/dev/null Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 http://www.wsj.com/articles/investing-in-the-obamafund-1419898857 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 Here's the problem with this (well one of many). Millennials, who this appears to be targeted towards, shy away from equities. As a group they have a smaller portion of their portfolios in equities than their parents the baby boomers. What is wrong with the existing Traditional and Roth IRA's? Oh that's right, they are "run" but evil Wall Street. Ah yes the old "there are no fees" angle. Well sure there may be no fees that the investor is paying, the tax payers are footing those but that's another story, but there sure is a cost associated with this type of investing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 This is the end-around to what was first posited several years ago - banish private investment IRAs and 401ks by confiscating the money and putting it into government securities. The gorilla has his foot in the door now. I can see this happening. Hey, they took over the healthcare insurance industry. What's stopping them from taking over all of the retirement nest eggs? They steal 3.8% of your equity in your home (on profit >$500k) to fund ObamaDon'tCare, so there's precedent there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 Here's the problem with this (well one of many). Millennials, who this appears to be targeted towards, shy away from equities. As a group they have a smaller portion of their portfolios in equities than their parents the baby boomers. What is wrong with the existing Traditional and Roth IRA's? Oh that's right, they are "run" but evil Wall Street. Ah yes the old "there are no fees" angle. Well sure there may be no fees that the investor is paying, the tax payers are footing those but that's another story, but there sure is a cost associated with this type of investing. I was hoping you'd comment on the disclosure on that investment vehicle. I searched the site, but couldn't find anything that wasn't marketing crap. If Goldman-Sachs provided that little information about an investment vehicle to consumers, various government agencies would jump up their ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 This is the end-around to what was first posited several years ago - banish private investment IRAs and 401ks by confiscating the money and putting it into government securities. The gorilla has his foot in the door now. I can see this happening. Hey, they took over the healthcare insurance industry. What's stopping them from taking over all of the retirement nest eggs? They steal 3.8% of your equity in your home (on profit >$500k) to fund ObamaDon'tCare, so there's precedent there. Well let's be fair that 3.8% tax is only on singles making $200k and married couples making $250k or more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/10/house-democrats-abolish-401k-tax-breaks-create-new-tax/ " plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, contains elements that are being considered. She testified last week before Miller’s Education and Labor Committee on her proposal. At that hearing, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Peter Orszag, testified that some $2 trillion in retirement savings has been lost over the past 15 months. 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. The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated. “I want to stop the federal subsidy of 401(k)s,” Ghilarducci said in an interview. “401(k)s can continue to exist, but they won’t have the benefit of the subsidy of the tax break.” Right. No tax break for a 401k, but a mandatory 5% cut of every worker's wages that would go directly into the treasury... just like it does in the social security fund. Well let's be fair that 3.8% tax is only on singles making $200k and married couples making $250k or more. Yes. And your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 (edited) I was hoping you'd comment on the disclosure on that investment vehicle. I searched the site, but couldn't find anything that wasn't marketing crap. If Goldman-Sachs provided that little information about an investment vehicle to consumers, various government agencies would jump up their ass. Government agencies are exempt so I wouldn't be surprised if there are no investment disclosures. Yes. And your point? Just clarifying that's all. Edited December 30, 2014 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 http://www.dakotavoi...create-new-tax/ " plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, contains elements that are being considered. She testified last week before Miller’s Education and Labor Committee on her proposal. At that hearing, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Peter Orszag, testified that some $2 trillion in retirement savings has been lost over the past 15 months. 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. The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated. “I want to stop the federal subsidy of 401(k)s,” Ghilarducci said in an interview. “401(k)s can continue to exist, but they won’t have the benefit of the subsidy of the tax break.” Right. No tax break for a 401k, but a mandatory 5% cut of every worker's wages that would go directly into the treasury... just like it does in the social security fund. Now find something from the current administration... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 They exempt themselves from all sorts of rules and regulations and laws that the "rest of us" are forced into obeying. Social Security Obamacare Insider trading Now find something from the current administration... I'll refer you to this for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 Government agencies are exempt so I wouldn't be surprised is there are no investment disclosures. Obviously. But it's once again a bull **** exemption - the government doesn't have to follow its own rules. And this is one situation where they should. This myRA is an epically opaque idea - it's an unsecured low-interest loan to the government, on terms dictated but not disclosed by the government, making promises of a return that they can't realistically make (and can easily alter), sold to people who for the most part don't have the sophistication to understand it. Mortgage banking in 2006 wasn't that fraudulent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts