills where the mist and forests hide it from sight.


----------



## Jerngen (May 22, 2006)

Ernie said:


> I've been looking for about 25 acres or more but for under $50k. That's all I've got in cash right now. I need good pasture, fencing, access, and water. My preference is going to be in the south, and man I would love to go back to Texas.
> .


I don't suppose I can talk you into moving up to da U.P. eh?  

They're definitely a breed apart up here. Kinda like stepping back in time 50 years. We moved to southern MI in October of '09 because the wife wanted to try living near family again and didn't even make it a year. By September of '10 we were back living up here where the people are sane and real. Not to mention all the beautiful true wilderness that surrounds us.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Ernie - I second that UP suggestion. When I was there in early 70's it was about mid 1950's - 
The folks are VERY hearty, and lumberjack type - in Munising. You can get lost there, and they've always talked of becoming the 51'st state and be their own self, not part of the lower MI. 

With the right clothes, it's not too bad.

And it's so pretty!!


----------



## Jerngen (May 22, 2006)

Deacon Mike said:


> Your post is not very rational.
> 
> Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme is fundamentally illegal with the intent of never paying back those that participate.
> 
> ...


I have in front of me my Social Security paper that they send each tax payer every year (just got it in the mail). 
Right there it says on the front page that they estimate that in 2037.... the trust funds will be depleted. 
They go on to say that it doesn't mean there will be no money available in 2037...... but it means that there will only be enough to pay $760 in benefits for every $1000 in benefits scheduled. 
If you could see the writing..... it specifically says NOTHING about 2038 and beyond. Just that in 2037 the Social Security trust fund will be depleted and in THAT year, they will only be able to pay 76% of the benefits scheduled. 

This is the government telling me the taxpayer that it won't be there as scheduled. How much more black and white can it get then that?


----------



## Jerngen (May 22, 2006)

AngieM2 said:


> Ernie - I second that UP suggestion. When I was there in early 70's it was about mid 1950's -
> The folks are VERY hearty, and lumberjack type - in Munising. You can get lost there, and they've always talked of becoming the 51'st state and be their own self, not part of the lower MI.
> 
> With the right clothes, it's not too bad.
> ...


Angie and I struck up our friendship over our move to her old stomping grounds 5 years ago  
I *still* say that so much of it reminds me of the mid 1950's (in a good way)

We have lots of homesteads and farms scattered around here..... not as easy as in the south but they've made it work for several generations now


----------



## SweetwaterClyde (Aug 12, 2009)

The similarities and differences between America and Hungary are very interesting. Hungary a former comm bloc country joined the EU in 2004. They have a republic led by a president who is voted in once every five years. They have a constitution quite similar to Germany. Their economy is tied to foreign currencies and their government spends too much. They have a very high national deficit. They did not have much time to gain steam (between 1989 and 2006), but their economy is market based, and they were building a modern infrastructure. 

Their government, much like our current government hopes their citizens are dumb enough to believe that socializing the peoples wealth and publicizing private companies will eventually bring economic harmony. I say that it will just lead to an entitlement minded public who wants government (who are elected, and get all their money from working citizens) to pay their way through life. In other words if you work, you will be expected to forego all the sacrifices and planning you have made in your life and split it with those who are less fortunate. All this sounded great in the communist manifesto when I was 20, but now that I have a family...I say I want to do for me and mine, I don't owe anyone else a ---- thing. 

As a great case in point of government waste, my state (CA) is plagued with illegal aliens who are given a credit card to buy food!!! From what I gather illegal aliens are costing the state of California just over a billion dollars a year in the prison system alone. I thought they were all here to pick grapes and tomatoes?! We also are obligated to teach them of course and if we say anything about it, we are racists. 

Going at the rate we are, if we all lose our pensions I think we will be getting off easy.


----------



## Spinner (Jul 19, 2003)

> Originally Posted by Cyngbaeld View Post
> I think you trust the gov more than I do. They already stole our social security funds.





Deacon Mike said:


> How so?


In 1968 LBJ announced that SS would be lumped into a general fund. Up until that point it had it's own account. SS was in good shape, earning enough to be perpetual. 

Now that it's part of the general fund, it's been spent by the high rollers in deecee. 

Here's a copy of the speech where he made the announcement. It's in the 25th paragraph from the bottom. Some paragraphs are single lines. 

It was Richard Nixon who actually signed it into law. That's one of the reasons he was called "Tricky Dicky". I have vivid memories of my mother calling him a dirty thief for signing it. She seen the writing on the wall back then. She knew without a doubt the money was being stolen from the people. 

Now do you really trust them to keep their fingers off the private retirement funds? The only reason they haven't already took that money too is cause they haven't been able to figure out how to get away with it. Today I doubt they care what we think, they simply do whatever they want and ignore our screams to keep their hands off our money.


