kcbob79clone
Well-Known Member
Can't blame SS or Medicare on the Clinton's; darn it!!
But these are more examples of SOCIALISM; not progressive. Closer to Communism than progressivism.
Hillary's 401K Proposal
- Thread starter alaskaguy
- Start date
Can't blame SS or Medicare on the Clinton's; darn it!!
But these are more examples of SOCIALISM; not progressive. Closer to Communism than progressivism.
You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.
INCONCEIVABLE!
That way there is nothing lost in translation:biglaugh:
Last edited by a moderator:
While we're on the subject of Hillary, might as well throw in a great example of what HillaryCare has in store for us:
FOXNews.com - Canada's Expectant Moms Heading to U.S. to Deliver - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News
FOXNews.com - Canada's Expectant Moms Heading to U.S. to Deliver - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News
There are about a million sources I could list that describe exactly those kinds of issues with socialized health care. Do you choose to ignore all of them?
OpinionJournal - Featured Article
Last edited:
I'm going to "ignore" all of them that are pushing the Republican agenda. That includes the very very Republican Wall Street Journal editorial page too.
You can. The 15% limit is something that your employer is putting in as a cap in the design of their plan.
The regulations this year (2007) say you can defer up to 100% of your pay so long as you don't exceed $15,500 (or $20,500 if you are 50 or older in 2007).
There is no compelling reason for your employer to not get rid of the 15% cap and let people defer up to 100% of pay (not to exceed the hard dollar limits listed above).
Obviously, your employer needs to talk to a good retirement plan consultant like me!
2 big problems with this:
-It is a governmental plan...more waste and inefficiency.
-It would "match" contributions...so you only get the match if you defer out of your pay into the plan...this does not change the problem we have with about 25% of people that are eligible for a 401(k) plan not participating right now (and most plans already have a good match)...some people just won't or can't participate.
I have a novel idea...how about just reducing taxes...let us keep more of what we earn. All of this over-taxation and sending money to government for them to dole out as they see fit is assinine. The politicians love to control all this money...that is what makes them powerful. The government is terribly inneficient as we all know. Unfortunately, we have really lost the concept of rugged individualism in this country...too many look to the government to fix everything. We have a hurrican...government handout. We have a flood...government handout. We make less than "$X"...government handout. Our seniors say Rx drugs are too expensive...government handout. It goes on and on...I have to quit, I am depressing myself.
There used to be some rules (tests) in place that made it prudent for an employer to cap the level of employee elective deferrals (typically between 15-20%). However, these rules changed a number of years ago and there is no compelling reason for an employer to keep these employee deferral caps in place.
You are correct, if you make over $100,000 in 2007 then for purposes of a 401(k) plan you are considered a highly compensated employee (HCE). This could further limit your ability to defer unless your employer has adopted a Safe Harbor plan design.
This I do not understand either. If they federally cap it at $16k or whatever, why does it matter if you are an HCE if you max it out. How is that different than a person making $80k that puts 20% in. I never got that one.
I'll try to keep this as simple as possible.
The IRS and DOL have a number of regulations in place relative to qualified retirement plans (like 401k). Non-Safe Harbor plans have to pass something called discrimination testing on an annual basis. This testing ties the amount HCEs contribute to the plan to the amount Non-HCEs contribute to the plan. HCE is defined as any owner of greater than 5% (and any direct lineal ascendants or descendants of that owner that are employees including a spouse that is an employee) no matter what their compensation and anyone that has compensation in excess of $100,000 (for 2007). An average deferral percentage (ADP) test is performed each year and the ADP of the HCE group can only be 2% more than the ADP of the NHCE group. If the gap is greater than 2% then the test is failed and a remedy must occur (usually a refund to the HCEs or an additional QNEC contribution to the NHCEs).
Why you ask? I think it is patently clear that our government (and consequently the regulators at the IRS and DOL) are deathly concerned with the "rich owner types" and "well compensated types" getting over on "the little guy". The bottom line is that most of the regulations accrue to the benefit of the little guy at the expense of owners and the higher compensated individuals.
I’m very familiar with one European healthcare system, and have significant experience with others. I have no experience with the Canadian system, except that all the Canadians I’ve met seem to think it is better than ours. Based on my experience, I would certainly take a European-style socialized/national healthcare over what we have.
The key to advancing any conversation about healthcare, however, is to acknowledge that either type of system has winners and losers. The winners in our system are those that require very profitable medicine. This includes some frivolous things, like much of plastic surgery, but also absolutely necessary things like neonatal intensive care, which you reference in the news article above. (Note that while the Fox News article was factually accurate, the heading and the lead in is completely misleading and reveals an editorial slant.) The market-driven healthcare system makes sure that there is plenty of capacity for any service that is very profitable, such as neonatal intensive care, whereas government-driven system may be very slow to respond to increased demand to such services.
On the other hand, the losers in our system are those in need of unprofitable medicine, such as emergency medicine for the poor (no insurance) or a variety of chronic conditions for the middle class. The reason I favor national/socialized healthcare is that the losers in our system are the patients that are in the most need, because they are either very sick or very poor. Those people are better off in a European-style system.
Not to oversimplify, but does this make the losers in a state run health care system those who are willing and able to pay their own bills? Instead of doing so, they pay the costs of the non-willing and non-able in the form of increased taxes?
I actually think it is a fairly accurate simplification, and in general I'm for people paying their own bills. When it comes to paying for healthcare, however, many people are non-able due to circumstances of genetics, environment, and/or accidents that are out of their control. (Rather than just being bums.) While this is a minority of people, it is the people the need the healthcare system the most, and it is the people our system is letting down.
