Green Room

Why is Obama punishing retirees and savers?

posted at 5:53 pm on May 1, 2013 by

That’s a good question, one posed by my colleague at The Fiscal Times, Liz Peek.  In Barack Obama’s budget proposal, tax-deferred contributions to IRA or 401K retirement plans would be capped at $3 million — even though the savings rate in the country fell to 2.6% in Q1, the lowest since before the Great Recession:

This particular effort to “level the playing field,” as Obama is so fond of saying, will hit those who work hard, reap the rewards, and save aggressively. It especially sends the wrong message to young people. An analysis by the Employee Benefit Research Analysis suggests that anywhere from 1 percent to 6 percent of workers age 26 to 35 might ultimately hit the cap, depending on investment returns, asset allocation decisions and other variables.

What is the point? The proposal is expected to save the government only $9 billion over the next 10 years – a drop in the budget bucket. This suggestion is not aimed at balancing our books, but at preventing the industrious from getting ahead. This, at a moment when it is clear that the nation should be promoting, and not discouraging savings, when Social Security looks likely to become another welfare program rather than a broad-based retirement account, and when the government boasts about reducing – not adding — red tape. And when, by the way, young people have been scorched by the financial crisis and are skittish about investing. Young people who live in a time that celebrates conspicuous consumption and not thrift. …

President Obama is offended by the growing gap between rich and poor, a worrisome trend. His remedy – and seemingly lone economic goal — is to raise taxes on the wealthy, which this year will be the highest since 1979, when the Tax Policy Center started keeping track.

Taxes on top earners will be even higher yet next year, thanks to Obamacare. Instead of building up middle class wealth through growing jobs and the economy, Obama wants to slash income at the top. This proposal for a first-ever cap on tax-deferred savings accounts is more of the same – meager policy and a bad idea.

He just wants more income to tax.

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

president pain.

aren’t you so proud of your vote for him, libtards?

tom daschle concerned on May 1, 2013 at 5:56 PM

Why did Stalin punish the kulaks?

“Hoarders” must be made to share. They must also beocme less financially independent and more dependent on the state. Otherwise, they might wield political clout that rightly belongs with those few leaders who can direct everything to the greater good.

Wethal on May 1, 2013 at 6:09 PM

Pensions also need to be capped. Especially public sector pensions, like the President’s.

It’s only fair.

malclave on May 1, 2013 at 6:24 PM

Leveling the playing field for progressives has always been about confining wealth in the hands of a few supporters and removing it from any potential political enemy. It’s the same in every communist, socialist, aka progressive society ever established. Anyone who finds this fascinating, hasn’t been paying attention.

BKeyser on May 1, 2013 at 6:28 PM

Because they’ll be dead soon anyways.

-Libs

portlandon on May 1, 2013 at 6:30 PM

At some point, you have enough money. Duh.

beatcanvas on May 1, 2013 at 6:55 PM

The legend:

Mr. Sutton, why do you rob banks?
Because that’s where the money is?

The fact:
Mr. Sutton, why do you rob banks?
Because I enjoyed it; I never felt so alive when I was inside a bank, robbing it….

I think both the legend and the fact are true of the current occupant of the WH….that’s where the money is; liberals are drooling over pension funds…and the truth is, he enjoys it.

EastofEden on May 1, 2013 at 6:58 PM

That’s a good question, one posed by my colleague at The Fiscal Times, Liz Peek. In Barack Obama’s budget proposal, tax-deferred contributions to IRA or 401K retirement plans would be capped at $3 million

Drive the cash into US savings bonds?

One day, we will be forced to trade the cash in our savings accounts for US Treasury notes. You can take that to the bank.

The lack of lynch mobs in Cyprus has only encouraged the coming stealing by the government.

BobMbx on May 1, 2013 at 7:07 PM

Why is Obama punishing retirees and savers?

Because he can.

trigon on May 1, 2013 at 7:12 PM

Easy questions.

Retirees are no longer productive. That means that they are a burden to the collective. Some of them even have wealth that needs to be redistributed.

Savers obviously have more wealth than they need. Since, the One sees all wealth as belonging to the collective, any excess wealth should be redistributed.

WestTexasBirdDog on May 1, 2013 at 7:40 PM

Because these are not the people that liberals usually carry… so they need to “steal” that money in order to feed the ones that are good followers/

watertown on May 1, 2013 at 8:10 PM

If you can’t threaten people with losing their job or their government handout, they may just get the idea they can tell the government to go to hell with impunity. And we can’t have that, now, can we?

