Recs

29

Will Obama Really Confiscate Your Retirement Savings?

The budget proposal President Obama recently submitted had several provisions designed to increase government tax revenue. But one provision concerning retirement accounts triggered alarm bells for many Americans, raising fears that the government will confiscate your retirement savings.

Why people think confiscation is possible
The provision in the Obama budget calls for tax laws to "prohibit individuals from accumulating over $3 million in tax-preferred retirement accounts." Specifically, the budget refers to a complicated formula that involves figuring out how much money a person would need in order to buy an annuity contract that would guarantee annual payments to retirees of $205,000 for the rest of their lives. The proposal would raise $9 billion over the next 10 years, according to the budget's forecast.

Immediately, many analysts jumped to the conclusion that the provision might involve actually taking away money from retirement accounts. CNBC's Larry Kudlow described the measure in a special editorial in the New York Sun as an "incredible and arbitrary limit or tax on -- or even possible confiscation of -- IRA-type tax-advantaged savings account [emphasis added]."

Past confiscation fears
Constitutionally, the idea that the government could simply confiscate your retirement savings without compensation goes directly against the due process and takings clauses of the Fifth Amendment. More skeptical analysts will note that retirement accounts make up trillions of dollars in assets that major banks Bank of America (NYSE: BAC  ) and Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC  ) and many other major financial institutions use to drive profits, giving them a huge incentive to use their political power to ensure that those assets don't disappear instantaneously.

Yet this isn't the first time that the issue of confiscation has come up. Even before President Obama was elected, Congress looked at a proposal to replace 401(k) plans with government-managed retirement accounts. Under the plan from Prof. Teresa Ghilarducci of the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis, these accounts would have had savers contributing 5% of their pay to a government-run retirement plan that would invest in bonds paying a fixed, guaranteed return over the rate of inflation. Ghilarducci's plan did not propose confiscation, and as she described in an interview with Seattle talk show host Kirby Wilbur at the time, "Whatever you have in your 401(k) now will keep its tax break."

Moreover, historians point to the 1933 executive order that required individuals to deliver gold coins, bullion, and certificates to banks in exchange for regular currency at a rate of $20.67 per ounce as being functionally equivalent to confiscation. With the government proceeding to devalue the dollar to $35 per gold ounce the following year, those who complied with the order suffered a substantial loss of purchasing power. Indeed, many gold investors use that same argument in arguing against bullion ETFs SPDR Gold Trust (NYSEMKT: GLD  ) , iShares Gold (NYSEMKT: IAU  ) , and iShares Silver Trust (NYSEMKT: SLV  ) , preferring instead to take physical possession of their gold and silver to ensure its safekeeping themselves.

Executive Order 6102. Source: Wikimedia Commons.

Jumping to conclusions
Even though the Obama budget lacks details on what exactly would happen with retirement accounts that hold assets above the $3 million limit, the most likely scenario is one in which existing accounts would be grandfathered, with restrictions applying only on future contributions. That by itself may be bad enough to alarm those striving to provide their own retirement in the face of a weakening Social Security and pension system, but at least for now, fears of outright confiscation are unwarranted.

The Motley Fool's chief investment officer has selected his No. 1 stock for the next year. Find out which stock it is in the brand-new free report: "The Motley Fool's Top Stock for 2013." Just click here to access the report and find out the name of this under-the-radar company.

link


Read/Post Comments (135) | Recommend This Article (29)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 10:24 AM, rodwade10 wrote:

    The rich should be paying more in taxes to help pay down the debt, the poor, and shrinking middle class can't do it all

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 10:58 AM, tom254 wrote:

    EVERYONE should pay the same percentage in the way of a use tax.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 10:58 AM, tom254 wrote:

    DO NOT put anything past this occupant of the White House

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 11:00 AM, notsoblind wrote:

    rodwade10 ,well let me start with this.when he runs out of the rich man's money do you think he will think twice about taking yours?

    And do you think the rich will stand by and let the government take their money,or do you think they will just raise the price of their products or services?

    you really need to learn history in a bad way..

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 11:03 AM, Werdnar66 wrote:

    He would grab every dime, if he could. Make no mistake about it.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 11:05 AM, JWH1138 wrote:

    It's almost as ifthe GOP think Obama is the boogie man and anything coming off his desk is a personal affront on liberty.They fear their guns will be taken away. Now they fear that big bad O-man will take away their savings too.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 11:08 AM, revolverdude wrote:

    He hasn't followed the constitution yet so why would he do it now?? Tax and spend and you aren't going to like your "FREE" Obamacare.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 11:09 AM, Werdnar66 wrote:

    To Rodwade - Why should the American people have to pay for the reckless spending of the aristocrats? Pool the resources of the House, the Senate, the Oval Office, past AND present. I bet you would find a hefty sum of money made at our expense. They live like kings with no financial cares in the world. Maybe they could pay for their own mistakes.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 11:09 AM, PEGformula wrote:

    Because this capitalistic system causes the wealth divide to widen, thus hurting society, I proposed in the book "God Gave You a Brain; Use It!" an anti-wealth accumulation law whereby no one could have more than 500 times the annual poverty level earnings, which is about $5 million at the present. This reflects a full 25 times the median wealth. How could anyone rightfully spend 25 times more than the average person? Instead of one kitchen, 25 kitchens? Instead of one car, 25 cars? Instead of 3 weeks vacation per year, 75 weeks per year? (see what is going on?). You see even this is too wide of an allowance of the wealth divide but it would be a good start in the right direction. Of course it's better to not sacrifice anything so if you are positioned in this world to take advantage of others to get rich, it would be better to MODULATE your wealth by not trying to get so much profit on everyone else in the first place to allow others to be able to have fruitful lives.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Werdnar66 wrote:

    JWH - does not know Obama. Study his past. Look at the corruption trail. Look at his high style living and parties, while much of the country suffers. And you really think he cares about the people. . . .

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 11:15 AM, Demons2010 wrote:

    Nope, if your smart, my Investment Counselor called me 1 wks ago, when he got wind of this from our Congressman, and I did just what was advised.

    I went the next day, closed all the Gold accounts, sold out gold stocks.

    Cashed in and sold the 5 gold boullion I had.

    So, free and clear, do not let the government take anything from us.

    While I do not think he will do this, but do not take a chance.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 11:19 AM, VRSEFgold wrote:

    51.06% of Americans voted in November 2012 for Communism!

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 11:19 AM, notsoblind wrote:

    JWH1138.yeah! and there are no death panels in the health care law right?

    you would be.it is in the first qe-1 the first bailout.

    obviously Obama is smarter than your are,he is hiding it,as with all his progressive agenda,he puts bits and pieces in every bill or executive order.that way it looks inconspicuous until you see it all then it becomes nefarious..

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 11:20 AM, VRSEFgold wrote:

    Why was Putin elated when 51.06% of Americans voted for Communism?

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 11:21 AM, gnuhhp wrote:

    Rodwade must be a big foodstamp fan

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 11:22 AM, notsoblind wrote:

    PEGformula,were you taken advantage of when you go to the store and make a purchase?

    who held a gun to you head and made you spend you money?

    don't blame the rich for your poor habits..

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 11:24 AM, auntiem611 wrote:

    The WH is trying to change the second amendment..what makes you 'think' other amendments off limits???

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 11:26 AM, JePonce wrote:

    In a word, you can bet your sweet a** he will.

    Anyone who demands a tax increase on the basis of 'fair share' who fails to pay his fair share is larcenous.

    In order to pay only 18.4%, he had to exploite the same tax loop holes of those evil rich he whines about.

    Take away his loop holes and his 'fair share' would be 39.6%.

    Each one of us has an annual tax increase even though the brackets do not change.

    Supreme Court Justice John Marshall said, "The power to tax is the power to destroy.

