Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
A sovereign "making" its people do anything is the antithesis of liberty. Whose money is it, mine or Uncle's? -- I worked for it, not Uncle.
Besides if "my" government is going to force me "save", will it offer a competitive real return? --- The current leanings among OECD policy makers since 2008 is to "take" from savers in the form of interest rate compression -- in Europe many yields are actually negative.
Forcing "saving" while fixing the yield for years and years after the crisis, below where yields might be were market forces to prevail is simply a form of confiscation (essentially free/subsidized use of my capital by govt and corporatist entities). Forcing savings is a statist/socialist "solution" --- to problems created by the state.
No thanks.
Now if the Govt wishes to encourage savings -- by offering GENEROUS yields to savers, that is another matter altogether. I will be first in line for that. -- Market interest rates allows for a voluntary, mutually-beneficial exchange between saver (lender, investor) and borrower (user of capital). If saving/lending is not needed, it won't be rewarded, nor will it be available (at the margin). If saving/borrowing is needed, it will be rewarded. A voluntary exchange of capital for returns on capital occurs.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” C. S. Lewis
I don't like the "nanny state", but I do think many people are not able to control their spending/saving and the employer enforced methods would definitely help. One of my sons works for his father and he's on that plan But, on the other hand, what happens when the employee retires and is left to his/her own devices? Is the government going to dole out the savings like an allowance?
Furthermore, I think the IRA contribution limits should be raised, as well as interest rates (per Edmond).
Comments
Besides if "my" government is going to force me "save", will it offer a competitive real return? --- The current leanings among OECD policy makers since 2008 is to "take" from savers in the form of interest rate compression -- in Europe many yields are actually negative.
Forcing "saving" while fixing the yield for years and years after the crisis, below where yields might be were market forces to prevail is simply a form of confiscation (essentially free/subsidized use of my capital by govt and corporatist entities). Forcing savings is a statist/socialist "solution" --- to problems created by the state.
No thanks.
Now if the Govt wishes to encourage savings -- by offering GENEROUS yields to savers, that is another matter altogether. I will be first in line for that. -- Market interest rates allows for a voluntary, mutually-beneficial exchange between saver (lender, investor) and borrower (user of capital). If saving/lending is not needed, it won't be rewarded, nor will it be available (at the margin). If saving/borrowing is needed, it will be rewarded. A voluntary exchange of capital for returns on capital occurs.
Simple, straightforward, voluntary. Fair. Free.
Oh, here we go. And more, the problems were created by the state! Good grief and lolz. I bet obesity is in the same category.
Furthermore, I think the IRA contribution limits should be raised, as well as interest rates (per Edmond).