Socratease on May 1, 2013 at 8:43 PM

It is the new American way. You are a chump to save for your future. Just this year, my 18 year old will graduate from high school and head for college. When she was born, I started saving in ernest for college. She was accepted at several very selective schools and got into her first choice. The full retail price is $60k a year. I was stunned when I spoke to the admissions counselor who broke the bad news. Because I was dumb enough to live a frugal life and save nearly $300k in her college account, I would get the honor of paying retail. My former partner, meanwhile, lived a profligate life, spending like a Democrat with a bicameral majority, multiple homes, six vacations a year, new cars, boats, you name it.
He went bankrupt a few years ago and he would be entitled to a deep discount for the same tuition. Now, Obama wants to tap my retirement fund to level the playing field. Well, I wonder why he isn’t interested in leveling the work field. I ended up with a very nice nest egg. I would be a billionaire if I had a nickel for everyone who said to me, “if I had your money…” I always tell them, “where were you in 1986 when I was sleeping at the Detroit airport because there were no more planes out? Where were you on Thanksgiving in 1989 when a Canadian client demanded a meeting and told me it wasn’t Thanksgiving there? You were home sitting in front of the TV with your feet on the coffee table drinking beer and watching the Cosby Show. That was your choice. It is my choice not to give you any of my money.

flyoverland on May 1, 2013 at 9:06 PM

flyoverland on May 1, 2013 at 9:06 PM

And like Dagny, Wyatt, and Hank when you treat yourself to a nice meal and a bit of extravagance you can truly enjoy it knowing full well that you earned it.

tom daschle concerned on May 1, 2013 at 9:19 PM

Why?
 
Because Obama voters, that’s why.
 

(Headline) Survey: 28% of Americans have no emergency savings

 
You’re around 30, right? Even $100/month at a pessimistic 6% for the next 30 years will give you over $100K for retirement. Starting young is the best time to begin so that interest has time to work its magic, especially since SS won’t be able to float you when you’ve retired.
 
rogerb on June 22, 2012 at 11:55 AM

 
Rogerb, its true. But some folks don’t have a natural head or disposition to save. I’m more the adventurous, lets make a memory kind of person…
 
libfreeordie on June 25, 2012 at 11:20 PM

rogerb on May 1, 2013 at 9:22 PM

You didn’t build that, so we’ll have to punish you and it give a fair share to someone who never even made the effort.

antipc on May 1, 2013 at 9:32 PM

After 4+ years it’s funny that our American optimism still refuses to let us see that BHO’s entire purpose has been to squeeze and crush the middle class into dependency.

Then the real change can begin.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 1, 2013 at 11:11 PM

He also penalizes pensioners by letting Benanke keep interest so low. No return on savings which used to bring in a small bonus each month to retires.

Herb on May 1, 2013 at 11:16 PM

I’ll take “Because He’s a D!@k” for $500, Alex.

SagebrushPuppet on May 1, 2013 at 11:22 PM

He doesn’t care that the poor get poorer so long as the rich don’t get richer. I think I heard the Iron Lady say something to that effect.

TexAz on May 2, 2013 at 1:06 AM

“At some point you’ve saved enough money …”

PackerBronco on May 2, 2013 at 1:54 AM

flyoverland on May 1, 2013 at 9:06 PM

Bravo! Well put.

CycloneCDB on May 2, 2013 at 2:21 AM

“President” Obama is like a lobster in a barrel full of lobsters all trying to get out. As soon as one is about to get out, the others below it pull it back in.

His job, in his mind, is bring mediocrity to all of the US.

sadatoni on May 2, 2013 at 7:22 AM

“…and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them.” – Margaret Thatcher, 1976

Shy Guy on May 2, 2013 at 8:15 AM

Why did Stalin punish the kulaks?

“Hoarders” must be made to share. They must also beocme less financially independent and more dependent on the state. Otherwise, they might wield political clout that rightly belongs with those few leaders who can direct everything to the greater good themselves and their supporters.

Wethal on May 1, 2013 at 6:09 PM

Lest anybody misunderstood what “the greater good” really means, I engaged the ReWrite™ protocol.

Steve Eggleston on May 2, 2013 at 8:37 AM

Judge Barry Smails – “Al Czervik will never get into Bushwood.”

Steve Eggleston on May 2, 2013 at 8:38 AM

The lack of lynch mobs in Cyprus has only encouraged the coming stealing by the government.

BobMbx on May 1, 2013 at 7:07 PM

That’s because the 20% haircut on the aggregate Cypriot bank deposits (€13 billion, or twice the amount previously rejected) is coming exclusively from “the rich”.

Steve Eggleston on May 2, 2013 at 8:42 AM

For Social Justist Marxists, equality of outcome trumps all…
Wealth must be taxed or confiscated to make society “fair”.

mjbrooks3 on May 2, 2013 at 8:49 AM

The Obama economic team thinks about the tax treatment of savings fundamentally differently than the way I do, and from the way a lot of conservatives do. If you go back and read what his econ advisors were saying long before he was inaugurated, this was predictable.