    No country on earth spent as much as Obama spent in 2012.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 11:28 AM, cityperson wrote:

    Yes, the Obama and his socialist, liberal gang will steal our retirement savings. He has/is already started with the our me Medicare and the politicians and others have been stealing from our SS since Johnson or maybe some years before. Our biggest worry is our voters, not thinking and looking back over the past terms what these politicians are doing to us.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 11:29 AM, JePonce wrote:

    If PEG had his druthers Government would own all capital, and to be fair, would dole it out on its everchanging definition of what is fair.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 11:30 AM, JoshuaS18 wrote:

    "Even though the Obama budget lacks details on what exactly would happen with retirement accounts that hold assets above the $3 million limit, the most likely scenario is one in which existing accounts would be grandfathered, with restrictions applying only on future contributions."

    So what you're really saying is you have no clue what's going to happen and reading this article was a giant waste of time but you're pro-Democrat so you want to try to minimize the bad PR you're getting from this. Who is Obama to tell me what I need or want to retire on?

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 11:31 AM, kanawah wrote:

    Obama's budget is a bomb wrapped in a bone for the republicons.

    He knows they will never go for the increased revenues he is tying to the cuts.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 11:33 AM, thedefect wrote:

    Reading the all the "the guy I didn't vote for is a communist and wants to steal everyone's money and kill old people!" comments on this site makes me realize why the domain is really "fool.com."

    There is absolutely nothing to suggest confiscation, rather a limit on how much can be put into conventional retirement accounts. If anything, the conservatives should love it because it forces people to invest in more directly in the market (or, for those crazy "bury my money in the backyard" types that seem to frequent this site, you can still invest in gold...).

    It's fine to dislike Obama, he's a decent president, not as good as some make out, not nearly the villain others do, but surely you people have some common sense you can apply? Surely you don't like to be laughing stocks with your conspiracy theories? You'll get far more satisfaction from intelligent discourse than knee-jerk reactions because you're still angry you lost an election. Stick with the facts and people will take you seriously.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 11:34 AM, RHO1953 wrote:

    Not through this particular mechanism, but the democrats have committees that have been studying ways of taking control of the trillions of dollars of assets in private savings, IRA's and 401K's. They are favoring a scheme that would create a new mandatory "savings" program. It would mandate a matching amount from individuals and employers, and part of that would be that they would take the assets of existing accounts. They would seize your assets and pay you a fixed return on their value. When you die the remaining assets go to the government. Don't say it can't happen, because the likes of Harkin and Durbin have been advocating it.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 11:38 AM, Hjin wrote:

    People like Rodwade10 and PEGformula are simply brain-washed and far better suited to go live in a place like North Korea. Arbitrarily putting a cap on life time earnings is akin to limiting one's value-seeking activities. Value-seeking activities is what generates value, that may be divided among society. Ultimately, value-maximization drives innovation and technological advancement. It's far easy to launch brainless shots at capitalism. But remember, the smartphones you're using today, the cars you're driving today, almost all of the modern conveniences you enjoy today would not exist if it weren't for the very system you vilify. Get a clue.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 11:39 AM, principal48 wrote:

    The big problem with our congress-persons and senators is they want to call what I and many like me have paid into social security an entitlement. That is so far from the truth. If you take my money and say that it is for my retirement then you can't say that I should not get it back at the rate you promised when you took it and it something I paid. This is not an entitlement. The conservatives are trying to keep the status-quo for the rich guy. I have paid $125536.00 into SS over the last 35 years. I am still paying SS and if I earn 3.5% to 4% on the money for the next six years, I will be able to get $2104 a month for life what ever that life is. That to me is not an entitlement. In business it would be called an opportunity cost.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 11:47 AM, notsoblind wrote:

    thedefect .

    1.why did he send a contingent to hugo chavez's funeral and not 1 person to margaret thatcher's funeral?

    because he is not a communist sympathiser?

    2.why would he put a self proclaimed communist in charge of green energy?(van jones)and i could go on with frank marshal davis ot tom ayers bills dad and of course bill and his wife bernadine.formerly of the weather underground.but you probably weren't around in those day's, i was.

    3 as far as your statement,(see below")

    There is absolutely nothing to suggest confiscation,

    did you not see the executive order by fdr?

    4. and in a free market only a communist would force you to spend your money.

    please research before before you call someone a fool..or risk looking the same,,

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 11:51 AM, realamerica wrote:

    Thinking people in America assume most Dim-o-crats are thieves. Higher Taxes, blown up entitlements, run away Federal spending.

    Well, you know seeing is believing.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 11:52 AM, notsoblind wrote:

    Hjin...wished i could give 10,000 thumbs up for that comment.

    Oh! i think i just did..

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 11:53 AM, tristinstone wrote:

    Me and my wife have been putting our money overseas for almost 12 years now! Putting your money in the hands of any American is becoming very risky? I for sure do not trust Obama, our crooked government or any bank with my future. We have 2 children with 5 more years of schooling until we can close up shop and move to South America. Our dollar down there is 13x what its worth here, and since we have already bought our house, our only expense will be monthly utilities and food. they have great medical clinics were we are going and great medical care for pennies on the dollar?

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 11:54 AM, rojak4 wrote:

    Who says that IRAs are tax advantaged? The premise is that your tax rate in retirement will be less than when you were making all those bucks while working. Maybe so for those whose income is significantly reduced in retirement and therefore their tax rate on ordinary income is also. But the Bush tax cuts changed that. Distributions from an IRA are taxed as ordinary income. If those funds had been invested in growth stocks or dividend payers rather than an IRA, "distributions" (capital gains and dividends) would be taxed at a lower rate. The US Treasury is reaping a bonanza from those who built substantial IRA accounts and must pay higher taxes than if they had just done their own investing.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 11:57 AM, Katscape wrote:

    Now this is what I find really scarey in this article and in the comments I am reading. Everyone is coming from a premise that it is okay for an American President to make a law telling the American people how much money they can save!

    People of America; we were once a free people! Don't you get it? Little by little you accepted your enslavement and it got you here. Believing it is okay for an American President to tell you, an American, how much of your money you can save for "your" retirement!

    Wake up, Americans!

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 11:58 AM, unspokenedict wrote:

    I can't believe some of the comments I'm reading, and that some people are so out of touch as to think this is about the 1% class divide. It isn't. The issue here is whether the government has the right to take away property without due process! Do you think they will stop after taking from only the "1%"? They're coming after you next, history shows no other possible alternative. Stand for your Rights now, or lost them forever.

    One more thing, I doubt many here are old enough to remember FDR's gold confiscation, but if you look at the historical accounts, he sent his Fed. Agents around to basically rob people at gunpoint, or beat them half to death if they refused. This is what one of our "greatest" presidents was capable of, what about Obama?

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 11:58 AM, davescottsc wrote:

    It is hard to answer this asinine charge and stay within your posting rules. Only someone who thinks Obama is a Kenyan-born Muslim could be fool enough to believe than any elected official would propose to confiscate retirement accounts. This country has lots of problems. Politicians taking money away from seniors isnt one of them. Fifth Amendment aside, you are far too soft on accusers who are either ignorant, evil or both.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 11:59 AM, FLOYDINFLORIDA wrote:

    No they won't cease it all they will just take a little bit like 10-20% unless they need more!

    Cyprus did it! Argentina did it!

    $17 Trillion in debt with not hope in site, just a matter of time before it happens!

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 12:00 PM, notsoblind wrote:

    realamerica ..not to bust your bubble,but it is not democratic or republican's it is "progressive's" and they have infiltrated both parties,

    John Mccain

    Lindsey Graham

    hillary clinton

    sherrod brown

    dennis kucinich

    if you want more info on the progressives go to the cpa "communist party of America" web site.

    In America we cannot be called communist we will never be elected to office.we need a new name we will be called the progressive party...

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 12:02 PM, WHEWW123 wrote:

    Now look. Seniors are already terrorized by the upcoming landing of the Obamacare express.

    Now you scare them with this ? It's everyone for the hills ..........!!!

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 12:04 PM, CharlieTX wrote:

    ... a government run retirement program ... oh yeah - you mean like Social Security ... that program from which the politicians stole all the money and spent it and now they are wanting a second run at us? No way is this one going to happen!!!

