California tries to mandate retirement savings for private workers

[BlueGin]

This quote pretty much sums it up...

But critics wonder how the state with a turbulent record of budget keeping and a much-ridiculed public worker pension system can be counted on to protect people's money.

*****************************************************************
Is it another case of the nanny state, or an innovative way to help you save?

California lawmakers are pushing a controversial, first-in-the-nation plan that would require private-sector employers to remove 3 percent from every worker's paycheck. The money would go into a new state fund with a guarantee that all withheld funds plus investment gains will be available for distribution at retirement age.

The idea behind the Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program, which got preliminary approval, is for it to be a state-run supplement to Social Security, but only for people who don't have traditional workplace retirement plans. For an estimated 6 million working Californians, the benefit of a pension or 401(k) is out of reach -- so state lawmakers are trying to implement the new mandatory retirement fund for private sector workers.

But critics wonder how the state with a turbulent record of budget keeping and a much-ridiculed public worker pension system can be counted on to protect people's money.

Read more: California tries to mandate retirement savings for private workers | Fox News

 

[dilloduck]

This quote pretty much sums it up...

But critics wonder how the state with a turbulent record of budget keeping and a much-ridiculed public worker pension system can be counted on to protect people's money.

*****************************************************************
Is it another case of the nanny state, or an innovative way to help you save?

California lawmakers are pushing a controversial, first-in-the-nation plan that would require private-sector employers to remove 3 percent from every worker's paycheck. The money would go into a new state fund with a guarantee that all withheld funds plus investment gains will be available for distribution at retirement age.

The idea behind the Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program, which got preliminary approval, is for it to be a state-run supplement to Social Security, but only for people who don't have traditional workplace retirement plans. For an estimated 6 million working Californians, the benefit of a pension or 401(k) is out of reach -- so state lawmakers are trying to implement the new mandatory retirement fund for private sector workers.

But critics wonder how the state with a turbulent record of budget keeping and a much-ridiculed public worker pension system can be counted on to protect people's money.

Read more: California tries to mandate retirement savings for private workers | Fox News

only in California.........

 

[dblack]

This quote pretty much sums it up...

But critics wonder how the state with a turbulent record of budget keeping and a much-ridiculed public worker pension system can be counted on to protect people's money.

*****************************************************************
Is it another case of the nanny state, or an innovative way to help you save?

California lawmakers are pushing a controversial, first-in-the-nation plan that would require private-sector employers to remove 3 percent from every worker's paycheck. The money would go into a new state fund with a guarantee that all withheld funds plus investment gains will be available for distribution at retirement age.

The idea behind the Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program, which got preliminary approval, is for it to be a state-run supplement to Social Security, but only for people who don't have traditional workplace retirement plans. For an estimated 6 million working Californians, the benefit of a pension or 401(k) is out of reach -- so state lawmakers are trying to implement the new mandatory retirement fund for private sector workers.

But critics wonder how the state with a turbulent record of budget keeping and a much-ridiculed public worker pension system can be counted on to protect people's money.

Read more: California tries to mandate retirement savings for private workers | Fox News

only in California.........

Wanna bet?

I seem to recall similar comments when Massachusetts mandated health insurance.

 

[dilloduck]

This quote pretty much sums it up...



*****************************************************************
Is it another case of the nanny state, or an innovative way to help you save?

California lawmakers are pushing a controversial, first-in-the-nation plan that would require private-sector employers to remove 3 percent from every worker's paycheck. The money would go into a new state fund with a guarantee that all withheld funds plus investment gains will be available for distribution at retirement age.

The idea behind the Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program, which got preliminary approval, is for it to be a state-run supplement to Social Security, but only for people who don't have traditional workplace retirement plans. For an estimated 6 million working Californians, the benefit of a pension or 401(k) is out of reach -- so state lawmakers are trying to implement the new mandatory retirement fund for private sector workers.

But critics wonder how the state with a turbulent record of budget keeping and a much-ridiculed public worker pension system can be counted on to protect people's money.

Read more: California tries to mandate retirement savings for private workers | Fox News

only in California.........

Wanna bet?

I'm seem to recall similar comments when Massachusetts mandated health insurance.

Would you trust California with your money after what happened in Detroit ?

 

[boedicca]

This quote pretty much sums it up...

