More facts revealed on Hillary's 401K plan

[BootinUp]

Clinton laid out a proposal to provide a universal 401(k) plan for everyone, at a speech Tuesday in Webster City, Iowa.

She said the savings rate today is lower than it was in 1929, more than 75 million workers do not have employer-sponsored pensions to save for retirement and many people who do have retirement plans are not saving enough.

Under her "American Retirement Accounts" plan, everyone would have access to a portable 401(k) and the government would offer matching tax cuts of up to $500 to $1,000 to help middle class and working families save. The campaign estimates it would cost $20 billion to $25 billion a year to provide the matching tax cuts and said she would pay for it by freezing the estate tax at 2009 levels.

snip

Her plan would provide a matching refundable tax credit for 100% of the first $1,000 in savings for every married couple making up to $60,000 and would provide a 50% match on the first $1,000 of savings for couples making between $60,000 and $100,000 a year. The accounts would allow individuals to contribute up to $5,000 per year on a tax-deferred basis.

snip

Clinton said she would bolster social security by returning to fiscal responsibility. "I don't think there's any doubt that we've got to fight and finally bury the idea of privatizing Social Security," Clinton said, calling it a bad idea that would not be discussed when she became president. She said people like Bush were crying wolf about Social Security, trying to get people confused and upset and get them to agree to a bad deal.

read more here: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/09/403792.aspx

[Critters2]

1. Webster City?!!!!

I used to live there!! I miss Iowa at caucus time. I'll never get that close to candidate here. :sigh:

[papau]

2. It is a variation/improvement on the 1998 Clinton American Savings Plan - still a great idea n/t

n/t

[antigop]

7. Totally, totally disagree. We need defined benefit pensions, not DC plans. n/t

[papau]

12. True - we do need defined benefit plans, but DC is better than the current nothing that over 50% of

workers now have.

Funding a DB plan for the nation can be done either low cost - via generational as with Social Security meaning we increase Social Security benefits and taxes - or with a side fund development as was intended for SS originally until the GOP got scared of the side fund owning a quarter of America and screamed "Socialism by the back door" in the late 30's and early 40's.

But getting either funding passed would be quite hard - whereas this funding - the $25 billion per year - might actually make it through Congress.

[antigop]

25. This is just a ploy to pump up the stock market. That's all.

<edit to add> We already have IRA's -- even if people don't have a 401(k). People can put about $5,000 per person ($10,000 per year for a married couple) into a ROTH IRA.

There is no need for this. Take the money and do something else constructive with it -- put it into Social Security, health fund, infrastructure -- anything.

And where was she when people were getting cash balanced? If she cares about retirement security,where was she during the cash balance pension battles?

[scarletwoman]

3. Sorry. I don't consider 401Ks to be savings accounts, they are gambling accounts.

I work at a casino. The house always wins.

[BootinUp]

4. With a 100% or even 50% match

I think many would disagree with you. Not to mention that there are impressive gains made over the long term by investing wisely.

[scarletwoman]

5. Whatever. I'm an anti-capitalist radical. I wouldn't put one single penny into the stock market,

no matter what the possible gains.

I will not support the Owner Class in any way shape or form. Why would I collaborate with the oppressors?

[BootinUp]

6. Read you loud and clear

I won't try and sway you toward taking advantage of this plan in the future.

[scarletwoman]

8. Thanks. (nt)

[madrchsod]

10. do`t worry-- there`s no way this can be funded

[scarletwoman]

11. Not worried because it's irrelevent to me. I will fight against Hillary Clinton all the way to the

general election. And if she's the nominee I won't vote for her.

[cali]

21. Bully for you! n/t

[leftist_not_liberal]

29. Swoon

:toast:

[beachmom]

22. Sorry, but keeping your money in, say, CDs, is equally risky

because the interest rate does not exceed the inflation rate. Perhaps you can take time out of posting at DU to learning Investing 101. The stock market has always gone up within a 10 year period. The trick is to invest at your comfort level -- you can invest in the index 500, invest in bonds, and a money market if you are risk-averse, balancing and diversifying. And, goodness, I hope you have a pension plan if you don't have a 401(k); social security is supposed to be supplemental income in your retirement -- you need more than that.

[madrchsod]

9. there is no way to fund this program

unless she started cutting the defense budget ....you really think this is going to happen?

[WCGreen]

13. As a taxpreparer I would have to say that this is making things a bit

complicated for low income tax payers...

It will probably make me more money if it passes...

But I really don't like to use the tax code as social engineering...

Honestly, I just can't see a whole lot of people who are working hard, raising kids and having to deal with all the problems that come at you everyday if you are in that tax bracket make time to set up these plans and then keep funding them and then filling out complicated tax forms...

It took years before people took advantage of the Earned Income Credit...

[dailykoff]

14. Very good point.

If this is a tax credit thing it's useless. And if it's funded by an increase in SS withholding (what else) it's doubly useless, except to Wall Street of course.

[paulk]

16. I don't know if this is a good plan or not

I don't know enough about it.

But it's pretty clear that it's not "funded by an increase in SS withholding". It has nothing to do with SS.

[dailykoff]

18. Not yet perhaps,

and I did say if. However, "personal responsibility" means you pay for what you get, usually more than once, and the SSA is currently in the business of collecting payroll taxes.

[beachmom]

23. At the very least, we should have a portable 401(k), though.

With the way people work these days, there is constantly stops and starts in creating a retirement fund. It would be so much nicer if you could start working, begin a 401(k) and have it remain throughout your working life, instead of having to roll it over into an IRA. Also, when you start a new job, it takes a year oftentimes before you can start contributing to a 401(k). The job changes, so much more common now than 50 years ago, means being deprived of consistently saving in a tax free account.

As to the tax credit, I agree that the complexity may be a bit much. The compromise of just having a portable 401k would probably get broad support from both parties. It's a winner, and I could probably convince all my friends that it is a great idea.

[calteacherguy]

15. What about single people? nt

[leftofthedial]

17. sounds like a moderate repuke plan

tax cuts and 401(k)'s do nothing for the unemployed

or someone faced with insurmountable debt due to medical costs

[BootinUp]

19. Ah yes, every program has to be for the lower economic class

in order to be worthy. I forgot.

[leftofthedial]

26. this is supposed to be a comprehensive plan

for all Americans

addressing the needs of only the top third or so is how repukes operate

[beachmom]

24. As a Democrat, I like the plan very much. You actually get

more support if you help the middle class AND the lower class. The problem with programs for the poor only is that they're the first on the chopping block, because the constituency has less leverage -- but include the middle class, and you've got some real power to keep it in place long term. That means the poor can count on it -- isn't that what you are for?

Go back and check the New Deal -- it helped everyone, and that's what Democrats should be doing.

[leftofthedial]

27. this program is no New Deal

it *excludes* those lower on the economic scale because it is designed such that the more you have, the better it serves you. That's repuke-style economic elitism, not NEw Deal egalitarianism.

[Terri S]

20. If Hillary Clinton wants to talk about fiscal responsibility

she should start with her own 'earmarks' i.e. pork!

LINK

[BootinUp]

28. kick

:kick:

Trying to get something other than Hillary bashing on the 1st page.