And just like that, 290M people stopped paying for your retirement, your health care, your roads, your defense, your air traffic control. And so on.

If it's a revenue-neutral time shift, then there's no advantage for us. But we're planning to take out the money when we're in a lower tax bracket, so I can't believe it's revenue neutral.

I don't have a particular problem with increasing the limits on 401(k) and IRA contributions. I also don't have a problem with the government giving everyone a Kraut car, freeing up income that I could then save for retirement.

Ha! No libertarian, you.

Haven't you read all the shit on the Ownership Society? Once freed with the right to determine their own financial destinies, Americans from all economic and educational strata will be investing on par with Buffet, W.

And, I wish I could find the ad or article or something I saw recently about the effect of admin/investment mgmt fees eating into people's accounts. Another big nut that does not affect those who receive defined benefits, but most definitely does affect any kind if investment acct.

Just a realist libertarian. I know that most of the country will want to tax me to pay for gruel for the shits who mortgage their house to go to the super bowl and then, surprise, have no retirement savings. Taking the lowest-cost approach by forcing everyone to pay for the stupidity of everyone else in advance.

This is why, sometimes, I love you.

Sorry. Too late!

Bush specifically said in SOTU that my account wouldn't be eaten away by "hidden Wall Street fees." So that's that.


I have faith.

Although my plan is to take it out when I'm in a lower bracket, I strongly suspect that, although then in a "lower" bracket the rate attached to it will be higher.

The benefit, if revenue neutral, is that people save more and are therefore less likely to become destitute. Odysseus bound himself to the mast for a reason.

This is why, sometimes, Atticus loves you.




Just so you know.

When you're looking, keep an eye out for the article explaining that the management fees for the government-run TSP are lower even than Vanguard's

See, and I was just thinking, and then he comes out with this snotty coastal snob "I went to a fancy school" Greek crap* and my love is dimmed.

*as opposed to ass-fucking greek** crap.

**I am pretty sure that odyssysysysys thing was greek and not roman or whatever.

If it's revenue neutral, why would anyone bother to save more?

Is the gov't going to run the funds for the SS private accounts? I'd actually be pretty hip with that. No marketing fees built in; costs would be pretty low.

The admin fees may still be quite high, though smaller than inv mgmt. It's better for the smaller accounts if they are done as a % of assets rather than a flat fee per account -- flat fees per account for admin fees, while "fairer" in the sense that each person is paying for what they are getting -- really, really cripple small accounts.

I thought the attraction of such institutions of higher learning is that it's a package deal.

Wait. Don't Mormons go to fancy schools too?