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

Spinner said:


> In 1968 LBJ announced that SS would be lumped into a general fund. Up until that point it had it's own account. SS was in good shape, earning enough to be perpetual.
> 
> Now that it's part of the general fund, it's been spent by the high rollers in deecee.
> 
> ...


Social Security is not now and never has been part of the general fund. From 1969 to 1990 is was included in what was know as the unified budget



> There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."
> 
> Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.


Social Security has always been driven by demographics. It was not going to be perpetual in 1968. You can see that from the fund history here No money has been stolen.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

Deacon Mike said:


> Social Security is not now and never has been part of the general fund. From 1969 to 1990 is was included in what was know as the unified budget
> 
> 
> 
> Social Security has always been driven by demographics. It was not going to be perpetual in 1968. You can see that from the fund history here No money has been stolen.


Once again.. Your are technically right as always  . However if you can figure out how putting an IOU from yourself into your pocket adds to your wealth. You will create the greatest economy ever.

The treasury bonds do exist. But they are due from a bankrupt government. The treasury aka the Government will just print the cash. Which will just make the payments worth less. Tho, not worthless. Will the payment increases be enough to keep up with other costs? Not lately and i don't see how that will reverse.


----------



## Cyngbaeld (May 20, 2004)

OK, so there may not be any retirement benefits from SS OR "tax sheltered (or what ever you want to call it)" retirement funds. What are we as individuals doing to make sure our old age isn't spent cold, hungry and maybe homeless?

My first step was to get out of debt. It took a while, especially getting a mortgage paid off, but it is doable if you are willing to make the necessary sacrifices.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Poor Deacon Mike works tirelessly to bring credibility back to government. Spinner seems right to me, but yet Deacon Mike uses different words with the same meaning to try to prove her wrong.

At the end of the day, the government is not going to provide a place for me to life nor bread for my table. And you know what else? Neither is Deacon Mike. Therefore, I'm going to take steps to provide for MYSELF and hide those assets from the greedy fingers of government as best as I can. And if I fail in this endeavor then I shall eat from the ground like sparrows, and if I fail in THAT then I shall probably die. As a Christian, that's not the worst fate that can fall on my shoulders.


----------



## jlrbhjmnc (May 2, 2010)

Deacon Mike said:


> I find nothing about seizing 401ks in that website. In fact, I found this:...


Okay. You must be right. ETA: Was in a hurry - domestic duties called. I cannot agree with you DM, though I truly do hope your trust is not misplaced. I believe it is.


----------



## Spinner (Jul 19, 2003)

It's obvious that some of us have faith that our dear uncle will be there to take care of us in our old age. I don't. I don't trust that dear uncle as far as I can throw him. I for one have made arrangements to take care of myself in my old age. 

Some of the steps I've taken are to own rental property. Hopefully I'll be able to have income from it until the day I die. I also have gardens, animals, and permaculture, to provide food not only for myself, but for my children and grandchildren after I'm gone, or when the hammer drops. I purchased my land in a tax friendly state. As long as I live on my land, I don't have to pay a penny in property tax due to the homestead exemptions here (I keep my fingers crossed that the state doesn't get so hard up for funds that they change that.) I own a bit of land up the road that could be sold if necessary. I'm hoping to leave it to the grandchildren, but if it comes down to sell or starve, I'll sell, or barter for whatever I can get that I need.


----------



## unregistered29228 (Jan 9, 2008)

Ernie, there is a lot of land for sale around here due to foreclosure. Low property taxes, mild winters (well, most years), HOT summers and a slower pace of life. Lots of outdoor stuff - hunting, boating, fishing, camping, everyone has guns, 4WD trucks and quad runners, and of course we have Nascar. :indif: But the schools are awful (you homeschool, right?) and if you live too close to Charlotte the traffic is bad even on the backroads. I wish we could have bought farther out but the hubby had to be able to commute into Charlotte.


----------



## Astrid (Nov 13, 2010)

We bought a place in SE Alaska. We were concerned about the US aquifers drying up, possible civil unrest in the lower 48 due to a variety of things... etc.. Call me an alarmist, but its interesting to see how people react when the status quo is threatened. 
This place has long daylight hours in summer and the temperature never drops below 10 degrees F in winter. We have access to a lot of salmon, deer, halibut, crab, shrimp, bear... and tons of berries growing wild. And that is before we put our garden in and have eggs and milk from chickens and goats. 
Alaska is not for everyone. I certainly wouldn't want to live in the frigid north. I'm not that much of an adventurer. But where we are is perfect for us.


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

Ernie said:


> Poor Deacon Mike works tirelessly to bring credibility back to government. Spinner seems right to me, but yet Deacon Mike uses different words with the same meaning to try to prove her wrong.


