.PNG)
Obama budget to force more savings
Posted by WARREN MOSLER on March 2nd, 2009
Just what we need- one more subtraction from aggregate demand and yet more tax advantaged funds for managers to play with.
Clearly he believes that “we need savings to have funds for investment” and has at best forgotten the implications of the paradox of thrift:
Obama seeks ‘Automatic Pensions’, Labor Enforcement
by Holly Rosenkrantz
Feb 26 (Bloomberg) — The budget “lays the groundwork for future establishment of a system of automatic workplace pensions, to operate alongside Social Security, that is expected to dramatically increase†retirement and personal savings, Obama’s Office of Management and Budget said in its outline, without giving details on the costs.
The plan would force employers that don’t offer retirement plans to enroll employees in a “direct-deposit IRA account,†with the option for workers themselves to opt out. Currently, 75 million working Americans, or about half the workforce, lacks employer-based retirement plans, according to the administration.
[top]
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Wouldn’t a transfer payment system be better for the economy? (aka defined benefit plans like pensions and SS).
Keeps money in economy to support demand/net savings desires. Isn’t one of the “costs” of our defined contribution plan the govt. having to run deficits to fund the net savings desires for these programs? Are there better uses for deficits that this?
Reply
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:53 pm
“Just what we need- one more subtraction from aggregate demand”
Almost like their is “intentional” action to reduce american demand and standard of living so that china can go up in standard of living and get more oil and increase her AD – maybe on the golf course President Wu told clinton look we funded you and billy and even Obie, and it’s my peoples turn to have nice life. Everyone over here is an engineer and desperate to work unlike those party til you puke useless american shopping machines.
Reply
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Dudes, I have not seen anything about this on here yet and it is BIG!!
State Sovereignty, over half now and Texas is leading the way, seems the poo is going to hit the fan soon! How come the liars on the corporate medias leave this out?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dP8YnOADO3E
We cannot go on the way we are and god help us!
Reply
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:25 pm
These accounts already contain, from the Feds. latest Z.1 Flow of Funds Report:
Fed. Retirement Accounts: $1.2T
State & Local Govt retirement Accounts: $2.7T
Private Pensions (Def. Benefit + Def Contrib.): $5.2T
IRAs: $4.75T
Total: $13.85T (Ive probably left some out: Annuity, etc)
Assume 25% marginal tax bracket: $3.46T payable to Fed Govt or;
Assume 30% marginal tax bracket: $4.16T payable to Fed Govt.
Just about wipes out the US public debt.
Resp,
Reply
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:48 pm
We cannot go on the way we are and god help us!
LOL! Begotka – mosler’s law – there is no financial crisis so deep that an increase in net public spending cannot blow up the gubbermint and sink the nation into a morass of failed states! LOL! Remember if the captain of the titanic had hit the iceberg head on they all would have lived, but the warren types tried to finagle and turn that ship and save it and sunk it to the bottom of the sea!
Reply
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:32 pm
MATT, FUNNY HOW GOVT DEFICITS = NON GOVT SAVINGS!
RICH, I THINK SO IF I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY. WE LEARNED IN 1937 THAT GOVT ACCOUNTING NEEDS TO BE ON A ‘CASH’ BASIS TO ACCOUNT FOR THE FISCAL EFFECTS. THAT’S WHEN THEY PUT SOCIAL SECURITY ON BUDGET AND THE FUNDS ‘COLLECTED’ ARE LUMPED IN WITH GENERAL REVENUES AND THE PAYOUTS WITH GENERAL EXPENSES WHEN CALCULATING THE EFFECTIVE ‘BUDGET DEFICIT’
THE IMPORTANT ASPECT IS THE NET FINANCIAL ASSETS AND INCOME ADDED OR SUBTRACTED FROM THE NON GOVT SECTORS.
Reply