Billionaire Clinton "Hillblazer" Pushes New Tax That Funnels Middle Class Money To Wall Street

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

“I find the whole thing astonishing and what’s remarkable is the amount of anger whether it’s on the Republican side or the Democratic side,” the Wall Street mogul said at the World Economic Forum in Davos. “Bernie Sanders, to me, is almost more stunning than some of what’s going on in the Republican side. How is that happening, why is that happening?”


– From January’s post: Billionaire CEO of Blackstone Trolls the American Public – He Doesn’t Get Why People Are Angry

David Sirota just penned a very important and interesting article zeroing in on how Wall Street is maneuvering to propose and implement a new retirement tax on Americans under a Hillary Clinton Administration.

Leading the charge is billionaire financial oligarch Tony James, who is COO of private equity giant Blackstone. Mr. James is a generous contributor to Hillary Clinton’s Presidential run, and is listed as a “Hillblazer” by her campaign for having raised at least $100,000 toward her candidacy.

While many Americans already know that much, most of you will be totally unaware of his aggressive plan to force a 3% payroll tax on the public which will be immediately funneled to Wall Street management firms, including “alternative managers” such as hedge funds and private equity. It seems like a very bizarre time to initiate such a proposal considering many public pension funds are actively ditching alternative managers after realizing they’ve been paying extraordinarily high fees for pitiful performance. In other words, they’ve been ripped off.

For example, recall what we learned in April’s post, “Let Them Sell Their Summer Homes” – NYC’s Largest Public Pension to Ditch Hedge Funds:

NEW YORK (Reuters) – New York City’s largest public pension is exiting all hedge fund investments in the latest sign that the $4 trillion public pension sector is losing patience with these often secretive portfolios at a time of poor performance and high fees.


The move by the fund, which had $51.2 billion in assets as of Jan. 31, follows a similar actions by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (Calpers), the nation’s largest public pension fund, and public pensions in Illinois.

“Hedges have underperformed, costing us millions,” New York City’s Public Advocate Letitia James told board members in prepared remarks.“Let them sell their summer homes and jets, and return those fees to their investors.”

With public pensions moving away from alternative managers, the industry is looking toward government under Hillary Clinton to tax American workers in order to guarantee captive money continues to flow into the coffers of private equity and hedge fund managers.

You gotta hand it to these guys. When it comes to endlessly scheming and plotting various ways of getting their hands on your money, Wall Street is absolutely relentless.

International Business Times reports:

While Hillary Clinton has spent the presidential campaign saying as little as possible about her ties to Wall Street, the executive who some observers say could be her Treasury Secretary has been openly promoting a plan to give financial firms control of hundreds of billions of dollars in retirement savings. The executive is Tony James, president of the Blackstone Group.


It is a plan that proponents say could help millions of Americans — but could also enrich another constituency: the hedge fund and private equity industries that Blackstone dominates and that have donated millions to support Clinton’s presidential bid.


The proposal would require workers and employers to put a percentage of payroll into individual retirement accounts “to be invested well in pooled plans run by professional investment managers,” as James put it. In other words, individual voluntary 401(k)s would be replaced by a single national system, and much of the mandated savings would flow to Wall Street, where companies like Blackstone could earn big fees off the assets. And because of a gap in federal anti-corruption rules, there would be little to prevent the biggest investment contracts from being awarded to the biggest presidential campaign donors.

Go ahead and read that again.

A Washington power player who reportedly turned down a slot in President Barack Obama’s cabinet, James first outlined the retirement savings initiative in a speech a year ago to the Center for American Progress (CAP). The liberal think tank was founded by Clinton’s current campaign chairman, John Podesta, and is run by her former top policy adviser Neera Tanden. James and Blackstone made six-figure donations to CAP that year, and the group gave him a platform to propose a new payroll tax that he said would fund guaranteed retirement benefits.


Rather than funneling the hundreds of billions of dollars of new tax revenue into expanding Social Security benefits, as many Democratic lawmakers have called for, James proposed something different: A decade after George W. Bush’s failed attempt to divert Social Security revenue into private retirement accounts, the Blackstone president outlined a plan to create individual retirement accounts, some of whose assets would be managed by private financial firms.