Most of us on the conservative side do not regard tax shelters for saving as a gift or a government program — they’re necessary to avoid double-taxation of saved income. Without the tax deductions saved income would be taxed twice over, and the tax code would be heavily biased in favor of consumption over saving, which is bad economic policy.

Team Obama doesn’t see it that way — they see the system of tax shelters for saving as a government-provided benefit, one that benefits rich people more than poor. Their goal is to steer a higher proportion of the benefits of the “program” to lower-income people.

All of this has its roots in a fundamental difference over why we have tax deductions for saved income.

Chuckles3 on May 2, 2013 at 9:07 AM

Ed,

It’s more than just about the income to tax. Like your quoted source says, it’s a drop in the bucket. It’s about fascist style control. It is about dictating what citizens can and can’t do. And ultimately, it’s about ensuring that as few people as possible are self reliant.

h a p f a t on May 2, 2013 at 9:09 AM

The govt coming after all our hard earned dough as been a long term plan for the marxist socialist bunch ever since they figured out a way to use the power of our own constitution for their evil. Makes me wonder what other evil deeds they have long term plans for. We all share in the some of the same experiences as Flyoverland, we accepted and did it at the time because it was our life. Shame the takers will never get any of that gratification from a job well done. Mitt was right about the 47%. It was a very revealing statement as far as it went.

Kissmygrits on May 2, 2013 at 10:01 AM

It’s more than just about the income to tax. Like your quoted source says, it’s a drop in the bucket. It’s about fascist style control. It is about dictating what citizens can and can’t do. And ultimately, it’s about ensuring that as few people as possible are self reliant.

h a p f a t on May 2, 2013 at 9:09 AM

Well, there’s that, and I think… something a bit more nefarious. Obama’s hatred of Republicans and the so-called “One Percent” appear to be hyper-emotional, and I suspect… racial. I think it’s highly possible that he views Republicans and “rich people” as white.

Now, I’m not one who is typically very sensitive or observant about that sort of thing, but having read his books, I’m pretty much convinced that his political ideology itself is race-based, sprung up from the likes of Frank Marshall Davis, and cemented by the Black Liberation theology of Jeremiah Wright. That would mean these sort of policies are an extension of that prejudice and not just your garden-variety leftist dogma.

I don’t think, when he uses such phraseology as “leveling the playing field”, that he’s speaking in purely economic terms.

Murf76 on May 2, 2013 at 10:22 AM

It is the new American way. You are a chump to save for your future. Just this year, my 18 year old will graduate from high school and head for college. When she was born, I started saving in ernest for college. She was accepted at several very selective schools and got into her first choice. The full retail price is $60k a year. I was stunned when I spoke to the admissions counselor who broke the bad news. Because I was dumb enough to live a frugal life and save nearly $300k in her college account, I would get the honor of paying retail. My former partner, meanwhile, lived a profligate life, spending like a Democrat with a bicameral majority, multiple homes, six vacations a year, new cars, boats, you name it.
He went bankrupt a few years ago and he would be entitled to a deep discount for the same tuition. Now, Obama wants to tap my retirement fund to level the playing field. Well, I wonder why he isn’t interested in leveling the work field. I ended up with a very nice nest egg. I would be a billionaire if I had a nickel for everyone who said to me, “if I had your money…” I always tell them, “where were you in 1986 when I was sleeping at the Detroit airport because there were no more planes out? Where were you on Thanksgiving in 1989 when a Canadian client demanded a meeting and told me it wasn’t Thanksgiving there? You were home sitting in front of the TV with your feet on the coffee table drinking beer and watching the Cosby Show. That was your choice. It is my choice not to give you any of my money.

flyoverland on May 1, 2013 at 9:06 PM

What an excellent post.

rockmom on May 2, 2013 at 10:58 AM

I don’t think, when he uses such phraseology as “leveling the playing field”, that he’s speaking in purely economic terms.

Murf76 on May 2, 2013 at 10:22 AM

I always tell people to go back and read the very first budget proposal Obama issued in 2009. It is full of Marxist bullsh!t. He really believes this stuff. Everything he does is to punish America for its oppression of black people, its “inhumane” capitalist economy, and its “unfair” distribution of wealth and power.

rockmom on May 2, 2013 at 11:02 AM

The proposal is expected to save the government only $9 billion over the next 10 years – a drop in the budget bucket.

It’s not about revenue, it’s about fairness.

-Barky

iurockhead on May 2, 2013 at 12:32 PM

Never forget the fundamental RULE of d-cRAT socialist extremism: Your money is NOT yours but belongs to the GOVERNMENT, which has a “right” to limit what you can keep (i.e., “your allowance”) to whatever they want it to be, including ZERO.

This “rule” was OBOZO’s motivation for his proposal to limit the amount we can have in an IRA (his rule doesn’t apply to him, naturally.)

TeaPartyNation on May 2, 2013 at 5:49 PM