401(k) Foe Teresa Ghilarducci, the Most Dangerous Woman in America

Reader Comments
Back to blog

The old saying about no one's life, liberty or property are safe when the legistlature is in session could not be more true than today.
This kind of thought bubbling up in our government is not about making ends meet, it is about fundamental transformation of who we are as a nation. It is dangerous indeed to our hard-earned investments and personal liberty - all for the sake of power for those who'd rob us to give it to those who vote for a living.
This is just one more creeping tentacle of the beast that is slowly choking the life out of American economics and liberty. Write your representatives and senators - protest anything resembling this kind of grab; insist on our house being put in order. VOTE smartly for liberty and good sense.
Perhaps some of us aren't that investment savvy - that's none of this dangerous lady's business - if my investments fail me I'll do what all good Americans have always done - work as long as able. If I am disabled and lose it all then I'll dow what I can on the system I've paid dearly into for nearly 40 years (on which I'll never see anything like a 'return'). Beyond that I won't ask my government to be my keeper.
Be counted - VOTE.

J Neville of GA 6:37PM October 25, 2010

my entire working life 37yrs, 8.65% has been removed from my pay for social security and medicare. We have the ultimate ponsi sceam,didn't we imprison Madalf for that. The 8.65% in placed in the general fund not the social security system, that would mean the government is already distributing our retirement as it sees fit. I would say we are already at socialism.We work for the government and not ourselves and families.Eliminate the 8.65% deduction from the american paychecks and let us invest or save that money for our future retirements and healthcare benefits,instead of collecting it and placing it into the general fund and forcing americans into a government healthcare plan.If you let american's have the 8.65% we would only need 11.35% to make the 20% saved for retirement. Currently we are expected to save 20% +give the government 8.65%(for a zero return)that is a total of 28.65%.So americans would save 8.65% in their pay to use as they see proper for their lives and society. It is time for we the people to live up to the future our for father's had invisioned "a limited government" governed by we the people.I am a recent transplant to texas as california's over 20%taxation was too rich for me. If americans had to pay their taxes monthly like the rest of your bills you would be giving the government approx 50% or more of your check depending on where you live and they expect you to save an additional 20% for retirement. And you ask why you can't give your children a better education.

Denise Virsack of TX 8:35AM October 24, 2010

I will pull my money and spend it before i let this crooks get a hold of it, i did not work all my life tho give them what i saved they can got to hell for all I care No way please keep us informed as far where they are at now on any bill that would make easy for them to do it, i guess we welcome comunism

Emilio santiago of LA 1:42PM October 21, 2010

Dan Knox of CA @ Apr 20, 2010 14:06:14 PM - YOU said:
She is not a member or government and she cannot make or change any laws.
My reply: Wrong Dan, she is a member of the GAO, the Government Accountability Office, a government agency.

cmm912 of NY 1:54PM October 18, 2010

The theory has been "build your retirment on at least a three legged platform, Pension, Social Security, and private supplimental savings plans, (IRA, 401k,etc). Defined pension plans are disapearing, eliminating one leg of the platform, We know how solid the Social Security system is, and now we are expected to accept a confiscation of our personal suplimental savings plans (IRA's, & 401K's) to prop up that failing ponsi scheme called social Security? Give US A BREAK, and a strong second amendment!
this is not the America I grew up in!

Dan Danner of DE 5:22PM October 17, 2010

How can we trust the Governent with our retirement money when they have proven not to be trusted with any of our money. They spend everything we give them. Even the Governments wonderful Social Security as great as it was planned to be. The Government took, they said borrowed, money from it and have never paid it back. What do you think they would do with your retirement!!!
They WILL rape you again if you let this happen.

Dan Hallinan of VA 11:06AM October 14, 2010

Nick of VA says, "A defined benefit plan violates, by definition, the first maxim of long-term investment - diversification. Under defined benefit plans, you, the beneficiary, depend on the financial soundness of ONE institution (be it a company, state or the federal government) for your future financial well-being."
This might be true, if for example, a company invested their defined benefit plan assets ONLY in their own stock, but that is NOT a requirement, as you seem to think, although it certainly has happened--think Enron. In fact, a (very bad) 401(k) could have the same "feature" by only allowing investment in that company stock.
Granted, the fairly rare "unfunded" defined benefit plan has no reserves at all, but depends on the company's cash position to be able to pay pensions as they come due. The fact is that federal tax incentives for "funded" plans with regulated investment by the employer have made them by far the most common now.
My point is the two kinds of retirement plans are defined by how money is intended to be paid out (defined benefit) or paid in (qualified plan, like 401(k)--or 403(b) or 457, etc.) but NOT how the money is invested and what investment options employees have, if any. Those matters are contractually defined by each company's retirement plan, which has to meet a number of regulatory requirements, and the Congress also speaks through the IRS about taxation or tax benefits on such plans.
Besides being an employee that has had both kinds of retirement plans, I am an experienced tax professional and I deal with the tax consequences of my clients' retirement plans all year long.

SteveInRaleigh of NC 12:46AM October 14, 2010

Great... so we get government IOU's. We all know how fiscally responsible they are in paying all their debts, and so timely, too :|
They don't know how to use the money they're already legally robbing from us. Why in the world would we EVER consider giving them MORE of our money to play with. No thanks! I'll pass.

Seen it coming of MI 12:57PM October 13, 2010

Why are there so many liberals willing to give up their rights, privledges, wealth? Because they're spiritually CASTRATED! No backbone for personal responsibility and in ancient times were the PERFECT SLAVES or weak SLAVEMASTERS.

Joe of TX 10:21AM October 07, 2010

Some who say here that they are grateful for defined pension plans and prescribe them to others are living in lala land. A defined benefit plan violates, by definition, the first maxim of long-term investment - diversification. Under defined benefit plans, you, the beneficiary, depend on the financial soundness of ONE institution (be it a company, state or the federal government) for your future financial well-being. That ONE institution can fail (as in the case of a company) or change its mind (as in the case of state and federal governments which can, at the whim of legislators/voters, severly change the "deal" they made with you in the past). The only protection from this risk is 401k-type plans: portable, invested in a diverse portfolio of real wealth-generating instruments (not just government IOUs), and accountable to you the investor.
"A government large enough to give you everything you want is large enough to take it away." -- Ronald Reagan

Nick of VA 9:41AM September 16, 2010