Bring credibility to government or sanity to this discussion? Spinner stated the LBJ and Nixon stole Social Security. I showed that she was mistaken.



stanb999 said:


> Once again.. Your are technically right as always  . However if you can figure out how putting an IOU from yourself into your pocket adds to your wealth. You will create the greatest economy ever.
> 
> The treasury bonds do exist. But they are due from a bankrupt government. The treasury aka the Government will just print the cash. Which will just make the payments worth less. Tho, not worthless. Will the payment increases be enough to keep up with other costs? Not lately and i don't see how that will reverse.


I assume that the Feds will pay back The trust fund by selling debt. And SS benefits are adjusted yearly for inflation



Spinner said:


> It's obvious that some of us have faith that our dear uncle will be there to take care of us in our old age. I don't. I don't trust that dear uncle as far as I can throw him. I for one have made arrangements to take care of myself in my old age.
> 
> Some of the steps I've taken are to own rental property. Hopefully I'll be able to have income from it until the day I die. I also have gardens, animals, and permaculture, to provide food not only for myself, but for my children and grandchildren after I'm gone, or when the hammer drops. I purchased my land in a tax friendly state. As long as I live on my land, I don't have to pay a penny in property tax due to the homestead exemptions here (I keep my fingers crossed that the state doesn't get so hard up for funds that they change that.) I own a bit of land up the road that could be sold if necessary. I'm hoping to leave it to the grandchildren, but if it comes down to sell or starve, I'll sell, or barter for whatever I can get that I need.


I don't expect SS to take care of me . For me, it'll be peanuts. But I expect I'll get it. If nothing is done, when the fund is exhausted, SS will still be able to pay 76% of scheduled benefits. 

And really, you think that the government is going take SS, seize 401Ks and leave your rental property alone?


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

Deacon Mike said:


> I assume that the Feds will pay back The trust fund by selling debt. And SS benefits are adjusted yearly for inflation


You don't see an issue with selling debt to pay for a debt? 
Mike you are far more logical than to believe this will work out well. 

As for the "adjustment" for inflation. Ask someone receiving it. You will get an education.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Deacon Mike said:


> And SS benefits are adjusted yearly for inflation


For the first time in 30 years, recipients have *not* received COLAs in 2010 and 2011. It is predicted that, *if* there is a COLA for 2012, it will be as little as 1.4%.

Remember, there's no inflation. Washington said so.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

The checks my parents and aunt/uncles receive are less - there is no cost of living increase since 2009. There is increases for the medicaid that is their insurance. There are increases in the part D they need to cover the extra.

They are net loosing incomes. Fortunately, aunt/uncles have good retirement and set aside funds as they had pretty good jobs. My parents, not as good.

So, the income they receive is being effect now.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

On a related side note, I live in a community that has mostly older retirees and a handful of working class folks. I went into town to the grocery store for some strange reason and when I walked in I thought the apocalypse had hit and I hadn't yet heard about it.

Never, ever will I go into a grocery store again when the 15th falls on a Saturday. The shelves were about picked bare and you couldn't move up and down the aisles. The old folks were fighting over the little grocery-cart scooters and there was angry yelling about something or other over in the deli-section. The entire atmosphere of the place seemed to be an only moderately contained riot mob. I was glad to get out of there with my goods, life, and sanity intact.


----------



## timfromohio (Jun 19, 2007)

There is no need for a COLA as there has not been any appreciable inflation ... officially ... according to the experts .... If you believe that one, then rest easy knowing that unemployment is just under 10%. After all, these are the same folks that told you Federal Income Tax was a mere temporary measure, not to be silly and hand over that gold, and that materials such as asbestos were perfectly safe for you.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Astrid, are you on the coast or the interior? Never gets below 10*F? In Ohio we had temps lower than that back in Nov! We have given a lot of consideration to moving to AK. If we ever did move out of Ohio AK is first on our list. 

As for SS, those who believe it will be there when you retire are grasping at straws IMO. Haven't you heard about the "surplus" being spent on other programs? Didn't you notice the 2% increase in your income due to less SS withholding at a time when more people are depending on it? Did you miss the fact that the COLA increases have not kept pace with the cost of living, property tax increases or fuel price increases? Did you miss the huge increases in the cost of medical care related programs? Did you notice the increase in the age bracket you have to be in to collect full or any benefits? 

The 401ks are another story. There has been a lot of talk about govt takeovers, govt management, increases in tax rates, increases in minimum withdrawals, etc from policy makers and money grubbing politicians. It won't happen for a while but I'm sure it will happen before much longer. Already in most places you cannot get a no-risk 401.


----------



## Betho (Dec 27, 2006)

My retirement fund = a little in precious metals, but what I'm REALLY counting on is having paid off land, and walnut & cedar trees. Big garden, lots of food producing permaculture, and an extended family with the same ideas nearby. 