But critics wonder how the state with a turbulent record of budget keeping and a much-ridiculed public worker pension system can be counted on to protect people's money.

*****************************************************************
Is it another case of the nanny state, or an innovative way to help you save?

California lawmakers are pushing a controversial, first-in-the-nation plan that would require private-sector employers to remove 3 percent from every worker's paycheck. The money would go into a new state fund with a guarantee that all withheld funds plus investment gains will be available for distribution at retirement age.

The idea behind the Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program, which got preliminary approval, is for it to be a state-run supplement to Social Security, but only for people who don't have traditional workplace retirement plans. For an estimated 6 million working Californians, the benefit of a pension or 401(k) is out of reach -- so state lawmakers are trying to implement the new mandatory retirement fund for private sector workers.

But critics wonder how the state with a turbulent record of budget keeping and a much-ridiculed public worker pension system can be counted on to protect people's money.

Read more: California tries to mandate retirement savings for private workers | Fox News

Translation: funds will be raided to bail out underfunded public employee union pensions.

 

[Vox]

This quote pretty much sums it up...

But critics wonder how the state with a turbulent record of budget keeping and a much-ridiculed public worker pension system can be counted on to protect people's money.

*****************************************************************
Is it another case of the nanny state, or an innovative way to help you save?

C

it is not an example of nanny state. It is an example of a sate being a mugger

 

[Wyatt earp]

This quote pretty much sums it up...

But critics wonder how the state with a turbulent record of budget keeping and a much-ridiculed public worker pension system can be counted on to protect people's money.

*****************************************************************
Is it another case of the nanny state, or an innovative way to help you save?

California lawmakers are pushing a controversial, first-in-the-nation plan that would require private-sector employers to remove 3 percent from every worker's paycheck. The money would go into a new state fund with a guarantee that all withheld funds plus investment gains will be available for distribution at retirement age.

The idea behind the Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program, which got preliminary approval, is for it to be a state-run supplement to Social Security, but only for people who don't have traditional workplace retirement plans. For an estimated 6 million working Californians, the benefit of a pension or 401(k) is out of reach -- so state lawmakers are trying to implement the new mandatory retirement fund for private sector workers.

But critics wonder how the state with a turbulent record of budget keeping and a much-ridiculed public worker pension system can be counted on to protect people's money.

Read more: California tries to mandate retirement savings for private workers | Fox News

Another SS ponzi scheme, the fuckers are broke need a new place to raid... What a bunch of pukes.

 

[BlueGin]

We need to ensure that you save money for retirement because you can't be trusted to do the right thing. In the meantime though, we are just going to borrow a smidge since you aren't going to be using it for awhile....k?

 

[BlueGin]

This quote pretty much sums it up...

But critics wonder how the state with a turbulent record of budget keeping and a much-ridiculed public worker pension system can be counted on to protect people's money.

*****************************************************************
Is it another case of the nanny state, or an innovative way to help you save?

California lawmakers are pushing a controversial, first-in-the-nation plan that would require private-sector employers to remove 3 percent from every worker's paycheck. The money would go into a new state fund with a guarantee that all withheld funds plus investment gains will be available for distribution at retirement age.

The idea behind the Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program, which got preliminary approval, is for it to be a state-run supplement to Social Security, but only for people who don't have traditional workplace retirement plans. For an estimated 6 million working Californians, the benefit of a pension or 401(k) is out of reach -- so state lawmakers are trying to implement the new mandatory retirement fund for private sector workers.

But critics wonder how the state with a turbulent record of budget keeping and a much-ridiculed public worker pension system can be counted on to protect people's money.

Read more: California tries to mandate retirement savings for private workers | Fox News

Another SS ponzi scheme, the fuckers are broke need a new place to raid... What a bunch of pukes.

Exactly. Totally transparent motives.

 

[Toro]

Another SS ponzi scheme, the fuckers are broke need a new place to raid... What a bunch of pukes.

How is CalPERS like SS?

 

[Toro]

Exactly. Totally transparent motives.

What are the transparent motives?

 

[BlueGin]

Interesting comment made by CEO magazine regarding the fines that will be given to any employers that don't comply. And that they also see CA as "the state that is the hardest to do business in...in America".

