<p>No…paranoia is bad. You are being manipulated, busdriver11. That is the intention. Don’t fall for that crap because a part of you likes to be a little paranoid. </p>
<p>THERE IS NO CONFISCATION OF 401ks PLANNED. </p>
<p>NONE.</p>
<p>I hope that is clear. :)</p>
<p>Whether to put more money into 401ks is a different issue. Right now, I kind of agree with what BCEagle 91 has mentioned. You have to look at capital gains tax rates and ordinary tax rates. </p>
<p>And these rates may change so it is harder to make the investing decision in a 401k.</p>
<p>I am going to be around when the world ends. I hope you are too.</p>
<p>Well, your definition uses the word irrational.</p>
<p>But that term can be subjective.</p>
<p>Paranoia is useful in some jobs.</p>
<p>There are some jobs where people are typically over-optimistic about their skills or work. There are jobs where your goal is to find flaws in the work of others. And a healthy distrust can be of benefit when you’re trying to find flaws.</p>
<p>I don’t think I’ve ever said that there is a planned confiscation of 401K’s. But I have said that it has been discussed, which does concern me.</p>
<p>I have managed to avert disaster and issues that would be purely problematic by being suspicious and alert, not completely trusting in others for things that matter. Many would call it paranoid, overly concerned, but I know I have saved myself and others. I also generally scope out the exits and consider what I could use for a weapon when I am in an enclosed area. Not overly concerned, but ready, just in case. You can’t go about life blindly trusting that someone else is going to take care of you.</p>
<p>I know there are those who love to manipulate our fears (of course, that’s how the politicians get votes), but it doesn’t mean that there isn’t truth to some of these concerns.</p>
<p>I’m having an end of the world party. If I’m not around after Dec 21st, at least we will have had some fun with good friends.</p>
<p>401k confiscation was never discussed, busdriver11. </p>
<p>You should read the source and not the manipulation.</p>
<p>Being suspicious is not the same as being paranoid. You should be more suspicious of people that lie about the confiscation of 401ks.</p>
<p>I am suspicious. My job also depended on being suspicious.</p>
<p>I am long AIG. There have been two large secondaries in this stock recently.
Now, I am sure it is just a coincidence that there are a lot of bullish reports about the stock now, after all these funds bought the stock on the secondaries and want the
stock to go higher.</p>
<p>I am suspicious for a reason though. A lot of bullish reports are just hype jobs to manipulate people to buy stocks, so the stocks go up.</p>
<p>I am sure your suspicions were more important in the scheme of things than mine.</p>
<p>Paranoia can be in different ways - if the Government dishes out entitlements with actuarial values of a million bucks to any and all, especially unfunded ones, the million dollar 401k that someone has earned and saved gets devalued to very little.</p>
<p>In a discussion of paranoia vs suspicion, you can’t leave critical thinking out of the equation. Paranoia without any valid evidence or prior history is misdirected energy.<br>
Critical thinking is a pretty good defense against a lot of stuff.</p>
<p>I am one of them. Sorry. I also believe they should tighten SS benefits. I don’t believe we can grow out of the debt. To me, that’s just a fancy talk made to avoid tough choices.</p>
<p>You screw a large part of the population because their life expectancy has not gone up two years since medicare was set at age 65.</p>
<p>The government doesn’t save much money because people aged 65 and 66 are the healthiest people receiving health care. </p>
<p>The public’s health care costs go up.
It is a gift to insurance companies. They make a lot more money.</p>
<p>We have the data on how many people pay estate taxes each year.</p>
<p>I promise you estates under 20 million are subject to the estate tax. I have anecdotal evidence. Remember also, not everybody is married when they make their money. Some people don’t have kids</p>
<p>Some of the prior posts about paranoia are bizarre.</p>
<p>I should not discuss things with people who are paranoid. It is hard to have a rational discussion with people who are paranoid. By definition. </p>
<p>I think instead of green boxes, we should have red boxes, that would indicate a certain number of posts based on emotion instead of intellect, so we can easily see who the irrational people are and save a lot of
time. We can have posters admit when they are irrational and they can give themselves their own points and their own red boxes. They can ask their online friends to give them more points. The screens will quickly fill up with the color red. :)</p>
<p>“Critical thinking is a pretty good defense against a lot of stuff.”</p>
<p>True, but one person’s suspicion is another’s paranoia. I find it useful to believe that most politicians are just trying to buy votes and power, no matter what side they’re on.
I don’t always believe that people are trying to follow a logical course of action, because their logical course of action is to increase power and get re-elected, not solve problems.</p>
<p>Now if these guys come up with some reasonable solutions that actually have a chance of digging us out of this hole, I’ll eat my words.</p>
<p>“I should not discuss things with people who are paranoid. It is hard to have a rational discussion with people that are paranoid. By definition.”</p>
<p>Sure, but then perhaps you can’t have a rational discussion with anyone whom you disagree with. Because you believe something differently, they are paranoid, irrational. Try that one on your wife in an argument, see how far it gets you…</p>
<p>I read your factcheck article and it did justify your position that we don’t have to worry about 401K confiscation. So I do feel better after reading it. But there was enough in there to justify people being suspicious of what could be done with them. I wonder if the nationalization of Argentina’s private pension plans also started out as just an idea, discussed lightly as “an option”.</p>
<p>post # 476
"“I should not discuss things with people who are paranoid. It is hard to have a rational discussion with people that are paranoid. By definition.”
Nobody is discussing confiscation…</p>
<p>Geez…</p>
<p>It’s late. </p>
<p>Time to go to sleep. </p>
<p>I don’t have a lot of faith in politicians.</p>
<p>The fiscal cliff is political bull…</p>
<p>My wife is pretty rational. She is not paranoid. She has a very good head on her soldiers.</p>
<p>Oh, I know. I was talking generally. I would think most people are married, or have been married and had kids, most likely two kids. If they are not married or have kids, passing on wealth and avoiding estate tax becomes less relevant. I think people bring in exceptions to avoid an honest discourse. Unless exceptions are quite widespread, we have to treat exceptions separately.</p>
<p>About medicare, if they are so healthy at 65-67, how do they save money by raising the age? Is CBO so stupid? If there’s a better way to cut the expense, I would support that, too. I just don’t believe we can get out of the debt by growth or taxing top 2% alone. People keep bringing how we did in Clinton times. Am I wrong thinking that even then we didn’t grow out of debt, just that the growth in debt was slowing and we would be out in 10-20 years if continued. That was when economy was expanding at an accerlerated rate and that resulted in tech bubble unfortunately. You can’t budget assuming a most prosperous time.</p>
<p>I also think they should cut SS benefits somehow. Although we benefitted from it, I think childcare benefit should go except for the most needy people. Retirement benefits are to grow old with dignity. If people are still raising kids, they shouldn’t retire unless they are financially independent. It can’t be on the government.</p>
<p>We can means test SS for people over 65 who have kids, so we don’t give SS to kids when their parents are wealthy.</p>
<p>I like the CBO.</p>
<p>As far as Buffett…yeah he is full of it…</p>
<p>"I think the proposal on its face is disingenuous. People who are skirting the estate tax should keep their mouths shut.</p>
<p>I will change my mind if we get rid of the charity loophole, the dynasty trust, and all the other stuff that is being used to evade the estate tax."</p>
Remember also, not everybody is married when they make their money. Some people don’t have kids</p>