If I get SS, great. Certainly not counting on it, and definitely not counting on it to provide everything I need. I learned that lesson when I was a manager at a credit union - I saw firsthand what would happen to people's finances when someone's only source of income was SS.

I could tell you some stories... oh man. How many people were put into a bad situation because SS didn't come in on time and one of their bills came out and overdrafted their account - they didn't even have $25 extra out of their measly $1100/month to pay the fee. I reversed fees left and right for these circumstances.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

Astrid said:


> We bought a place in SE Alaska. We were concerned about the US aquifers drying up, possible civil unrest in the lower 48 due to a variety of things... etc.. Call me an alarmist, but its interesting to see how people react when the status quo is threatened.
> This place has long daylight hours in summer and the temperature never drops below 10 degrees F in winter. We have access to a lot of salmon, deer, halibut, crab, shrimp, bear... and tons of berries growing wild. And that is before we put our garden in and have eggs and milk from chickens and goats.
> Alaska is not for everyone. I certainly wouldn't want to live in the frigid north. I'm not that much of an adventurer. But where we are is perfect for us.


Astrid, have ya'll been living there for long? Did someone tell ya'll it never gets below 10? I've worked the interior for over a decade, and visited the SE, and while there, devoured every single inch of every newspaper I could scrounge up... I'd not bet a 'hangnail', certainly not a dollar, on it "never" getting below 10 degrees F. Reckon if you were camped on a volcano, it might not, but jeez... never is a pretty hard word. I could see hardly ever, or rarely.... 

btw, hope ya'll are well above the tsunami zone... if situated along the coast...


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

Ernie said:


> On a related side note, I live in a community that has mostly older retirees and a handful of working class folks. I went into town to the grocery store for some strange reason and when I walked in I thought the apocalypse had hit and I hadn't yet heard about it.
> 
> Never, ever will I go into a grocery store again when the 15th falls on a Saturday. The shelves were about picked bare and you couldn't move up and down the aisles. The old folks were fighting over the little grocery-cart scooters and there was angry yelling about something or other over in the deli-section. The entire atmosphere of the place seemed to be an only moderately contained riot mob. I was glad to get out of there with my goods, life, and sanity intact.


Similar situation here when the Lone Star foodstamp cc's are recharged... it's hard to get down the aisles with all the folks getting their carts full of prime ribs, t-bones, and what not. The butcher crew is still cutting at 4:30PM, when I usually go in... normally, they're trying to finish cleaning up. They hate food stamp days, although the store pays a lot of bills those days. I 'like it' from the standpoint my dogs get to eat all the bones they want... amazing how many folks will buy rib eyes and t bones, and ask the butchers to 'hull em out', only taking the meat with them. My dogs love some of the basketball size chunks of rib eye bones they toss! And I love the extra t-bones and rib eyes that are put in my box, that are too 'ugly' for such discriminating consumers...


----------



## bee (May 12, 2002)

Texican, I don't understand why that "ugly" beef doesn't go thru the grinder???? I mean selling ground beef sure beats throwing it out!! (don't pay me any mind,,,it is ENVY talking....) ***SIGH** I got to find me a butcher to sweet talk....bee


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

bee said:


> Texican, I don't understand why that "ugly" beef doesn't go thru the grinder???? I mean selling ground beef sure beats throwing it out!! (don't pay me any mind,,,it is ENVY talking....) ***SIGH** I got to find me a butcher to sweet talk....bee


The 'ugly beef' is the whole sides of rib-eyes, or t-bones. They get their meat in boxes, and cut it to order. If they don't have any New York strips, they'll cut it out of one side of the t-bone, then pull the meat off the other side, and just discard the bone, with an inch or two of meat on it. If they've already cut up packages of t-bones, into individual steaks, and then trim it, they have the bones in my box, with an inch of meat on each sides. Not worth their time apparently to go in and get it all... more for me! One of the younger butchers recently started cutting their pork, and he for some reason is more conscientious than the others, and my big slabs of pure pork have gotten smaller.

I certainly aren't going to tell em to be more efficient!  The better they are, the worse my box is... and I have to end up feeding kibble to the dogs.

We eat t-bones or rib eyes probably three times a week... after awhile it gets old, if you can imagine that... and the pressure cooker pot stays full of tasty already prepared pork, in the bottom of the fridge.

Bee, you were talking about the butchers grinder, right??? They buy chubs of already ground beef, and to bring the fat content 'down', they'll throw in big slabs of solid red beef. Otherwise they're just regrinding the stuff they've got. I don't buy burger, just for the 'mass animal' scenario... my ground comes from one animal, that I've butchered myself, so I know of the animals purity.