In the blueprint of the plan, James lamented that 401(k) systems “don’t invest in longer-term, illiquid alternatives such as hedge funds, private equity and real estate,” and said the new program could invest in “high-yielding and risk-reducing alternative asset classes.” In a CNBC interview, James said he wants the billions of dollars of new retiree savings to be invested “like pension plans.” He noted that in “the average pension plan in America, about 25 percent is invested in stuff we do, in alternatives, in real estate and private equity and commodities and hedge funds.” Unlike stock index funds and Treasury bills, those investments generate big fees for financial firms — and critics say they do not generate returns that justify the costs.

Critics see James’ proposal as an effort by a politically connected private equity mogul to present a Wall Street-enriching scheme as a social good — at a moment when his own firm has faced lower profits, and at a generally challenging time for the alternative investments industry.


That industry relies on investments from state and local pension systems, which over the last decade have invested billions in alternatives in hopes of reaping above-market returns in exchange for higher fees. Recently, though, regulators, pension trustees, investment experts and academics have questioned whether retiree savings should be invested with firms like Blackstone in the first place.


Some pensions are pulling out their money. Other pension systems have been turned into 401(k)-style plans, which are difficult for the alternative investment industry to break into because of federal laws that discourage those plans from buying into riskier, illiquid investments.


In the face of these challenges, James’ proposal could provide a government-mandated flow of money from workers’ paychecks into the high-fee alternative investment industry.


“This new plan depends on sweeping government mandates, the appropriation of trillions of dollars from the private sector that is then handed over to zillionaire investment managers who make no guarantees about rates of returns or discounted fees,” said South Carolina Treasurer Curtis Loftis, a Republican who serves on his state’s pension investment council, which contracts with Blackstone. “The only guaranteed benefit I see in this plan is one for wealthy money managers and their cronies. Wall Streeters reading this plan will understand, without having specifically been told, that having Hillary Clinton and the federal government use its power to aggregate the existing and future retirement funds of working Americans and entrust it to them is the Holy Grail of finance.”


Chris Tobe, a Democrat who advises institutional investors and who served on Kentucky’s pension board, put it just as bluntly: “James’ plan is a deliberate attempt to get around federal protections for retirees because alternative investments are not generally allowed in the 401(k) world. This is about making Blackstone and other private equity firms even richer than they already are.”


Clinton has cast herself as skeptical of the “shadow banking” world that Blackstone operates in, and she has said she wants to close a loophole that lets private equity managers pay a lower tax rate than most other workers.


Yet for all of Clinton’s tough talk against Wall Street, James and others associated with Blackstone have been among her biggest fundraisers, and during a recent cocktail party in Washington D.C. to promote the plan, James said he was optimistic that a Clinton win could make his proposal a reality.

You know, there are “public positions” and there are “private positions.”

“What the election would mean for our plan: Yes, we’ve spent a fair amount of time with a number of Hillary’s policy advisors. So far they have been very encouraging about the plan,” he told the assembled crowd. “I am hopeful she’ll grab this issue once elected, and run with it. I think the signals are warm on that.”


As an icon of the private equity industry, James is an unlikely champion of retirement security. A recent Harvard University study found that private equity firms have transformed bankruptcy law into “an efficient financial engineering tool for insider sales—and for dumping pensions” — with 51 companies abandoning their pension plans “at the behest of private equity firms since 2001.”


Nonetheless, a spokeswoman for Blackstone, Christine Anderson, said that when it comes to the retirement crisis, “Tony has been talking about this for years.” As the 2016 presidential campaign heated up, James signed onto a new version of Ghilarducci’s plan that reduced the new payroll tax to 3 percent, split between employers and employees, and partially offset by a tax credit. They said the government would guarantee  the principal of the account, regardless of market conditions.

Interesting. Since government guarantees the principal, even if the asset managers put up horrible returns, they can still earn big fees while leaving the sucker taxpayer on the hook for any negative performance.

The James-Ghilarducci plan in fact offers substantial potential benefits for companies like Blackstone. It would provide Wall Street with a new, government-guaranteed revenue stream, and would also help the industry circumvent legal and market obstacles to reach a wider swath of the retirement savings business.


