Quantcast

Treasury Debating Annuitizing 401k's - ie Confiscating for the public good

stoney

Part of the unwashed, middle-American horde
Jul 26, 2006
21,660
7,332
Colorado
I generally don't forward political info like this, but this is big, and financial. The link below is to an article with info andd the source document stating that the US Treasury is debating annuitizing 401k's. That the Treasury is debating annuitizing 401k's is a conversation about effective socialization of your private funds - 401k's, and probably IRA's at some point too.

For those not sure what annuitizing is, you are putting in a set amount of money over a set time period, and you will get a set amount of money every month after a certain age until you die. If you don't make it to the payout date, the funds are gone. Your next of kin does not get them, gone. If you are a prodigious saver and have tripled the amount of money in your 401k by good investing and saving, that doesn't matter, because you get a set amount every month. No wild vacations to exotic locations because you did a great jub of saving, because you get a set amount of money every month. Again, any money you have made goes away upon your death. Social Security is an annuity, every paycheck you put in 5% of your income into the pool, which we all know will not have any money by the time we retire.

As it stands now, most of us can expect to not get social security based on the size of the pool and the promised benefits. A way to bridge this gap would be to take all funds currently held in private retirement accounts, and adding them into the SS pool to offset the short comings of the current promised amounts. What happens in this process, is that those who do set aside large portions of their income into 401k's, being fically smart and reducing current benefit for long-term savings, will lose that money and control over it. This will punish those who have been living within or below their means to save for the future, while those who are living beyond their means will have a bailout for poor fiscal sense.

Go look at your last 401k statement. If this passes, you can just go ahead and write that off. Think about what fun you could have had with an extra $500/month, or if you are maxing out your 401k, $1050/month. That's a new car, a few vacations to the tropics, bigger house, etc. Gone, no mas, it isn't yours anymore, don't worry the government will take care of you in the future though, that's a promise you can trust. Just like their other promises...

-Stone
---------------------

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/treasury-soliciting-your-feedback-regarding-proposed-annuitization-401k


The Treasury Is Soliciting Your Feedback Regarding The Proposed Annuitization Of 401(k)


Yes, slowly but surely it is happening. In a federal notice filed earlier, the DOL and Treasury are soliciting a response on what has been on many investors' mind, namely the process of converting 401(k)s into annuity-like products. To wit:

The Department of Labor and the Department of the Treasury (the "Agencies") are currently reviewing the rules under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the plan qualification rules under the Internal Revenue Code (Code) to determine whether, and, if so, how, the Agencies could or should enhance, by regulation or otherwise, the retirement security of participants in employer-sponsored retirement plans and in individual retirement arrangements (IRAs) by facilitating access to, and use of, lifetime income or other arrangements designed to provide a lifetime stream of income after retirement. The purpose of this request for information is to solicit views, suggestions and comments from plan participants, employers and other plan sponsors, plan service providers, and members of the financial community, as well as the general public, on this important issue.
A cursory read of the document does not seem to ask about a flat out regulatory requirement for annuitization. We point your attention to item 13:
13. Should some form of lifetime income distribution option be required for defined contribution plans (in addition to money purchase pension plans)? If so, should that option be the default distribution option, and should it apply to the entire account balance? To what extent would such a requirement encourage or discourage plan sponsorship?
For readers who feel compelled to respond to this increasignly socialistic and ludicrous development, we suggest you voice your anger at the following address:
e-ORI@dol.gov. Include RIN 1210-AB33 in the subject line of the message
 

jimmydean

The Official Meat of Ridemonkey
Sep 10, 2001
41,294
13,410
Portland, OR
So for people like me who suck at investing, I get the win off the smart folks? Where do I sign up?
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
I heard they are going to start charging 10 cents for every email too!

If this passes, you can just go ahead and write that off.
Just "write it off?"

You have no idea how this works, do you?
 

stoney

Part of the unwashed, middle-American horde
Jul 26, 2006
21,660
7,332
Colorado
Yes, I know exactly how annuitization works. I also know that with annuitization I do not have freedom of choice in my investments, with MY money. The reason my 401k is as big as it currently is, is due to choice. I took a risk with MY money and took it out of the mkt in late 2008, putting all new funds into cash. I also took another risk mid-last year by going all in again. Instead of being down 30%, I'm up 75%. My money, my risk, my reward.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
54,512
20,312
Sleazattle
Yes, I know exactly how annuitization works. I also know that with annuitization I do not have freedom of choice in my investments, with MY money. The reason my 401k is as big as it currently is, is due to choice. I took a risk with MY money and took it out of the mkt in late 2008, putting all new funds into cash. I also took another risk mid-last year by going all in again. Instead of being down 30%, I'm up 75%. My money, my risk, my reward.
I had great choices with my company 401k, I could invest in company stock or a company ran mutual fund that pretty much followed company stock, there was a money market fund too. It was awesome, every option I had underperformed the market except for the money market fund.

