Do you still think your 401K or whatever is safe from the depredations of the federal, state, and local governments? Think again and plan accordingly. A good bit of reading if you're up for it, Bastion of Liberty has a nice summary.
http://www.sharedprosperity.org/bp204/bp204.pdf
Teresa Ghilarducci has spoken before various federal and state legislatures, she believes in equality of outcome and you'll see that in anything you read that was written by her. This is the kind of poppycock she spouts:
Is the system fair? A retirement system should not exacerbate income and wealth inequality.There it is, fairness, as in you have more than I do and that's not fair. The next action is that I'm going to use the force of government to take from you and give to me to make things more fair for me. Nevermind that you worked hard your whole life and I lived a life of sloth and envy, I am entitled to whatever you have.Tax breaks for 401(k)s and other voluntary retirement accounts are skewed to the wealthy because it is easier for them to save, and because they receive bigger tax breaks when they do so.
http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com...ng-mounds.html
Emphasis mine. What is your recourse if the feds lose all your retirement in some "investment" in say solar power. Who are you going to sue for damages? The government? Don't be ridiculous, that would be the same as suing yourself. Your money is gone, you have no recourse except to find a job to work until you die in poverty.But then, your investment advisor is a private party, probably the employee of a company that specializes in that sort of work. A private company or self-employed financial advisor must perform or go under. One that underperforms for two or three quarters is likely to get a serious talking-to by his management. One that underperforms for two or three years is likely to take up residence in a cardboard box. And by “underperform,” I don’t mean “lose money;” I mean “doesn’t keep up with market averages,” at the very least. The ones that advise so poorly that they actually lose their clients’ money are in much worse trouble than that. Now imagine that instead of that private advisor and his supervisors if he has any, your retirement savings were managed by a state government...or perhaps by the federal government itself.
Changes the whole picture, doesn’t it?
http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com...tarianism.htmlThe Department of Labor says its so-called fiduciary rule will make financial advisers act in the best interests of clients. What Labor doesn’t say is that the rule carries such enormous potential legal liability and demands such a high standard of care that many advisers will shun non-affluent accounts. Middle-income investors may be forced to look elsewhere for financial advice even as Team Obama is enabling a raft of new government-run competitors for retirement savings. This is no coincidence. Labor’s new rule will start biting in January as the President is leaving office. Under the rule, financial firms advising workers moving money out of company 401(k) plans into Individual Retirement Accounts will have to follow the new higher standards. But Labor has already proposed waivers from the federal Erisa law so new state-run retirement plans don’t have the same regulatory burden as private employers do.
Whenever some noisy interest group starts prattling about “equality” or “rights,” a smart man puts one hand on his wallet and the other on his sidearm.
Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums
Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Irving