Alternative investment firms have tried to break into the $4 trillion 401(k) market for years, but their products, such as real estate and long-term private equity investments, are less easily transferable to cash, making them a difficult fit for 401(k)s. On top of that, 401(k)s are regulated by federal rules that discourage illiquid, high-risk investments — and make 401(k) overseers vulnerable to lawsuits if they move workers money into such investments. A new federal rule could further complicate alternative investment firms’ efforts to access the retail market because it “suggests that there are certain investments that are so costly, complex, or opaque that they cannot be recommended to retirement investors,” said Barbara Roper of the Consumer Federation of America.


The James-Ghilarducci plan would effectively circumvent many of those obstacles, allowing alternative investment firms to access billions of retail customer dollars that have been out of reach.


In terms of private equity, while that industry’s proponents — including Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwarzman — say their firms outperform the stock market, recent researchchallenges that claim, and the industry just experienced one of its weakest quarters. At the same time, academic experts and regulators have warned about hidden fees that eat into investors’ returns. The Securities and Exchange Commission last year sanctioned Blackstone for having “failed to fully inform investors” about fees in a case involving funds that listed James as one of their key overseers.


Some major institutional investors appear to be responding to the warnings. Just this month, officials at the California State Teachers Retirement System — one of the largest pensions in the world — announced that high fees had convinced them to follow other major pension systems and pull $20 billion out of its investments with private money managers.


Ghilarducci told IBT that concerns about fees were valid, but that the new federal program would use its market power to negotiate lower levies. Even if the effort to reduce fees was not successful, she argued, their proposal would still give retirees a better deal than 401(k) plans.


“If you are in a defined benefit plan that is paying too many fees to Blackstone, you are still better off than if you are in a Fidelity plan for a 401(k),” she said.


That’s a difficult case to make, though, when some private equity titans — including Blackstone’s own top dealmaker — have suggested the industry may not be able to deliver the high returns it promises in exchange for its high fees.


All told, economist Eileen Appelbaum told IBT, the James-Ghilarducci plan is built on earnings projections that are fanciful.


“The plan’s promise of 6 to 7 percent returns is likely to prove unrealistic, and they fail to discuss the risks inherent in the risky investments that would have to dominate the savings portfolio that could yield such returns,” said Appelbaum, who co-authored the book “Private Equity at Work” and published a study suggesting lower private equity returns are a new normal.


“This proposal is about Wall Street getting more assets under management because that is where they make their money,” she said. “Why would we put more retirement savings into private hands when Social Security or the Thrift Savings Plan could do the same at almost no cost?”


James and others connected to Blackstone have financially aided Clinton’s White House bid.


James is listed as a “Hillblazer” on Clinton’s campaign website, meaning he has donated and/or raised at least $100,000 for her campaign. The Wall Street Journal reported that James held a $33,400-a-person fundraiser for the Hillary Victory Fund at his Manhattan home in December 2015. Blackstone and James also held a lavish reception at the Democratic National Convention in July 2016, and James held another fundraiser for Clinton at his home last month, raising $1.5 million, according to the Associated Press.


Blackstone employees have given a total of more than $107,000 to Clinton’s campaign, according to data compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). David Jones and Richard Sullivan, who until 2015 were listed as Blackstone lobbyists, have been among Clinton’s largest fundraising bundlers.


Outside of Congress, Blackstone has donated between $500,000 and $1 million to the Clinton Foundation, and the Associated Press reported that “eight Blackstone executives also gave between $375,000 and $800,000 to the foundation.” James has also built bridges to the Clinton-linked Center for American Progress, beyond his donations and seat on its board.


While Ghilarducci said she supports expanding Social Security, doing so would be more politically difficult than enacting a separate program, she argued — especially since her initiative gets a boost from its association with an industry power player like James.


“Tony certainly helps get an audience that the left couldn’t get,” she said. “The political reality is, you have to have resources and coalition building.”

In today’s America, bolstering social security is a political non-starter, but initiating a new payroll tax on Americans that directly flows to Wall Street is achievable. What a country.