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 12:05 PM, thedatapro wrote:

    Confiscate our property, take away our freedoms? NOT SMART!

    Better think twice. That could start a revolution.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 12:07 PM, notsoblind wrote:

    davescottsc..well if we are going to argue with the fifth amendment aside why don't we get rid of them all..and you call us ignorant..pffff.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 12:10 PM, Snoopy2012 wrote:

    @ principal48 - entitlement is not something free...it means something you earned it. Don't get confused with freebees.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 12:11 PM, notsoblind wrote:

    thedatapro, that seems to be the agenda.

    lenin was right, communism would start from with in...

    promise everything give little and we would destroy ourselves..

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 12:12 PM, thedatapro wrote:

    Stop spending more than you take in.

    Eliminate unnecessary programs, stop being the world's police force.

    Then you can pay off the debt and not need to take anymore money from anyone!

    Stoop voting for and reelecting 98.8% of incumbents!

    If the senators and representatives have been there for over 6 years, they are the problem.

    Send them all home next time! Yours and mine.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 12:12 PM, rdmcdonald48 wrote:

    The present administration has not, in the five years of existence, given the American people (with the exception of those who believe in his agenda) to believe a word he says when it comes to our economy and working with Congress.

    He already has placed into law, the ability to take away from your investments monies that are now a "Tax" (3.8% on the sale of real estate over $ 250K) under the guise of the ACA (Obama-Care). He's misrepresented to the public in his many statements that your (middle class) taxes will not go up "one thin dimes", yet you will be "penalized" if you do not buy into his grand health insurance scheme. That is, without doubt, a form of taxation.

    This President, more than any in history before him, uses the "executive order" to circumvent the Congress of the United States and the will of the people. DO NOT think for one moment that he will NOT take your life savings; regardless of your economic class, if he thinks he can get away with it. Margaret Thatcher said it best, "socialism works, until you run out of other people's money".

    More Americans are leaving this country now, than at any time in the history of the US. Why, because they no longer "trust" their government and the people who make up Congress and the one who sits in the Oval Office.

    People who have worked hard all of their lives; made good investment choices; created jobs and built businesses do not want to see their government take it all away because they (the government) cannot control their spending habits. Obama will bankrupt this nation and drive it into revolution if Congress does not "man up" and put a stop to it, now.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 12:14 PM, NickD wrote:

    This is what happens when you borrow money.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 12:14 PM, grooveyone wrote:

    The whole problem is based upon the constitution {which does not give the President the power of executive orders} not being adhered to or enforced by members of congress. These so-called executive orders are illegal and the ursurping of powers that are delegated to the congress. The constitution delegated the law-making powers to the congress which must be passed by both houses, and only then either be signed, or vetoed by the president. No laws are delegated to the presidential decree. The problem lies in congress allowing these transgressions, presumably in a {you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours; and to hell with the public view} Ther only way to change this is to call a constitutional convention, and who knows what will happen then with the people we have running the show, and it is a cheap show, not for the people, but to screw the people.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 12:18 PM, notsoblind wrote:

    Snoopy2012 that has to be the most twisted thought i ever heard on any blog..

    Definition of ENTITLEMENT

    1

    a : the state or condition of being entitled : right

    b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract

    2

    : a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program

    3

    : belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges

    so show me in the constitution of the united states in the bill of right's where this right exist..

    i'll help you out a little..article 1 section 8 of the constitution.this is where you find what the government is allowed to spend out tax dollars on.

    i'll wait for you reply..

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 12:23 PM, tpranc wrote:

    Nothing suprises me about the Obama administration anymore,It reminds me of a Alcoholic,or a Drug user that needs a drink,or a Fix,and has no money,but knows where and how to get money,because a Family member has Cash stashed in their Bedroom.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 12:23 PM, thedatapro wrote:

    grooveyone is correct.

    Congress has given up much of their rights under the constitution.

    Presidential executive orders, declaration of war and many more.

    That is why we should never reelect 98.8% of them like we did the last election.

    That is insane. We have lost control of our government.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 12:24 PM, ammodyte wrote:

    If you tax millionaires, you are taxing your grandchildren. When I was a teen, a candy bar was a nickle, cigarettes were 35 cents a pack, and gas was 27.9 a gallon. You could buy a house for $5000!

    Tax CONSUMPTION. Do not penalize self-sacrifice. How can you tax interest on savings? How can you tax work? Do you want to discourage them? Tax the dope-dealer when he buys his Mercedes.

    Now, tell me why my First-class mail subsides junk-mail that nobody wants? If you want to discourage something, tax it. How about Third-class mail making MY stamp cheaper?

    The reason that NEITHER will happen, is because lobbyists are paid by business, which takes money from us any chance they get. If you tax consumption, you discourage it, and that is 'bad' for business. Maybe it is, but it sure sounds good to me!

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 12:25 PM, notsoblind wrote:
  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 12:26 PM, Twinings59 wrote:

    This will not be a confiscation so much as a mandate to participate and the only investment you will be able to have in the account is US Government Treasury Bonds, Just like Social Security. So you have to ask yourself with the US Government in Debt by 17 trillion and growing and the only way we can service the interest payment is by interest rates in the low single digits how is this a good investment for the personal retirement account holder? In the past year the Social Security Inflow of Tax Collected in now less than the outflow Benefits Being Paid Out. The Social Security Fund is 6 Trillion of IOU’s making up part of the 17 trillion in Government Debt. So now you want the US Middle Class to take our private investments and invest more towards the endless entitlement spending by our government? So I can make less than 2% return through US Treasury Bonds? I think a lot of people have a problem with this concept sense our Government Elected Officials have spent 6 trillion of our Social Security Retirement already. Keep printing money so we can inflate our debt and keep lying to the US Taxpayer there is no inflation sense all that is measured in the CPI now is iPads, Social Security Recipients don’t eat or use iPads for pharmacy prescriptions.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 12:27 PM, garyol wrote:

    He is picking away at the constitution little by little. And when he is done we will be a socialist country. Thank you democrats.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 12:27 PM, Ridgerunner59 wrote:

    Work all your life, save, and it comes down to a 2 term Socialist taking it all away to give to the lazy bums (not the ones that truly had a bad break and are doing all they can to get back on their feet). Sick of it all!!! You try and be a good citizen and this is what you end up in your later years. I cannot wait till 2016!!

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 12:29 PM, dapeck wrote:

    well i only have $2,950,000 to go before i will worry about it. and at 72 i don't believe i have much to worry about getting that amount anyways. what i worry about is dumbocraps and repugnants both, ruining social security for my children and their children. neither side seems to be doing anything constructive about saving it.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 12:32 PM, thedatapro wrote:

    If we keep sending these same selfish, bought and paid politicians back every election and expecting a different result WE ARE THE FOOLS!

    And I do not mean those of us who want to invest in a safe future by learning good lessons from this site.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 12:32 PM, snipe1949 wrote:

    Why aren't people Angry about all the Lazy bums in this country. You see them every Day just like me. The ones who could work who just find it easier on welfare. And they just keep pumping out the kids and the fathers aren't made to support them. 48% pay no taxes and these woman get back thousands. Make them clean up our dirty highways make them do something. And put the fathers in jail.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 12:33 PM, Regaleonline wrote:

    If someone, government or otherwise steals my lifeblood retirement savings I would kill to protect it. Just as I did in war...

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 12:33 PM, EricTheRon13 wrote:

    You are absolutely right, the "taking clause" requires that the government pay equivalent value for anything taken from citizens. (And yes, the same was true in the so-called "gold confiscation", they paid the going rate) Of course, that doesn't mean they can't change the tax status of anything.