 

[Londoner]

This is the classic scam that Reagan and Milton Friedman did with Social Security in 1983.

They impose a tax, claiming that it will go for "retirement" (in the form of Social Security). Then they loot the money which was taxed so that they can lower taxes on the wealthy and continue to provide generous subsidies and bailouts to their corporate donors. It's called the Social Security Trust Fund.

Since the current SS trust fund has been looted, the poor will be told they have to take a hair cut on benefits that they paid into.

This is what government does. It takes care of the wealthy people who own it (and staff it through election funding).

California ain't stupid. The minute that money is taxed out the hides of worker's asses, it will be "borrowed" by the state and replaced with a big fat IOU in the form of useless bonds that will never be repaid.

Classic Reagan scam.

(Study the Social Security Trust Fund and learn my friends)

(Learn)

 

[Wyatt earp]

they started looting SS under LBJ to fund nam' why dont folks like telling the whole truth is beyond me.

 

[auditor0007]

We need to ensure that you save money for retirement because you can't be trusted to do the right thing. In the meantime though, we are just going to borrow a smidge since you aren't going to be using it for awhile....k?

The idea is a very good one, but the concerns noted are real and need to be addressed before they move forward with any such type plan. If the state is the one holding the money, I would tend to be against it, but if the state is just running the program with the money being placed into private equity funds, then this could be a very good idea.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

We need to ensure that you save money for retirement because you can't be trusted to do the right thing. In the meantime though, we are just going to borrow a smidge since you aren't going to be using it for awhile....k?

The idea is a very good one, but the concerns noted are real and need to be addressed before they move forward with any such type plan. If the state is the one holding the money, I would tend to be against it, but if the state is just running the program with the money being placed into private equity funds, then this could be a very good idea.

Of course the state would hold the money. They're Democrats; they despise privatization of retirement funds. That's what their whole beef was with Bush's partial privatization plan for Social Security.

 

[auditor0007]

We need to ensure that you save money for retirement because you can't be trusted to do the right thing. In the meantime though, we are just going to borrow a smidge since you aren't going to be using it for awhile....k?

The idea is a very good one, but the concerns noted are real and need to be addressed before they move forward with any such type plan. If the state is the one holding the money, I would tend to be against it, but if the state is just running the program with the money being placed into private equity funds, then this could be a very good idea.

Of course the state would hold the money. They're Democrats; they despise privatization of retirement funds. That's what their whole beef was with Bush's partial privatization plan for Social Security.

According to the linked article, the funds would be held by private investment funds and would be insured.

A state-run retirement plan for private sector? | Calpensions

 

[dblack]

The idea is a very good one, but the concerns noted are real and need to be addressed before they move forward with any such type plan. If the state is the one holding the money, I would tend to be against it, but if the state is just running the program with the money being placed into private equity funds, then this could be a very good idea.

Of course the state would hold the money. They're Democrats; they despise privatization of retirement funds. That's what their whole beef was with Bush's partial privatization plan for Social Security.

According to the linked article, the funds would be held by private investment funds and would be insured.

A state-run retirement plan for private sector? | Calpensions

Controlling how other people's money is spent is as good as, maybe even better than, having that money yourself.

 

[BlueGin]

Of course the state would hold the money. They're Democrats; they despise privatization of retirement funds. That's what their whole beef was with Bush's partial privatization plan for Social Security.

According to the linked article, the funds would be held by private investment funds and would be insured.

A state-run retirement plan for private sector? | Calpensions

Controlling how other people's money is spent is as good as, maybe even better than, having that money yourself.

A lot of people live from paycheck to paycheck. It's a mighty big assumption on the states part that most can afford the deduction from their pay.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The idea is a very good one, but the concerns noted are real and need to be addressed before they move forward with any such type plan. If the state is the one holding the money, I would tend to be against it, but if the state is just running the program with the money being placed into private equity funds, then this could be a very good idea.

Of course the state would hold the money. They're Democrats; they despise privatization of retirement funds. That's what their whole beef was with Bush's partial privatization plan for Social Security.

According to the linked article, the funds would be held by private investment funds and would be insured.

A state-run retirement plan for private sector? | Calpensions

The OP's article says the money goes into a state fund. Your link also says workers can opt out, the OP's doesn't. There seems to be conflicting information here.