They can't fix Social Security, so now they're looking at this...

[Unbelievable!]

October 16, 2008
House Democrats Contemplate Abolishing 401(k) Tax Breaks
Powerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nation’s $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive.

House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-California, and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, are looking at redirecting those tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute.

http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/25/83/58.php

[Guest]

Here is a key note:

Under Ghilarducci’s plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year, adjusted for inflation.

Why can't they simply use our SS contributions for this purpose instead? I like having a choice and 3% is not going to help me retire.

I'd prefer they make 5% contributions to a 401K mandatory. In fact a lot of employers are making it mandatory that employees contribute by setting up automatic enrollment.

[Guest Z]

Note that this plan would require the funds be put in "Special Issue" US Government bonds. Think Social Security "Lockbox". This is another insane Democrat idea to funnel more and more of our money into their hands. If you never felt you had a reason to vote Republican you've got one now! Keep this Congress out of our pockets.

[Guest]

[Guest]

You do understand that if the money is in government bonds then it is money that is in essence lent to the U.S. government and they're crediting you for the use of the money by paying 3%. To think your money will simply sit in an account is a bit unrealistic.

Why can't they modify the current system and allow owned accounts? Why do we have to sacrifice more money? We'd be paying 11.7% to SS. If they want to make it so it is either 401K or this if you don't have a 401K option then it makes sense to me to do so in order to offer a savings mechanism.

[Guest]

Savings mechanisms are offered now. People should take personal responsibility to use them. There is no excuse for people not saving for retirement. Personally, I don't want the government handling my retirement money. All of our retirement planning is done without counting on Social Security, which is just supposed to be supplemental anyway.

[Guest]