It really does pay to be nice to people....


----------



## Pouncer (Oct 28, 2006)

Coming in late to this thread....but I have been warned by my sis (works in Wash DC and hears plenty of chatter that never makes news) that the end run around to our retirement funds is being put together.

All that cash-too much temptation for "the Bernanke" and all the rest. As soon as I hear anything concrete about this, I am cashing in mine and taking the hit.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

thanks for the information Pouncer.

I'm just trying to figure out about taking what I can out of 401K and bonus and tax return (if I get one) this spring, to see about some property - I'd rather have the 401K in land than sitting where it is. 

I'm just hoping we can all have this year to get better ready for the hits that are apparently coming.


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

Pouncer said:


> Coming in late to this thread....but I have been warned by my sis (works in Wash DC and hears plenty of chatter that never makes news) that the end run around to our retirement funds is being put together.
> 
> All that cash-too much temptation for "the Bernanke" and all the rest. As soon as I hear anything concrete about this, I am cashing in mine and taking the hit.


Pardon my naivete' but wouldn't it just be easier to print more moolah? 

(Setting aside the fact that this potential scenario freaks me the heck out so I am opting to put my head in the sand:shocked

Raiding the cookie jar would most certainly cause panic and possible mayhem, no? If the money is kinda sorta theoretical and numbers in some financial system computer why even bother? 

Plenty of new monopoly money to print to make believe with instead of taking some from the other players. Why cause a riot when you can manipulate the rules a little more subtly?

Not doubting your info or source. Just doubting the practicality of such a risky move. I mean, it's all a big giant icky financial mess out there so why exacerbate it in such an obvious fashion during such a pivotal and tense time? After all the sudden and dramatic financial fallout we have suffered as a nation this sort of monkeying around will NOT be well received.

Mostly I'm just trying to rationalize the scary situation out of my mind because if it were true I am soooooo not ready to wrap my head around it. Totally harshes my mellow.:nono:


----------



## Kmac15 (May 19, 2007)

here's what I see happening *looking into the crystal ball, as soft music plays* AHH the mist is clearing......
We are going to have a couple more companies declare their retirements bankrupt..there is going to be big splashy pictures on the news showing senors huddled in blankets to keep from freezing.. (never let a crisis go to waste)
We will be told that the only safe place for our retirement savings is in the hands of Govt. Then we will be told that everyone deserves the same amount as everyone else...

So our BIL, who prefers to play video games on his days off will make the same retirement as my DH, who spent years working full time and going school to get his degree will end up with the same 'pension'


We are expanding our outbuildings, and trying to pay off debt.


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

Kmac15 said:


> We will be told that the only safe place for our retirement savings is in the hands of Govt.
> 
> So our BIL, who prefers to play video games on his days off will make the same retirement as my DH


Wag the dog type smoke and mirrors...:doh: can't believe I didn't see that one coming.

I have to say that we are on the verge of living in very exciting times. Not sure if the right to boast "I told you so" to so many people is worth the hassle. (told you so about prepping and major change in general)

As for BIL, I would swear we were related except that in our case mine is on a perpetual moochers/gamers day off. Not sure how to tell him he aint getting any handouts someday. (when his chief enabler no longer can, regardless of emergency situation or not) Alas, that is not a tale to tell here.

I have a strict MUST work for food policy. If you can't use a shovel or hoe you best plan on starvin'. :grumble: (certain health issue exempt, of course) No amount of sniveling, whining, complaining or lame excuses will make a steak jump on your plate. (unless you get .gov assistance, lol)


----------



## Pouncer (Oct 28, 2006)

Kmac has it very close, actually. I think they'll force us into buying treasury bonds or some other instrument, to stave off taxes and penalties that will be inserted into some mega bill or other that won't be read before it's voted on.

My sis and her hub have worked very hard to get their retirement somewhat put together, just like most of us. She works where some very bright minds are discussing this, and then those ideas get floated to policy wonks...and from there to...well, you know how it goes. Those QEs have to be paid for somehow, and the last great remaining pile of ready cash is the IRAs and 401Ks. Trillions worth. Of course they'll make a run at it when we can't service the debt (make the interest payments). I plan to get mine out before this happens, and just pay the danged penalty and be done with it.


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

Pouncer said:


> Kmac has it very close, actually. I think they'll force us into buying treasury bonds or some other instrument, to stave off taxes and penalties that will be inserted into some mega bill or other that won't be read before it's voted on.
> 
> My sis and her hub have worked very hard to get their retirement somewhat put together, just like most of us. She works where some very bright minds are discussing this, and then those ideas get floated to policy wonks...and from there to...well, you know how it goes. Those QEs have to be paid for somehow, and the last great remaining pile of ready cash is the IRAs and 401Ks. Trillions worth. Of course they'll make a run at it when we can't service the debt (make the interest payments). I plan to get mine out before this happens, and just pay the danged penalty and be done with it.