    Normally I'm not an Obama fan, but in this case I have to agree that there are substantial abuses of the 401-K and other tax-advantaged systems, where some people are sheltering billions received from company buy-outs and other programs. I'm sure the new law would just say that anything over the amount would just have to revert to you on a non-sheltered basis, and you'd have to pay the tax on it. This would not be the end of the world for extremely rich people, or anyone having over 3 million. Note that this would be 3 million each for you and your spouse, so it's not that constricting.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 12:34 PM, ammodyte wrote:

    TAX THE RICH TO PAY THE DEBT!

    (easy to say, but let's look at the facts!)

    If you taxed EVERYONE at a 100% rate, you wouldn't even pay the Interest on our National Debt.

    NO, I do not advocate forming a Committee to study the problem. Their priority would be to make sure they have a job next year.

    Just stop spending. Start with a 15% cut across the board, let everyone whine for a while, while we find more waste to trim.

    The free ride is over. I am tired of paying for it, and my money is almost gone anyway. I have no fear of confiscation, but I do have sensibilities. It's another name for a mugging.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 12:39 PM, PBinLosAngeles wrote:

    President Obama has said that he would veto legislation to let him choose what to cut in the budget. That should tell us everything we need to know about the utter cynicism of this glib man.

    I know a now former bankruptcy attorney who left that field of practice - with outrage - after current bankruptcy laws - nearly all of which were written by puppet Biden - when he realized that the government has sunk to new lows - literally - in respect to the dollar amount it is willing to seize from U.S. citizens.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 12:48 PM, stevema1 wrote:

    Once obama realized that there is 19TRILLION in peoples 401 accounts do you really think he will leave that alone??

    He is more than likely dreaming of all that money at night.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 12:51 PM, wmslave wrote:

    We already have confiscation of retirement savings for the middle class. Ask anyone who's been in a hospital without Cadillac insurance coverage. We expect the middle class to save for their own retirement and to pay taxes for the less fortunate the same time. Then, if they become less fortunate themselves, government rewards them for being so responsible by forcing them to spend down practically everything they have at " hospital list price" before lifting a finger.

    If government wants to cap something they should cap the percentage expected to be spent down per year so the person has a reasonable chance of living after a medical event. As it is, there no point in saving for the poor / lower middle class. If you aren't in a position to pay the "protection money" to the health care industry during any interruption of income you risk of losing it all. That risk is probably has high as any aggressive investment fund. Obama care will be no help. They want you to grovel to the very same agency usually drags their feet for months or years before approving an application.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 12:51 PM, tdizz wrote:

    For the chucklehead who is talking about tax rates not a help in the matter anymore, they would be if Romney was elected because he wanted to reduce the income tax rate for the wealthy to 25%. Those IRA's just earned you 14% if he were able to reduce the tax rates. Think about why the rich want to reduce the upper tax bracket.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 12:52 PM, kilgoretrout56 wrote:

    That's true..as soon as Obama was elected, Federal agents came to my house and took my guns, killed my unborn children, and made me marry a man...

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 12:52 PM, peterwolf wrote:

    You think this is a joke? An unwarranted fear?? Just a bunch of FOX News loons?? Well have you been listening to Nancy Pelosi over the years?? She has said flat-out that 401K's and IRA's should not be tax exempt. Period. What about ROTH IRA's?? Nope !! No difference in her mind. So tell me again that we shouldn't be worried??

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 12:54 PM, longun45 wrote:

    Obama has already proposed to tax everything into oblivion over 3.4 million. But he also said he would not raise taxes on those making $250K and under, but he has raised taxes about 20-30 times, has wor4ked against he American people to entrench poverty on a scale not seen in this country. This government is the enemy of the people who actually work for a living. Obama prizes failure above all else,and in particular the common mans failure.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 12:54 PM, tdizz wrote:

    The reality is an IRA wasn't meant to be a vehicle to protect millions of dollars. It was more for the middle class to save money for retirement as SS wasn't going to be enough. Now it has been perverted into a tax shelter and a very good tax shelter if the Republicans can get the top tax rate below 30% sometime in the future.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 12:55 PM, tdizz wrote:

    Peterwolf, you need to read the context and I bet it was pointed at the wealthy.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 1:02 PM, kadams27 wrote:

    Currently, the White House is occupied by neither a Republican nor a Democrat but a socialist. So any way he can find to redistribute wealth is possible.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 1:04 PM, ekr579 wrote:

    oblamer might as well take it, with his fed keeping interest rates at zero ( to prop up Wall Streets profit, the peoples prez my a s s), making our CD's almost useless. $100,000.00 in CD's paid me $685.00 for the year, that's $57.50 a month. While I was saving it for 34 year's I hoping to earn 8 to 10% annually on my money. Under Clinton I earned 12%, under Bush 8%. That $12,000 annually under Clinton, $8,000 annually under Bush. Now you tell me who really cares about the middle class.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 1:10 PM, tdizz wrote:

    cd's haven't been in the 8 to 10% range for decades now.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 1:13 PM, Hibiscusanole wrote:

    After he confiscated our money for Obamacare, I complained about it by tweeting back to his immigration tweet. An irate woman with a Spanish accent called to verify my identity as I was answering the door. She never did say what she called for, except to find out if I answered to my own name. Was it an Obama call?

    Listen to his buddy Jay-Z in "Open Letter". He says Chinese Communism worked out, and to come chill with Obama on the Cuban beach, not to get him impeached. That is cause for alarm.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 1:26 PM, Bobbyo7 wrote:

    This lien black Muslim fraud is and will take every thing we have and you idiots let him do it impeach him now

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 1:28 PM, Bobbyo7 wrote:

    When will our money be worth any thin c,d,s at .25 percent wake up befor he steals you. Pants if you still have one

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 1:28 PM, hockeygm wrote:

    If you don't think Obama wont try to confiscate your money, you have a very short memory because this is exactly what he has already done once.

    Obama violated all Bankruptcy Law and other laws when he confiscated the wealth of middle class Americans and Seniors who had invested in GM Bonds and the bonds of the other Car companies. He took their wealth that they had earned, had paid taxes on, had relied upon for income, and gave it to the corrupt Unions as part of his Stimulus. Tens of thousands of Seniors and Middle Class Americans lost significant portions of their life savings. Talk to reps in Fidelity offices or Schwab offices, or other firms and they all have horror stories about clients who were devastated.

    Not only that, but Pension Funds lost billions with Obama's illegal actions. This caused them to go back to municipalities and raise their contribution rates the following years. Since cities had to pay more to the Pension Funds, they couldn't afford their employees and laid them off. So, all of those teachers and firefighters and police officers that Obama spreads his propoganda about; it was HIS policy that caused them to be laid off in the first place.

    The Democrats are a very real danger to Responsible Americans.

    However, should they try to go ahead with this idea, the Republicans should introduce a Poison Pill in the form of a bill entitled "The Equality and Fairness Act" This bill would prevent any one person from holding more than $3million dollars or the equivalent IRA annuity amount in any one Company's stock. This would include Stock Options, Restricted Stock Grants and regular stock. This would force his buddies like Zuckerberg, Bloomberg, Grin, Lauren Jobs and many others to have to divest themselves of their holdings. Afterall, why should they be given special treatment compared to regular Americans who have scrimped and saved for years to accumultae their wealth? They'd have to either abndon the idea in it's entirety (which is the idea) or hoist the Liberals on their own Petard

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 1:42 PM, rgperrin wrote:

    Citing the "talkings clause" of the Constitution hardly gives comfort to those fearing government confiscation of retirement savings. I mean, when is the last time the Constitution really matter when the government wanted to have its way on something? We haven't forgotten Obamacare.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 1:44 PM, unspokenedict wrote:

    It just hit me; the horrible truth was so obvious it was staring us in the face, yet no one noticed it: this doesn't affect the "1%" at all. They don't need retirement accounts. Only the middle class uses them--this directly screws the middle class. If this doesn't bespeak a permanent class system, I don't know what will....

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 1:54 PM, 13Koch wrote:

    There is no money, Just Federal notes of (faith,hope, & trust)

    and that is all that is needed (trust) or maybe you think none can trust you? If I trust you, and you trust me, what more is there?