Every time I contributed I felt so free!
 

stoney

Part of the unwashed, middle-American horde
Jul 26, 2006
21,660
7,332
Colorado
Westy, that's unfortunate, but not everyone has sucs ****ty options. We got hit hard with wife's 401k, as there was no way to get to mmkt. We got lucky that mine has the option, but with that, I am able to do my own investing (within Mut Funds). Not being able to control what a) funds I invest in, or b) what goes into the funds, especially while being trapped in an annuity... Sorry, no. Annuities exist to makes insurance co's rich.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
54,512
20,312
Sleazattle
Westy, that's unfortunate, but not everyone has sucs ****ty options. We got hit hard with wife's 401k, as there was no way to get to mmkt. We got lucky that mine has the option, but with that, I am able to do my own investing (within Mut Funds). Not being able to control what a) funds I invest in, or b) what goes into the funds, especially while being trapped in an annuity... Sorry, no. Annuities exist to makes insurance co's rich.
Actually I had a great option with a pension, 5% guaranteed rate. Same folks who couldn't manage not to lose money when asked to make as much as possible are able to significantly over-fund when asked to only make 5%.
 

eaterofdog

ass grabber
Sep 8, 2006
8,357
1,606
Central Florida
Yes, I know exactly how annuitization works. I also know that with annuitization I do not have freedom of choice in my investments, with MY money. The reason my 401k is as big as it currently is, is due to choice. I took a risk with MY money and took it out of the mkt in late 2008, putting all new funds into cash. I also took another risk mid-last year by going all in again. Instead of being down 30%, I'm up 75%. My money, my risk, my reward.
I did pretty much the same thing. Sweet, ain't it?
 

Pesqueeb

bicycle in airplane hangar
Feb 2, 2007
40,382
16,870
Riding the baggage carousel.
If it looked like the goverment was going to annuitize 401k's whats to prevent a person from pulling the chute early and cashing out? (other than the giant tea-bagging you get with fees and taxes). But if your looking at the gubment taking over your 401k by annuitization might you not come out ahead by moving the cash to a mutual fund or money market or even maybe an old fashioned savings account? I realize this is probably a dumb question but there is a reason I'm working a blue collar job and not at Morgan Stanley.
 

stoney

Part of the unwashed, middle-American horde
Jul 26, 2006
21,660
7,332
Colorado
You can not leave a 401k at a company you still work for. You can stop contributing, but the contributed assets are stuck.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
54,512
20,312
Sleazattle
You ain't getting out of it that easy.
People in my family tend to either live late into their 90's or die before or weeks after retiring. Following that pattern makes planning kind of hard. **** it and spend it all while young or save my ass off for a long long fruitful life?

I say spend it all now. The long fruitful life can easily be cured with a shotgun.
 

Pesqueeb

bicycle in airplane hangar
Feb 2, 2007
40,382
16,870
Riding the baggage carousel.
You can not leave a 401k at a company you still work for. You can stop contributing, but the contributed assets are stuck.
Not the info I was hoping for. :mad:
On the other hand, is their a more reliable source for this story other than a guy calling himself "Tyler Durden"? Why should I think of this as more than tinfoil talk?
 

stoney

Part of the unwashed, middle-American horde
Jul 26, 2006
21,660
7,332
Colorado
Not the info I was hoping for. :mad:
On the other hand, is their a more reliable source for this story other than a guy calling himself "Tyler Durden"? Why should I think of this as more than tinfoil talk?
Don't look at the messenger, look at the message. The information, linked from the govt site, is there. Would you trust that it was a good thing is Jim Cramer told you it was? Again, look at the message, not the messenger.
 

Pesqueeb

bicycle in airplane hangar
Feb 2, 2007
40,382
16,870
Riding the baggage carousel.
Don't look at the messenger, look at the message. The information, linked from the govt site, is there. Would you trust that it was a good thing is Jim Cramer told you it was? Again, look at the message, not the messenger.
Just playing devils advocate here. I saw the government site stuff. I'm just wondering is this one of those things where some loony tunes interprets something in a totally irrational manner? For the record I do read it the same way, but as I've said before I do not have a degree in high finance. You would think something like what "Mr. Durden" believes is going on would get some major press time if others were interpreting the Treasury statement the same way would you not? And no, I wouldn't trust Jim Cramer to feed my dog.


you'd be surprised how much talk i hear about that down here in da souf.
No I wouldn't
 
Last edited:

stoney

Part of the unwashed, middle-American horde
Jul 26, 2006
21,660
7,332
Colorado
I have a friend who was on the receiving end of a TD commentary. He hates the guy and undermines him at any attempt. When i called him out on the content of what the commentary was about, he tried to brush it off and point out the guy's background (which is shady with an insider trading hit in there), but TD was right. The content needed a light shined onto it.

While he might have an 'interesting' and somewhat quesetionable background, TD has been shining a light on some of the more unsavory points of the financial markets.

Sort of the logic of having Joe Kennedy create the SEC, have the guy elbows deep in the isht write to rules knowing what kind of isht needs to be prevented. If you look at Joe Kennedy's record pre-SEC, you'd call him a criminal. If you look at his record post-SEC, you'd see that he created the rules that kept our financial mkts humming until Congress f*ed everything up in the 80's.
 
Last edited:

dante

Unabomber
Feb 13, 2004
8,807
9
looking for classic NE singletrack
Call me when it gets beyond "there's a questionable journalist making inferences about a few lines in a statement about an upcoming meeting..." To go off half-cocked right now and start screaming about "DON'T TAKE OUR 401(k)S!!" would be similar to the dipsh!t teabaggers screaming against Socialized Medicine when in fact they're all on Medicare. You might not think there's a difference between providing health care to the poor and confiscating people's 401(k) accounts, but there is. We're not a communist country yet, no matter what Glen Beck tells you.
 

stoney

Part of the unwashed, middle-American horde
Jul 26, 2006
21,660
7,332
Colorado
Karl, while generally an angy Libertarian, is regularly correct in his assessments. Scary that a blogger can be right more often than the media...
 

dante

Unabomber
Feb 13, 2004
8,807
9
looking for classic NE singletrack