IF it plays out this way I think the house of cards will collapse soon after.

If I even get a hint of this being discussed openly by policy makers I will dedicate every cent and waking moment to preps. Once the real money is gone the play money will dry up very quickly. Then it will be each man for himself. :run:

I have to wonder if the people who decide this consider long term ramifications. If they are I wonder how terrible the alernative we are avoiding must be...? What hard crash landing are we getting out of by making reckless moves that result in disaster? :shocked:


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> Kmac has it very close, actually. I think they'll force us into buying treasury bonds or some other instrument, to stave off taxes and penalties that will be inserted into some mega bill or other that won't be read before it's voted on.


 Bingo, its why we cashed out and took the penalty.



> If I even get a hint of this being discussed openly by policy makers I will dedicate every cent and waking moment to preps.


 Its already being openly discussed. The increasing insolvency of state and municiple retirement funds along with private pensions is a serious issue and many of those being left behind are calling for government intervention. What I have heard reported is very close to what Pouncer related. The government will take over or regulate pension funds, place restrictions on where they can be invested, limit participants accessibility to those funds and increase the retirement age where you begin drawing them out. They will not only have all of these funds redirected to government instruments it will seemingly relieve some of the pressure on SS. Another thing that was just on the news not too long ago was they are looking at forcing companies of a certain size to increase their contributions towards employee pensions.


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

salmonslayer said:


> Its already being openly discussed. The increasing insolvency of state and municiple retirement funds along with private pensions is a serious issue and many of those being left behind are calling for government intervention. What I have heard reported is very close to what Pouncer related. The government will take over or regulate pension funds, place restrictions on where they can be invested, limit participants accessibility to those funds and increase the retirement age where you begin drawing them out. They will not only have all of these funds redirected to government instruments it will seemingly relieve some of the pressure on SS. Another thing that was just on the news not too long ago was they are looking at forcing companies of a certain size to increase their contributions towards employee pensions.


Ah geez, nothing like a reality check to mess up an otherwise perfectly pleasant oblivious day. :smack

Got any links or at least a set of keyords for a search? I'm interested in digging deeper but those keywords get me everytime.


----------



## Pouncer (Oct 28, 2006)

My sis has been saying this for over 18 months. I think she knows a couple economists who are in the loop.....casually, not professionally. There is a lot of talk at AU (where she works) about how to "fix" this and the general consensus is, it can't be done. 

My BIL is an economics wonk himself, but works for a .gov agency these days. When they speak, I listen.....for that reason, I will be talking to a tax professional when I take in my return to be prepared, on what my tax liability would be if I did this year, versus next year.


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

Due to health reasons I talked my Mom into cashing her 401K in order to buy a small home closer to me. She agonized over the penalties and I felt super guilty about it too. Now I am feeling not so bad. With her health I needed some way to convince her to be here, near family and a farmstead instead of alone in the desert southwest in a major city. I kept thinking if things hit the fan there would be no way for me to save her otherwise. It amounted to a very elaborate way to get a safe passage to a place to ride out the coming storm.

Whats the word on state employee pensions, dare I ask? All she has is social security and her AZ state retirement. I imagine if both those go up in smoke then it's just as well that she cashed in her 401k chips early.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Chickens are a great 401k plan. Doesn't take much at all to handle less than a dozen and the input requirements are very low. A couple of eggs per day goes a long way towards holding off starvation.

Personally, hintonlady, I think your mom did the right thing. It's seeming less and less likely these days that we'll be able to enjoy any sort of leisurely retirement.


----------



## Browncoat (Jun 8, 2009)

I took out my retirement last year, paid off medical debt, and have allocated what's left to pay taxes, save, and buy preps. If there is anyone who will ever take pensions/retirement accounts, it will be the current administration. Every time I think taking mine might have been a mistake to get it out, something happens to show me it was the right thing to do. I don't trust the .gov to tell me what day it is, and I certainly don't trust them when it comes to my hard-earned money, nor do I expect anyone else to pay for me when I get old. 

My mother and I get into it every now and then when we discuss her social security. She's getting out of it now what she paid in, she says. Even though I've told her and told her that what she paid in is long since gone, she doesn't care, she deserves it now, and they better not mess with it.


----------



## tab (Aug 20, 2002)

I have not been able to do a good search to find the news article about the gov. "managing" state pension plans. It made me so angry I turned around and told the lady behind me about it. She is looking to retire soon. I will try to look tomorrow as it addresses some of the questions asked here.
Does anyone know what kind of hit you take gettingmoney out of your 401 or 403?