    Many of us trust in the Christ, and he asked nothing in return. why not let us be Christ-like?

    888

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 1:58 PM, 13Koch wrote:

    We should have all what we want, and need, and give the rest to those who need it in truth. Then there will be plenty for all...

    88

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 2:07 PM, 13Koch wrote:

    Love your neighbor, as you love yourself, Would not the world be a better place for us and our Childrens children. The Children born from 1991 on are children of the light, (Absolute knowledge).

    The age of absolute knowedge began with the WWW or (brain-center) of humanity.

    Humanity lives, moves,and has it being in God the supreme.

    888-8888

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 2:18 PM, 13Koch wrote:

    2013 is the first year of the Third Millenium since Jesus the Christ first came, so that means 2000 years are up, and now a new 1000 year beginning, which is bringing a lot of work of cleaning up mans mess he has made of the planet that once was called paradise and it seems to be flowing from the 50th state of the union, which many call Paradise.

    The number (5) in Holy Scripture stands for God's "grace"

    (8)

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 2:24 PM, 1985maureen wrote:

    "...tax laws to "prohibit individuals from accumulating over $3 million in tax-preferred retirement accounts." This incompetent clown act is the most dangerous individual this country has ever allowed to reside in the White House. And everyone frowns on those who put their money into offshore accounts. Anyone who puts it into any federally regulated bank is a fool.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 2:41 PM, gecko1961 wrote:

    We can sit here and try to explain to the Liberals, Progressives, or Obama fans all we want. They don't understand and no amount of explaining is going to enlighten them. Bottom line is the majority voted him in so they can get their stuff or based on some sense they've been slighted in a system that you get what you work for. Unfortunately; there are many more that don't want to work. They justify it as being fair but what it boils down to is they aren't willing to do what is necessary to propel themselves to greater things. So if you can't elevate yourself just lower the bar for everyone else and call it fair.

    Some people call that "The Great Society!". I'm abroad right now and I can't tell you how many Americans that I've talked to that are disappointed in their country. Again; here we are again being governed by a majority of people that only 35% have passports. I'm sure someone will say I'm abroad because I'm rich! LOL!

    No! That's what 70 hour work weeks for 17 years does for you. Something unfortunately the majority of people aren't willing to do as they await their handouts. It's sad!

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 2:46 PM, casteaukid wrote:

    Believe me, it won't be Obama taking all our retirement, cause George Bush and Cheney and their greedy buddies in the big banks already got it in 2008 with the Bush Depression.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 2:47 PM, RichardPiamai wrote:

    Did you know that China is buying up gold all over the world. They are also buying gold mines from other countries. Ask about the PETRODOLLAR.

    That may disappear, and replaced buy the Chinese yuan. If other countries go with china, all your money will be worthless. Our country does not have the gold to cover the backing of all the paper you have. The purchase of oil will wind up being paid for by yuan and not the US dollar. Our stock markets will eventually collapse and even if you invest in government securities ie bonds and T-bills that will eventually be worthless. I have no idea that will come to pass but it is worth investigating. So when there is talk about taking peoples savings it is very possible. It could be the fall and rise of the US government as we know it.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 2:48 PM, casteaukid wrote:

    after the Bush/Cheney Depression for 2008, there was nothing left in the pockets of most seniors, expect a few billion dollar friends of Bush. So there is nothing more they can do to us.....we can only go up from here and it looks like our great President is making a great comback from the Bush Depression.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 3:09 PM, driverdoug wrote:

    Just as any persons Net Asset Value should not be able to exceed, say 10 million, all extra assets would be able to pay off all debt and rise levels of human dignity to the basics on the planet: no worries for food, shelter, and water. The argument that raising a persons' wage compensation, so that they are "better off" than before is just as useless as the mansions with 12 rooms that lay empty in the Hamptons and Bel Marin Keys. To those that scream Socialism, I say, "so what?" How evolved a species are we that allow such want? Individual Net asset value set at $205,000 for retirement is more than enough for a rich lifestyle. All excess monies could be assigned on a checkoff punch list of moral and worthy causes. All famine, hunger, poverty would be eliminated due to the immense concentration of wealth in this top 12 per cent.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 3:15 PM, gecko1961 wrote:

    casteaukid I can only imagine that the Bush/Cheney Depression might mean the mortgage crisis? Really not versed on what really caused the mortgage crisis are you? How about Clinton mandating Fannie and Freddie to make home ownership more attainable for the folks that didn't qualify with the urging of Acorn/NACA.

    Understand there's plenty of blame to go around but it always makes me laugh when I see people blame mortgage crisis on the GOP. I would suggest reading a couple of books once in a while about what really happen. BTW: Washington Post article details current administration putting pressure on banks to lower credit standards again. I'm sure that will be blamed on someone other than the current President making a great comeback from Depression.

    That's the problem. Uneducated masses. You haven't seen depression yet. $19 Trillion is a good start though.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 3:36 PM, byrontx wrote:

    I wish you would stop with the dumb, alarmist articles like this one. Bad enough that Faux News puts ignorant stuff out to keep the wingnuts worked up. Why do you have to try to out-dumb them?This administration has actually been rather frugal, especially compared to the last one (assign the borrowed costs of the unnecessary Iraq war where it belongs).

    These articles appearing with such regularity shows a political slant rather than an economic information.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 3:51 PM, kelkay wrote:

    When are the people of this country going to wake up and realize what a disaster this president is. He has the country fighting like cats and dogs over healthcare, immigration, gun control, the economy to name a few. He is not a leader but the great divider. He is destroying this great country.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 4:06 PM, Paul1971069 wrote:

    So from the first ten comments I've read people are in favor of Obama only allowing $3 million in retirement savings. How is that being free? To be able to be told that once you reach this amount the rest is for us to confiscate and spend for whatever they want...that will surely take away people' s motivations to strive any higher than the government set limit. Once people reach that limit then it should be mandatory retirement. Who wants to continue working and give everything you earn to the government? I see with Obama's guaranteed salary for the rest of his life and all the benefits and perks he gets from being in the Government has already been well established to be more than $3 million dollars. I take it that congress and Obama would be exempt from these new laws. Socialism at it's finest!!!!

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 4:40 PM, jkelley2836 wrote:

    The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is indeed looking for ways to legally force you to buy government debt with a certain percentage of your 401k assets. This is nothing short of theft.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 4:53 PM, hydn wrote:

    Love the title: "Will Obama Really Confiscate Your Retirement Savings?"

    Came in to see comments.

    It worked!

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 5:00 PM, vanishingpoint1 wrote:

    Yes he can! And, yes he will! The Government that you voted for, is DEAD BROKE! They won't have a choice but to conficate your wealth to give it others, that never earned it. I closed out my 401K two years ago and have no regrets. Obama will never get a penny of retirement from me. I'm out!

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 5:07 PM, tcsonic wrote:

    In 25 years what life style will a $205,000 annual income support. I imagine it will be 40-50% less at a minimum; likely less than the average income. I'm certain this is intended to force upper income earners to take more risk, and spur the economy. The problem with this type short sighted thinking is that most wealthy don't take big risks with their money.This will only harm the middle class savers. The forward thinking wealthy will move more money off shore, to places where it is protected from multiple forms of taxation, further harming the U.S. economy.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 5:08 PM, mtimothy wrote:

    Hi, please see Financial Sense Newhour with Puplova on the Budget Process of 4/13, it would be on page 2 from this link.

    http://www.financialsense.com/financial-sense-newshour?page=...

    Inflation is very high at the spending margin for low and median income. It seems inflation is always in the nondiscretionaries, food, gasoline, I have seen reports of water inflation. At the margin they have taken all the damage at the lower incomes.

    Then Affordable Care would hit them hard, such as Walmart reducing work hours. An associate took his wife to apply for O-care and said it was 9K a year premium for one person.

    I have seen bits and pieces, not commited to memory but enough to puke, the legislations and exec orders about continuation of govt, have nothing to do with continuation of people.

    It is really bad. They will do whatever they want to.

