I watched a short video today. It included Bill Rogers and Ron Paul talking about the highly likely development that the government will "absorb" both IRAs and 401Ks, wrapped up as a scheme to "save the people" from poor returns from their investments. Of course, the caveat is that the funds will be converted to Treasuries because they are much safer.
Isn’t this the same party whose SOTH said, on the ACA, “We have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it.”?
Isn’t this the President who said, “If You Like Your Plan, You Can Keep Your Plan”? Isn’t this the president who claimed he could run the country by executive order if he doesn’t get his way on the ACA?
Aren’t the Republicans the ones who always back down for fear that they may be perceived as racists if they oppose Obama in no uncertain terms over the issues?
Don’t be so sure that a public, that has put this President in office, will not continue their support if the free “money” keeps flowing their way. Polling numbers for Obama have not dropped quickly enough to instill confidence that many are quite supportive of the socialist agenda flowing out of Washington, DC. On a Constitutional basis Obama should be impeached for violating his oath of office to adhere to the Constitution. But there are far too many Luddites out there who would rather be on the dole than earning an honest living. If that was not the case Obama would never have become POTUS. Many thought Romney would easily win the election. He lost, even though his support of the Massachusetts healthcare law, which brought it into existence, indicated that even Romney was not left leaning enough to garner public support in the Presidential race.
There are states, like New Mexico, whose populations are sufficiently conservative, that are aware “money” does not grow on trees. New Mexico put Gary Johnson in office to replace Bruce King as Governor. When he got termed out the state had gone from massive deficits to a surplus. New Mexico is not representative of much of the rest of the country. People are too uneducated to understand the benefits of electing a Libertarian politician.
Maybe the best solution is secession. But then the worry would have to be the massive spending on weapons targeted by the Federal Government for domestic use, such as is being directed towards the US Postal Service.
This idea has been under "study" since 2010, it would never get through Congress, especially the House of Representatives. Even if it did, the Supreme Court would kill it. Democrats are already on the hook over Obamacare, they're not about to double-down and yet another wealth-redistribution scheme, not during an election year. Plus 2016 isn't that far off; it would take 12-18 months to put together the legislation and get the press on board with the necessary propaganda machinery to sell the idea to the public. So this ain't going to happen before 2016.
The only way something like this would even have a chance is if Dems take the White House, Senate and House of Reps. in 2016 and one of the conservative members of the Supreme Court dies and is replaced by a Leftist.
Besides, the Govt. doesn't have to "seize" your IRA, all they have to do is require that you, or your fiduciary, "invest" x-percent of the holdings in Govt. instruments. Actually, many annuity funds often put excess cash into "safe" Govt. securities anyway.
The Govt. will do other things like tinker with the tax exemption status for certain "high-income" IRA accounts'. They'll paint a friendly face on the whole thing by doing what they always do -- demonize the wealthy. After all, who cares if the "rich" people are forced to pay more taxes? In reality, it will be the middle class who gets the shaft.
If there's even a glimmer of hope something like this is in the wind, People will stop making contributions. Younger people will be even more reluctant to start an IRA or 401k program; those over 59 will start pulling money out & putting somewhere else. In this scenario, the Govt. will be forced to expand their efforts to find ways to extract money from ALL investments & savings accounts.
“...Even if it did, the Supreme Court would kill it...”
You have a short memory. It was Chief Justice Roberts that went along with the idea that Obamacare was a tax, and not an overstepping of the US Constitution.
What contortions might they come up with to legitimatize nationalizing IRAs/401Ks? When push comes to shove and the government can no longer rely on other countries to fund its enormous deficits with deteriorating dollar valuations they’ll be coming after everyone with fungible assets, just like in the Cyprus “bail-in”. You never know what the criminal mindset might be capable of next. When the government takes without a vote of the people or adherence to Constitutional law it has become a dictatorship. It is enforced by a police state (as in Obamacare) and is run by executive order, which is a euphemism for “the rule of man” through the current White House tyrant, Obama, along with the rest of the go-along-to-get-along crowd inside the beltway, party affiliation aside.
Beyond that the country will not survive your proposed timeline. The economy will implode long before that bringing into play the aforementioned plunder.