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

tab said:


> I have not been able to do a good search to find the news article about the gov. "managing" state pension plans. It made me so angry I turned around and told the lady behind me about it. She is looking to retire soon. I will try to look tomorrow as it addresses some of the questions asked here.
> Does anyone know what kind of hit you take gettingmoney out of your 401 or 403?


Based on what my Mom said she had and what she got in the end I think it was 5 to 10%. I'll ask to make sure. It was an early withdrawl penalty. The bigger issue at hand is that along with the penalty you get hit with the taxes since it suddenly becomes income. That hasn't smacked her upside her head yet so plenty of fun still to come. The fund gave her the option to take taxes automatically and I do recall that I gasped when I saw the amount.

All summed up it was a big hit but considering her health situation I felt as if it were a neccessary evil. Under any other circumstances I would have suggested she not touch it. She ended up almost breaking even when considering her down payment was enough to negate the cost of mortgage insurance and her long term loss with interest rates was lessened due to having a much lower principle.

I think it all depends on how you plan on reinvesting the funds. With inflation you can't bet on cash and housing isn't any safer either.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

hintonlady said:


> Based on what my Mom said she had and what she got in the end I think it was 5 to 10%. I'll ask to make sure. It was an early withdrawl penalty. The bigger issue at hand is that along with the penalty you get hit with the taxes since it suddenly becomes income. That hasn't smacked her upside her head yet so plenty of fun still to come. The fund gave her the option to take taxes automatically and I do recall that I gasped when I saw the amount.
> 
> All summed up it was a big hit but considering her health situation I felt as if it were a neccessary evil. Under any other circumstances I would have suggested she not touch it. She ended up almost breaking even when considering her down payment was enough to negate the cost of mortgage insurance and her long term loss with interest rates was lessened due to having a much lower principle.
> 
> I think it all depends on how you plan on reinvesting the funds. With inflation you can't bet on cash and housing isn't any safer either.


If it's only 5-10% then I wouldn't worry about that too much. Another 10 years of inflation would have eaten that up anyway.


----------



## cnichols (Jan 5, 2010)

Apparently this is something that's been being "talked" about for more than a year now. I did a "google" search for "government control of pensions 401k" and came up with tons of articles about it.

This one, in particular, caught my eye ...



> But the bill has reportedly already been written and last Thursday, October 7, 2010, Congress held a recess hearing on the matter. The push to bailout union pensions and give more control of individual wealth to the U.S. government is underway.


http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-ne...of-401k-accounts-may-be-reality-soon_10112010

Hmm... maybe it's a good thing I don't have a 401k to worry about?


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> Does anyone know what kind of hit you take gettingmoney out of your 401 or 403?


 You pay taxes on the entire amount at your current rate and then you pay a 10% penalty on top of that so it is a substantial hit.


----------



## ldc (Oct 11, 2006)

Yes, as salmonslayer noted above, you do pay all regular taxes on the total, plus the 10% penalty. For anyone who has saved for a decade or more, the amount you are cashing in can put you in the next higher tax bracket...so you pay more all the way around. It doesn't matter whether or not you do the cash-out at the same time you pay federal taxes, or separately at another time of year...it all counts against you in taxes. A friend had to re-do her fed. income tax return after cashing out in the middle of the year...for more taxes. Everyone I've known who did this paid at least 50%. ldc


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

cnichols said:


> Apparently this is something that's been being "talked" about for more than a year now. I did a "google" search for "government control of pensions 401k" and came up with tons of articles about it.
> 
> This one, in particular, caught my eye ...
> 
> ...


Not happening


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

I'm thinking the would be thieves are pretty slick, and they know basic thievery. You don't put out a press statement, or call the bank, the day ahead, and let em know your going to rob it.

When the pirates strike, they'll have their trading houses already clued in, and it'll be an immediate confiscation... not, we're going to take you productive members of society's pension next week... now ya'll don't go trying to cash out now, ya'll hear!

I don't see much political fallout from doing this... the party in power is out to take care of it's voters, who, relatively speaking, probably (can I squeeze another weasel word in there??? ) have less pensions and 401/403's. I seriously doubt many of the prosperous would vote for them in the first place. Would actually be fun to see the party in power's 'power base' getting burned, right alongside the middle class and the right.

When they start confiscating land, to redistribute to it's loyal party members, ala Zimbabwe, that's when the flag with the snake gets hoisted, and things get interesting, indeed.

Agree Hintonlady, confiscation happens, and I'll divest myself completely out of fiat currency, and into real goods. Then take my chances with whatever the future may present... well stocked and prepared, of course...