    It is humorous when advisors say to max out 401k.

    I have stopped contributing and go out of my way to remove what I can, recently by front loading the annual medical services into Jan to fulfill the deductible and then file a medical hardship withdrawal. I don't have enough in there to be confiscated but I don't want anything in the matrix.

    I am also putting the most I can in exempt Whole Life and in the next phase Annuity, in private Mutuals outside "qualified" controls.

    I don't know the answer but it is coming apart, next they learn that they have cannibalized their own young and their tax base is gone. They do it over and over and expect a different result, insanity?

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 5:08 PM, DATSUN1967 wrote:

    AS I KEEP SAYING THE BROWN SHIRTS ARE BACK! JUST STAY TUNED TO WHAT IS GOING

    ON IT WILL ALL COME TO LIGHT SOON.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 5:20 PM, agatha82 wrote:

    When has obama ever respected the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? He's working hard to do away with our Second Amendment rights....Who's to say he won't do away with the Fifth Amendment? He is not to be trusted in the least, nor anyone from the White House Administration, obama's crony big banksters, his Wall Street buddies, or any democrat

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 5:26 PM, mtimothy wrote:

    You'all can't imagine the conspiracies here.

    Ok, call it unrelated coincidences.

    I think there could have been some patriotic sense of shared sacrifice if the criminals were prosecuted, wars stopped, people given help instead of bankers. Instead of QE, what would happened if they paid the peoples' taxes for a year and stimulated economy.

    Instead of QE what would happened if they built the nationwide high speed trains that float on magnets, hundreds of thousands employed, finish off the corrupt airline industry, get from city to city in 30-45 minutes without TSA goons, nah.

    It was the total and complete mass wealth transfer to the shadow oligarchs.

    I'll tell this story. I was moved by my employer to help a factory. Performance is up 15% and I will reach 20% this year. I am not paid alot for saving them 2.5M a year and securing futures for 2500 employees. I am just a little guy but they are pushing me out. I am looking at Uruguay next winter, I have a place to go in Ukraine if it came to it, can live there $3-4k a year until this is fixed.

    Actually I have enough coming in Aug 1, two small pension to go there then, if I start feeling personal safety at risk.

    They have no idea what they are doing because communists hate the individual. It only takes one to make the difference as I have done and very well an entire small city depends on me to some degree.

    They have no idea what they are doing because, none of them have ever worked a day in their life and created a value.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 5:37 PM, mr091468 wrote:

    You wonder why Boston and 911 happened. The 535 prostitutes you call senators and congressmen have sent our troops into the middle east, marching down the streets of Bagdad, etc. etc, etc. Killing innocent people. This crap has gone on since Korea in the 1950's. We'd be po'ed too if middle east soldiers marched down our streets, wouldn't we? Now they want the 401k's and IRA's. Time to SECEDE.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 5:45 PM, mtimothy wrote:

    Please see about Boston :

    Glenn Beck says he is going public live tomorrow on another aspect.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjocGidSLJw&feature=playe...

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 5:58 PM, beckyjf wrote:

    NO, he WILL NOT. This country would riot if that happened. The Constitution of the United States of America doesn't exempt Obama. Do we want socialism or democracy, seriously people?

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 6:08 PM, mtimothy wrote:

    Does anyone listen to Lindsey Williams on Utube, it is generally following his outline. Check out some of his recent interviews, latest titles were

    10 agendas.

    Datsun, can you elaborate , what is coming to light? How much time do we have do I need to

    go to Ukraine immediately. I can ask work for

    a leave of absence and give this a year.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 6:40 PM, HAHAppl wrote:

    I hope no one takes my savings. Also for the comment's that have nothing to do with this article such as the ones that bring up the second amendment. Even though that has nothing to do with this article I will explain what that one actually means since some of you do not know. The second amendment protects the right to bear arms during war times look at when the first 10 amendments were made it wasn't during peaceful times. Also, having any kind of automatic weapon is not for person protection unless you expect to be raided by an army and for hunting purposes an automatic weapon isn't needed unless you have a stampede so what in the world is the problem with getting rid of automatic weapons?

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 6:58 PM, mtimothy wrote:

    They say a six shooter .22 may not stop the drugged predators. And a couple/few shots can miss, and there could be several.

    The food stamps are down to $27 a week per head, how much worse could it get for people.

    We have not seen starving people. It is 40-50

    years since people have self sustainability skills

    and experience.

    I don't see any practical purpose to control guns, pick and choose size and type. Background check

    is generally agree but why would a criminal expose themself to that and not go underground,

    how realistic or effective?

    The number of accidental gun death is at the very bottom of the list by cause of death. Pharmaceuticals and malpractice are on the top,

    guns are well below knives.

    There is no functional reason to control guns except dastardly intentions.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 7:00 PM, RockyLizzard wrote:

    How many of you republics remember how bush wanted to do away with SS and invest it in the stock market......just before it tanked and also no response to what happens to the matching amount of money the company put into the account as to who got that money

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 7:31 PM, Donald1943 wrote:

    To think that this couldn't happen is ludicrous. Can you imagine when the inheritance tax was first discussed? I suspect much the same was said about it being illegal. Liberals Democrats will get their hands on our money any way possible. They will simply call it a tax and the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, will say Congress can tax as they please. And to think Congress would set up a retirement fund is a total laugh. I think we have one now, it's called Social Security, and we can see how well they have managed it. As others have posted, when liberals have spent all the rich people's money they will come for the rest of us. Always look to Cuba to see where liberals want to take us.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 7:49 PM, mainewitch wrote:

    With the utmost respect..this is how a lot of you sound...help help Black Umbama is taking my money...quick America is falling apart because of Black Umbama...Oh Dear Fake guy in the sky please make Black Umbama go away and make it the 1950s again. Grow up, this is 2013 act like it.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 7:53 PM, mtimothy wrote:

    Really, don't get into the left and right arguments.

    Have you learned about the hegelian dialectic,

    the same bloodline that owned the world since the beginning of the time, the same that Jesus defeated, set that up to divide and conquer.

    Some of those guys like bush may be so far down the pay grade they are just operatives.

    It seems to me that they used bush to discredit and humuliate the good parts of conservative and christian ideology, and now use O to finish us off.

    They are just the actors.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 8:10 PM, Makikijoe wrote:

    Anybody who believes a word of what they read on a newsletter called "The Motley Fool" deserves whatever misinformation he gets.

    Some wealthy conservative is behind this "Motley Fool" website.

    Motley Fool starts out with an unsympathetic anti-universal health careattitude and ananti-Democratic and an anti-Obama attitude to begin with.

    So ....... beware of what ANY of it's writers claim.

    It's all news and commentary from a pro-business Repug biased point of view.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 8:30 PM, Itsjustmeagain wrote:

    My take, you can amass $3Mil in a tax deferred or reduced tax category, anything above that is taxed at the current rates.

    To end the budget crunch and pay down the debt, end the Bush tax cuts now and go back to 1990's tax structure. Clinton oversaw a surge in prosperity and a great budget surplus.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 8:46 PM, SweetOldB wrote:

    I'm all for his proposal with one condition. All public sector employees starting with the President, his administration, Congress, all federal employees, and all state employees be immediately switched from defined benefit to defined contribution pension plans.

    I ain't holding my breath.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 8:58 PM, pedorrero wrote:

    I am the voice of cynicism :)

    Consider: Well you already stole my example of the 1933 gold confiscation. Here are some earlier (and later) examples that your rights mean whatever the government says they do, including "not applicable"!

    At the end of the civil war, were former slave owners compensated for the value of their onetime property? I'll admit I don't know, but I'll bet the anser is "nope!" And it wasn't just the South -- slavery was legal in MD, who remained in the Union.

    Ask any of our Native Americans about their ancestors' experiences with the USA honoring its promises.

    Let's see, there was the internment during WW II of about 200K persons, including some citizens.

