Gyroscopic Investing

http://news.yahoo.com/greece-taps-publi ... wAULbQtDMD

Latest news about the actions of Greece's Marxist Minister of Economics. With credentials like his, what could possibly go wrong?

And note that the confiscation is not really a confiscation; it's a "loan," along with an ironclad guarantee to pay "even higher interest" than a non-compulsory loan!

So ya'll better hurry on down to the Ministry of Finance to buy more Greek bonds before they are snapped up!

This is coming to a town near you and unfortunately does not surprise me the least bit.

I stopped contributing to my retirement account years ago, I invest a little into tax free accounts here and there, but for the most part stick with non-registered.

Mike59 wrote: I stopped contributing to my retirement account years ago, I invest a little into tax free accounts here and there, but for the most part stick with non-registered.

Does anyone else on here feel as strongly about this as Mike59? If a government is going to seize IRA assets can't they just grab anything they want? Does it really matter what kind of account it is in?

barrett wrote: Does anyone else on here feel as strongly about this as Mike59? If a government is going to seize IRA assets can't they just grab anything they want? Does it really matter what kind of account it is in?

No.  Yes.  No.

At the present time, any attempt in the U.S. to seize pension funds would be howled down, unlike places such as Greece and Argentina.

But when interest rates return to their historic level, as they inevitably will - say 3 or 4% or even higher - this will put a huge strain on the government's debt-paying ability. Then politicians will be tempted to "punish the evil rich," meaning anybody with a job and those vicious PPers who "oppress the poor" by daring to build savings. At that time the politicians will try to confiscate private pension funds, in the form of forced loans, as a "temporary" means of "helping the poor."

goodasgold wrote: At the present time, any attempt in the U.S. to seize pension funds would be howled down, unlike places such as Greece and Argentina.

But when interest rates return to their historic level, as they inevitably will - say 3 or 4% or even higher - this will put a huge strain on the government's debt-paying ability. Then politicians will be tempted to "punish the evil rich," meaning anybody with a job and those vicious PPers who "oppress the poor" by daring to build savings. At that time the politicians will try to confiscate private pension funds, in the form of forced loans, as a "temporary" means of "helping the poor."

Bullshit.  The politicians will never punish the rich because they're owned (R and D) by the rich.

For example, rather than confiscate private pension funds (which I think is obviously a non-starter) lets talk about imposing means tests on Social Security.  I mean really, Warren Buffett draws the same SS check every month as a working class stiff?  Clearly, anyone with more than $100M in assets shouldn't be eligible to draw anything from SS. 

This would never pass because the rich (in this case the Rs owned by the rich) would never let it pass.  They'd say the problem is this creates a slippery slope where the "more than X" number then gets whacked down to something in the range of what a working class stiff might have accumulated (is $10M an issue with anyone here?  how about $1M?  how about $100K?  See how this works?).

The fundamental issue is the rich own both the Rs and the Ds, so anything that actually soaks the rich WILL NOT HAPPEN.

Wall Street wants people investing their retirement money.  If there's a possibility the government will confiscate this money, Wall Street will make less money.  Ergo, Wall Street (who owns both the Rs and the Ds) will keep this from happening.

rickb wrote: Bullshit.  The politicians will never punish the rich because they're owned (R and D) by the rich.

For example, rather than confiscate private pension funds (which I think is obviously a non-starter) lets talk about imposing means tests on Social Security.  I mean really, Warren Buffett draws the same SS check every month as a working class stiff?  Clearly, anyone with more than $100M in assets shouldn't be eligible to draw anything from SS. 

This would never pass because the rich (in this case the Rs owned by the rich) would never let it pass.  They'd say the problem is this creates a slippery slope where the "more than X" number then gets whacked down to something in the range of what a working class stiff might have accumulated (is $10M an issue with anyone here?  how about $1M?  how about $100K?  See how this works?).

That sounds like a valid slippery slope argument if ever there was one. Just look at the taxing of social security benefits. By not indexing for inflation one could conclude it was intentionally designed to be sent on its way down the slippery slope from the very beginning.

I don't know it for a fact but I strongly suspect that Warren Buffet and many of his rich friends would be in favor of means testing social security. What do they care if they get social security checks or not?

rickb wrote: Bullshit.  The politicians will never punish the rich because they're owned (R and D) by the rich.

Meh. Any new taxes on the truly connected are generally repaid in special favors. Never underestimate the willingness in Congress to soak the country as a whole while carving out an exclusion for themselves and their donors.

rickb wrote:
Bullshit.  The politicians will never punish the rich because they're owned (R and D) by the rich.

Oh yeah? Just tell it to the  politicians placed in office by the "rich voters" of Venezuela, Argentina, Greece, Russia, Zimbabwe, etc., etc., etc. Of course, the thugs now in office in these afflicted nations can be characterized as the "new rich," but they didn't start out that way. Nancy Pelosi, anyone?

Soon to be coming to a country very close to all of us.... 

barrett wrote:

Mike59 wrote: I stopped contributing to my retirement account years ago, I invest a little into tax free accounts here and there, but for the most part stick with non-registered.

Does anyone else on here feel as strongly about this as Mike59? If a government is going to seize IRA assets can't they just grab anything they want? Does it really matter what kind of account it is in?

Not quite, no, and yes, respectively.
Note that I'm not claiming that ameliorating this risk is easy: it isn't.