Who the fuck gets to decide what’s “reasonable level”?

And I ask that because this article discusses how “Obama Budget Proposes Cap on Retirement Savings”, and has this passage:

According to advance reports, the administration’s budget due out on Wednesday will propose a cap limiting the amount of annual return a retirement account can create to $205,000. If that proposal were enacted today, that would mean retirement accounts would be limited to $3 million in assets. The White House estimates that caps on the tax-preferred accounts would generate $9 billion over 10 years.

“Under current rules, some wealthy individuals are able to accumulate many millions of dollars in these accounts, substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving,” the White House told Politico last week.

Who the fuck are these marxist nanny stater scumbags to determine what’s reasonable? And does anyone doubt, based on the existing track record of the fuckwads likely to be making the decision on what is reasonable or not, that there will be a different number for the people they don’t like and thse they do like, and even a third for themselves? And in case you think this will only impact the super rich, reread that first paragraph.

Seriously these people are fucking monsters. What they are doing, despite their claims to the contrary, isn’t about fairness or justice: it is pure fucking envy and a desire to preventthe people they want to fleece from bending over and getting shafted by a government run by collectivist scumbags that believe money belongs to them, and you are going to be allowed to keep what they feel is right.

They want the money, and they are going to find a way to steal it. Enjoy.

Comments are closed.

  1. Hal_10000

    It’s not clear to me what they intend to do. You can easily limit how much someone puts *into* a retirement account (or, more accurately, how much they can deduct off their taxes). But what comes out of it is heavily dependent on the market is doing. If someone’s retirement fund kicks out $500,000, what happens? They pay taxes on it no matter what.

    This is one of those things in the Obama budget that is just disturbingly vague.

    Thumb up 1

  2. grady

    This is one of those things in the Obama budget that is just disturbingly vague.

    Which means that the selective enforcement will be based on …

    Scary stuff. I don’t think anyone wants a federal government that just says “trust me”. This point applies equally to each party.

    Thumb up 5

  3. Seattle Outcast

    Accumulating a piddly half-mil for retirement is easy – my wife and I have done it and I didn’t put a fucking penny into my funds until I was close to 40. Throw in the value of a decent home, any pensions, inheritance, and bammo!! – you’ve crossed the threshold without even meaning to. This is aimed at everyone that happened to actually take retirement saving seriously – the feds now want to nationalize your savings for their own use….sucker….

    Thumb up 4

  4. AlexInCT *

    One more important point should be made: government pensions are exempt from this confiscatory agenda to control what other people are allowed to save/have.

    They truly see us as their serfs, and they are the new aristocracy. At this point one can argue they are invoking the concet of “prima nocte” since they are royally fucking us as well.

    Thumb up 1