    Ancient history? How about illegal (and later pardoned) electronic evesdropping on Americans? "Enemy combatant" instead of due process? Both of those are within the 21st century.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 9:07 PM, shibadude wrote:

    I put nothing past this POS in the white house. He'd probably sell his mother or brother in Kenya for money.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 9:24 PM, mtimothy wrote:

    About rights, they trick that is run is the commercial contract. To violate your Natural Rights and Bill of Rights, you have to volunteer.

    Note that Obamacare will be an application that you sign. You sign 1040. There is no USCode requiring employee to pay taxes. Income tax is uniquely defined in USCode as foreign income, or investment profit. Some argue that business income tax is legal being profit, income - expense = taxable income. Labor is an equal exchange with no profit and not taxable. I beleive there is a

    Supreme Court ruling that states this too.

    There may be hidden and implied contracts agreed by signing these applications. For example it may privately determined in govt that a war is banking interest to defend the treasury. And Social Security is a treasury liability, and you signed the SS-5 or SS card, and agreed to said war and to be taxed for it's implied liabilities.

    That is how they do it.

    Another example, all transportation laws only require drivers liscence, for commercial use.

    I listened to a guy, sure I can not confirm myself.

    He is lawyer ( explicitly not an attorney ) he researched when the illegal statues were brought in during FDR. There was not a new USCode entered or voted in the congressional record, and suddenly many months after recess, the congress opened by announcing 500 or so new Codes registered. That is when this all started.

    This is alot bigger than I know or can explain, it is

    readily available to research and learn about.

    Here is the big one. In the book "The Red Ammendment", about the 14th, each citizen is a dual citizen with their birth state. I read this myself in USCode.

    The way they got you trapped as a corporated citizen of DC, you had to volunteer. There is a line in USCode that I have read. An individual may have chosen not to be a corporate citizen and remain only a State Citizen, called the state national status. You would then have been tricked into volunteering, by registering to vote in a federal election. 14th did not free slaves, it made all people corporate slave-citizens of DC. USCode also says that you are an insurgent if you vote. I am not registered for this reason. There is so much to it, how they got your life and your property. I don't have property for these reasons. Slaves cannot own property ( property tax ).

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 9:27 PM, jasr57 wrote:

    If you want to read about a retirement fund that could really be confiscated, I suggest you read what the Ryan budget plan does to the private part of railroad retirement. It robs as much as a third of the retirement annuities of 300 thousand retired and disabled railroaders and completely does away with parts of their pension program.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 10:19 PM, jamalagrin wrote:

    Writer, Dan Caplinger conveniently forgets that the Obama Administration has already bastardized the 1st Amendment to the Constitution on the freedom of religion and right to assemble, and is currently trying very hard to destroy or circumvent the 2nd Amendment that gives us the right to bear arms.

    Obama has done circumvention around Congress and the Courts by Executive Orders without regard to what the people, the Courts, or what Congress thinks. How about the 2000 plus page Obama Health Care bill that nobody read and was rammed down the throats of the American citizens who overwhelmingly rejected it?

    Obama is currently going to overturn our immigration laws that worked for years and give amnesty to millions of illegal aliens and allow open borders, allowing illegal aliens to take jobs from American citizens, bring in all kinds of diseases, and there may be more drug cartels, or even terrorists coming across the border, which many have done so, already..

    Obama is also planning to violate our sovereignty by joining with a UN mandate on this hoax of Global Warming which will further destroy jobs and our economy.

    What does all this mean with respect to the taking of our IRAs? Well, if Obama can do all of the above without a whimper coming from the zombie like citizenry who are like sheep going to the slaughter, why would anyone doubt that our IRAs can't be taken away? Just look towards Cyprus and notice the monies robbed from the banks over there that once belonged to the citizens.

    This Administration is very dangerous and is leading our nation into a Socialist State from which we may never recover.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 10:44 PM, 1wiseoldfool wrote:

    If this mulatto poor excuse for a president thinks that hard working middle class Americans will sit still while he rattles off executive orders that lead to stealing our retirement funds, he's in for a big surprise.

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 11:17 PM, mtimothy wrote:

    But how can that be, the TV said he was a

    constitutional professor?

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 11:51 PM, bugmenot wrote:

    The people should fear Obama bin Laden. The Blue States have been destroyed by Democrat Policy. Obama can kill you! and he will. His own state, Illinois, is bankrupt with high unemployment. He was trained by Democrat Terrorists!

  • Report this Comment On April 21, 2013, at 11:57 PM, mwr9993 wrote:

    Hard to believe how many Fools America has!

    People don't read the article yet make full assessments of the president, policies he might, or might not be involved in, and of all things, say he is stealing our rights and sovereignty!

    Selling your gold or getting out of the market right now has little to do with the proposed policy, via the alleged budget! Especially if you make less than $1 Million a year and put most of that money in a savings account and an IRA.

    A fool and their money are soon parted! Let the conspiracy theories continue, as I always need something to shake my head! Of course in total disbelief!

  • Report this Comment On April 22, 2013, at 1:03 AM, johngonole wrote:

    Please stop running the "Death of the PC" ad. Its on every single motley fool article I've read for the last two or three years. Very Very tired of reading the opening line. Uuugh. How about a new idea.

  • Report this Comment On April 22, 2013, at 1:07 AM, johngonole wrote:

    I have read articles on think tanks discussing ideas of how to constitutionally convert IRAs into a Government Run annuity. In fact the idea was to help the Govt get new revenues to service the debt. In the article I read it would at first be an optional conversion with new people having to participate or something like that. At any rate is has been a part of serious discussion in D.C.

    Basically it sounded to me Social Security 2.0 where this time we really will save your money for you plan. Except you know they won't.

  • Report this Comment On April 22, 2013, at 1:09 AM, Quester55 wrote:

    When you consider the Track Record, of B.H.Obama & His Other than AMERICAN Policies , One is left with only one course to believe, That this UN-American, Self Serving, Dictator Want-A-Be, Is NOT to be trusted to ever do the Right & Honorable Thing.

    Just a Brief look at his own History, Leaves one wondering how such an person Ever got into the American Government in the First place.

    NO Conspiracy's, NO Theories, JUST Plain FACTS!

    But why would I waste my time Telling you, what you already Know is the Truth, Or Think you know?!

  • Report this Comment On April 22, 2013, at 1:14 AM, DrLonghorn wrote:

    This article was the biggest nothing I have read on MF...nothing but political correctness!

    Save your energy, and write something we paying Fools can use to stay out of Obama's web.

    What the author should have said was that Prez O caters to those who vote for a living...rather than working for a living.

    Equality in standard of living, health care, and now retirement?

    This president is a nightmare for the most productive in our society, and the final nail in the America that I have known for my 70 years.

  • Report this Comment On April 22, 2013, at 3:41 AM, casimcea wrote:

    " but at least for now, fears of outright confiscation are unwarranted. "

    And the definition of now is......?

    We know it happen in Cyprus but will never happen in US, right? RIGHT!!!

    The government never lied or cheated us and will never do it again.

    Brother!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Report this Comment On April 22, 2013, at 7:29 AM, FloridaJo wrote:

    Dan, I'm sure you meant 'tax-deferred' and not 'tax-preferred'.

  • Report this Comment On April 22, 2013, at 9:58 AM, coakleywj wrote:

    Alarmist? It is pretty alarming that the President of the United States is putting a cap of $3 million on retirement accounts. This is basically telling people to spend your money and don't save and if you do you are a fool because we will tax it. Did you notice any provision on pegging the $3 million to inflation? Of course not as in 10 years there will be more money to grab. Motley Fool signs up for whatever Democrats propaganda is spewed. Very disappointing as you would hope they would be independent thinkers not followers.

  • Report this Comment On April 22, 2013, at 11:44 AM, ScottPletcher wrote:

    Dems WILL have to do something; the money simple IS NOT THERE to do what they promised to get themselves elected over and over. Beside, Dems don't actually have to directly confiscate the money from the accounts (they would call it a "tax", of course, so that it would appear constitutional). They can simply reduce your Soc Sec payments based on how much you have in 401Ks. They already STEAL back some of your SS if you receive other retirement payments, so that is not a big stretch.