----------



## tgmr05 (Aug 27, 2007)

Uh, oh, it appears things were not as good as we were told.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/retirement/social-security-far-worse-shape-than-you-think/19804267/?icid=maing|main5|dl2|sec1_lnk5|37184

Hmmm. Seems like we are getting closer to that inevitable moment in the ponzi scheme when there is simply not enough new folks to keep it going. When you read through all the explanations, estimates, etc. it really all comes down to this - There are not enough new contributors to fund those that have already paid in, AND there appears to be no actual money remaining from any of the contributions made in previous years. The government is borrowing to fund SS. Now, who is going to pay those loans back? Is that not the same as paying twice for the same thing??? Who in the world thinks that is a good idea? Sure there are IOUs or whatever, but who is actually going to pay the money back??? Is that not theft??? Taking someone's money, spending it, and then going back to the same person and taking it again? You think entitlement programs are going to somehow figure out a way to start turning a profit and paying the money back???


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

tgmr05 said:


> Uh, oh, it appears things were not as good as we were told.
> 
> http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/retirement/social-security-far-worse-shape-than-you-think/19804267/?icid=maing|main5|dl2|sec1_lnk5|37184
> 
> Hmmm. Seems like we are getting closer to that inevitable moment in the ponzi scheme when there is simply not enough new folks to keep it going. When you read through all the explanations, estimates, etc. it really all comes down to this - There are not enough new contributors to fund those that have already paid in, AND there appears to be no actual money remaining from any of the contributions made in previous years. The government is borrowing to fund SS. Now, who is going to pay those loans back? Is that not the same as paying twice for the same thing??? Who in the world thinks that is a good idea? Sure there are IOUs or whatever, but who is actually going to pay the money back??? Is that not theft??? Taking someone's money, spending it, and then going back to the same person and taking it again? You think entitlement programs are going to somehow figure out a way to start turning a profit and paying the money back???


We seem to be hearing a lot of this lately (the SEC/Madoff scandal comes to mind):


> That the trustees could miss estimates only a few months into the future by such huge margins calls into question the accuracy of their long-term projections


The question is, are these signs of utter incompetence or intentional malfeasance?


----------



## calliesue (Sep 5, 2009)

And they are not going to take 401ks. Wish that nonsense would go away.

Joe Biden and I can't remember who else, a female economics professor, I think, were talking about the Govt managing private 401ks. 
Do you feel the Government's proven track record of managing money qualifies them to manage our retirement monies? I don't.


----------



## soulsurvivor (Jul 4, 2004)

Government is the single largest employer in the US. You seriously think they're going to "ask permission" for any decision made regarding the 401k? Any future action on the government's side is going to come through as policy and as an employee you will be forced to contribute and abide by the law. If you're employed in any business, you're regulated by government. If you own land, you're regulated by government. If you exist, you're regulated by government. 

I will say this, we have already cashed out one account to use in updating our home to use as an inhome healthcare for ourselves. Neither of us is comfortable with trusting government to take care of us from this point forward. We're both 60 and in poor physical health, so we can't imagine a better way to invest the limited funds we have than to use it for keeping ourselves out of the system. 

Everyone that can should give thought to using at least some of their money while they still have some direct control over that. The penalities/taxes are steep and will make you suck in your breath, but for us it was a no-brainer.


----------



## tgmr05 (Aug 27, 2007)

More bad news for SS.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/retirement/social-security-trust-fund-illusion-debt-deficit-bonds-borrow/19806199/

Here is a great quote from the article



> As a result, U.S. taxpayers are now paying twice for their Social Security benefits: Once through payroll taxes, and again when the Treasury uses their taxes to pay interest on the bonds it sold to fund Social Security.
> 
> See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/hHjcGt


Now, how many of you know that you are currently paying twice for SS? Especially those of you who think all the talk of 401Ks being eyed for use by government is silly. Did you ever think you would have to pay twice for SS???? I bet that was thought as impossible or silly, too.....

The government has to borrow to fund SS. Selling bonds or treasuries may not always work, in the future, but tapping the 401K will. Instead of selling treasuries on the market, say to China, the gov sells them to your 401K plan, and forces you to buy them.... For all you lefties who think it is OK that SS is a ponzi scheme - pay as you go, with IOUs, etc. - what would be wrong with the government taking your private retirement and doing the same thing? It will be backed by IOUs and the full faith, etc. of the federal government, only the money will be actually spent elsewhere. There is no huge change that has to occur, simply some legislation allowing the Federal government to 'borrow' from your 401K like it did your SS. Would you oppose that??? It would not necessarily be called taking or stealing your 401K, because you all seem to think SS is OK, and nothing has been stolen or taken from that, according to you guys on the left....

Then, you, as the taxpayer, can pay twice for your private retirement, as well.

NO THANK YOU, lefties. You need to put more faith in the individual, and less in government. Sure, you say you support the 'worker', which is really communist code for 'government slave' - but there is a big difference between a free individual, who can choose his boss, and a government slave who can not...


----------