  • Report this Comment On April 22, 2013, at 12:14 PM, jfcarlucci wrote:

    I must point everyone to a Bloomberg news article

    and since I cannot post links on here. Please search Bloomberg "Retirement Savings Accounts Draw US Consumer Bureau Attention"

    They want to "manage" the accounts so that baby boomers don't fall pray to "scams and fraudulent investors/investments".

    Sooo simple math:

    US Debt= $17trillion

    US Retirement Accounts= $19trillion

    How do you anticipate we're going to pay off our mounting debt?

  • Report this Comment On April 22, 2013, at 12:28 PM, lovemynation wrote:

    Obama never does anything without an alterior motive. Why would he sign an executive order to take our money set aside for OUR retirements, when he doesn't plan on confiscating our money? Just because he says so? Just because his advisors or other party members say so? This is the same party that has ruled with iron fists since the beginning of 2008. Remember the promises that Nancy Pelosi made when the liberals took control over both houses of Congress, once again? That we would see an end to back door wheeling and dealing, no longer would they add to the nation's debt because they had passed "pay-go"? Of course, it was sold to us by the statement that unless the money was there to be spent, they wouldn't do it and wouldn't add more debt onto taxpayers, unless there was an emergency or crisis that forced them to do so. None of us knew then, that they would declare everything a crisis or emergency, so that they could just spend on whim and wish, which is what we have come to know about all our govt bodies. None of them pay any attention to a budget, unless they are ignoring it to keep on spending. Nothing says "pay-go" like us paying as they go ahead and keep spending and adding to the debt., does it? There has been $53,000 added to every man, woman and child, including newborns, since the liberals began controlling DC in 2008. Remember the promise to drain the swamp, to stop the "pay to play" games, the "good ole' boy" you pass mine and I'll pass yours games? Remember how we were to see the most moral and ethical Congress we had EVER had in this country? How is bankrupting the citizens and nation, as well as the constant spending sprees that have continued under the guise of "funding, granting, investing, and schmoozing" for all those hands out waiting to be filled, moral or ethical?

    No. We will see our pensions, 401K's, IRA's, retirements, savings, taken when another emergency or crisis is invented, so that they CAN take it, just like the govt did in the 30's. And now that we have a new ideology in our govt bodies, that ignores the concerns, opinions and hardships of the taxpaying citizens and citizens, they couldn't care less what any of us think or say, unless we are embracing the downcline of this country. And remember too, that most states have already spent the pensions of public emplys, as well as the monies paid by the taxpayers according to the contracts the state has. And since we know too, that Congress has emptied, taken and spent the Soc.Sec. "trust fund" (that we entrusted to govt and was told that it would never be touched and would be protected), to the tune of over $3,5 Trillion they will never pay back, why would we believe that they wouldn't take our pensions? After all, once they have taken care of themselves, made sure that their perks, power and pay remain in place, as well as what they will get when they step down, if ever, they really don't care what happens to those of us out here on Main St. We can't even vote on the immigration bills, instead we are witnessing the allowance of an additional 11-15 million more, who broke our laws, disregard our nation and citizens, and never came to be citizens or taxpayers, no matter what they say or what our leaders say. Remember how we were promised by Reagan AND Congress, that never again would amnesty be granted, that our laws would be enforced? Guess none of those promises meant anything, either. And many of the same leaders are still sitting in DC today. And our leaders no longer see us as anything other than that vote to keep their own seats and tax revenue to be taken and spent as they deem best politically. So much for their oaths of office, or in doing what is right or best for our own nation, our own citizens, and our own children. This IS what the voters wanted, right? That IS why they voted to keep these same people in office that has led us to where we are today? IF not, this shows us just how ignorant and uncaring we have become in our elections. Isn't it time we all paid attention? Isn't it time we all voted every single incumbent OUT of office? Isn't it time to return the nation's future back to the citizens who are legal to vote, and are taxpayers footing all these bills, costs, and taxes, that our leaders keep laying on us to pay, just by signing our names to their debts? Isn't it time for us to stand united, to stop the drain, the blame games, and the non-leading ways of our own elected? I know there has to be better out there. Isn't it time we elected leaders who love our nation, and would return to doing what is right and best FOR AMERICA, AND AMERICANS? I certainly think so. I'd hate to think that I stood alone.

  • Report this Comment On April 22, 2013, at 5:30 PM, rigoletto339 wrote:

    The $3 million cap will affect almost nobody. The Budget document says "... under current rules,

    some wealthy individuals are able to accumulate

    many millions of dollars..." How many is "some"?

    The rich don't need to worry about IRAs. They can park their money in lots of places.

    The 401(k) and the IRA are two of the few places the middle class can use to accumulate wealth.

    The outrageous thing is that he's telling us how much we need: "... substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving".

    Where does the government - or anyone - get off telling us how much is "reasonable"?

    I'd say that Obama is taking far more vacations than are reasonable.

    And since that $3 million number is based on interest rates - which are bound to go up - the cap is bound to go down. How much further down, only time will tell.

  • Report this Comment On April 22, 2013, at 5:46 PM, luckyagain wrote:

    This article is a joke. The only person that I know that has more than $3 million in an IRA is Romney who somehow has $100 million. Since you are only allowed to put a few thousand per year, getting it to $100 million is a real trick. I wonder how he did it?

  • Report this Comment On April 24, 2013, at 12:34 AM, Twinings59 wrote:

    I am not positive but I think when Roosevelt pulled all of the Gold Coins back and issued Paper Money in return for the Gold people got $20 per ounce or the historical Face Value of the $20 One Ounce Gold Coin. Once all of the Gold was collected Roosevelt then re-established (with the Bankesters) the price of an ounce of gold at $50 per Ounce. So the people got one $20 paper fiat Federal Reserve Note when they turned in the one ounce of gold but once the collection was over that same gold coin “if you could buy it back would cost you a $50 Dollar fiat Federal Reserve Note” Talk about the Government steeling from the people through inflation! Our Government has done this in conjunction with the Bankesters and continues to do it to this day by printing money and inflating away our buying power with this currency we call the US Dollar. Now with the only Real Savings left that has been Worked For and Saved by the 99% in this Country to the tune of 19 Trillion Dollars the Greedsters Just can’t help themselves but to try and figure out ways to spend it under the disguise the Savers of the United States need to be protected from the Bad Wall Street Bankesters, when in reality Both our Political Leadership and the Bankesters are all one in the same, and it does not matter what political party they are affiliated with.

    This inflation of fiat currency seems to be the only way they know how to keep the Borrow / Tax / Borrow / Tax and spend, spend, spend -Political Agendas going for each of the different political parties there has got to be a better way. Perhaps we can send more real jobs to China… just kidding…

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2374915, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 9/19/2014 5:56:25 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Dan Caplinger
TMFGalagan

Dan Caplinger has been a contract writer for the Motley Fool since 2006. As the Fool's Director of Investment Planning, Dan oversees much of the personal-finance and investment-planning content published daily on Fool.com. With a background as an estate-planning attorney and independent financial consultant, Dan's articles are based on more than 20 years of experience from all angles of the financial world.

Today's Market

updated Moments ago Sponsored by:
DOW 17,279.74 13.75 0.08%
S&P 500 2,010.40 -0.96 -0.05%
NASD 4,579.79 -13.64 -0.30%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

9/19/2014 4:04 PM
BAC $16.95 Down -0.09 -0.53%
Bank of America CAPS Rating: ****
GLD $117.09 Down -0.69 -0.59%
SPDR Gold Trust (E… CAPS Rating: **
IAU $11.79 Down -0.07 -0.59%
iShares COMEX Gold… CAPS Rating: **
SLV $17.19 Down -0.58 -3.26%
iShares Silver Tru… CAPS Rating: ***
WFC $53.36 Up +0.12 +0.23%
Wells Fargo CAPS Rating: ****

Advertisement