Under their proposal, “Retirement portfolios would be created by a board of professionals who would be fiduciaries appointed by the president and Congress,” James and Ghilarducci wrote in a New York Times editorial. “The fees and investments would be much less prone to corruption because the managers’ income would not depend on the investments.”


Alternative investments, though, are notoriously opaque. The contracts between financial firms and pensions are secret, making it difficult to evaluate whether they are being competitively bid or whether they involve undue influence. A recent whistleblower lawsuit in New Mexico accused Blackstone of being part of an influence-peddling scheme, which Blackstone has denied, and USA Today in 2009 tracked how Blackstone officials had made donations to public officials in states that had awarded the company pension management deals.


Seeking to tamp down donor influence, the SEC enacted rules in 2010 aiming to prevent campaign contributions from influencing political appointees’ decisions about which financial firms get to manage retirees’ savings. But lawyers interviewed by IBT said the SEC’s rule covers only state and local retirement systems — not the federal government.


“Pay-to-play violations are a cornerstone of the alternative investment market,” said former SEC attorney Edward Siedle. “It’s often the only way that money managers can get elected officials to evade their fiduciary duty and invest in low-transparency, high-cost, high-risk investments that consistently trail the S&P 500. Any retirement plan that would allow that to happen at the federal level would be insane.”

Insane, perhaps. Or perhaps just a Banana Republic.

Screen Shot 2016-05-05 at 3.58.59 PM

The above is just a sampling from Sirota’s article. Read the entire thing here: Hillary Clinton And Wall Street: Financial Industry May Control Retirement Savings In A Clinton Administration.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Duc888's picture



Makes perfect sense, let's do it!



Invinciblehandaxe's picture

its for the children murdered by clintons

americanreality's picture

Madeline Albright:  "It was worth it."

WTFUD's picture

Shoot these bastards in the face and ask questions later!

Withdrawn Sanction's picture

OK, so these "moguls" want to forcibly redirect capital flows their way?  Fine.  These funds will be run like a regulated utility, but w/a twist.  Managers get a flat half percent fee.  Period.  More than ample for trading stocks and bonds and preparing statements.  

However, at the end of each year, there's a reckoning.  If the managers in one year lose more than 10% they're sacked and their personal assets seized, sold, and the proceeds used to reimburse the retirement funds.  If they lose more than 20% in any one year, they're executed.  Live by the sword (forcible redirection of assets), die by the sword. 

Erek's picture

Time to start droning, bombing and burning wall street to the ground.

Fuck pitchforks. Get the molotov cocktails and bleach bombs ready.

Time to distribute heavy metal 9 grams at a time.

philipat's picture

Sorry, I had assumed that the real reason that existing Pension Plans are in trouble is because of NIRP/ZIRP in an industry that requires a 7-9% annual return to survive? With a 401(K) at least the individual is in control of his own destiny. Give the money to these fuckers to "manage" and it is guaranteed that the money will disappear into Derivatives, CDO's, bad Company private equity investments (In Companies that nobody else would touch using deals designed only to generate maximum fees) etc. But nobody could have forseen the reasons for the losses?!!

NoDebt's picture

Correct.  High fees AND they're illiquid investments so you can't just say "I want my money now, please."  Nope, you'd be locked into it forever until retirement, at which point they STILL wouldn't give you full access to your money.  You'd be offered an annuity stream of payments, not a lump-sum rollover into an IRA or similar.  You would effectively never get your money back.

But you can take solace in the fact that it would be "professionally managed".  "Your money is safe, you just can't have it."



Kina's picture

The French invented the  guillotine for people like this Davos scum.

RaceToTheBottom's picture

Yes, but a resource unused is a resource that does not exist.

Kina's picture

How about a transaction tax on HFT?

floomby's picture

No new taxes, we need to starve the beast.

Batman11's picture

The decline of the US is there for all to see with either Trump or Clinton as the next US president.

The US has a long history of looking after its own short term interests with unfortunate long term consequences.

The US lent lots of money to Europe during the First World War and insisted that all debts were paid afterwards. It insisted the allies paid their debts, who in turn had to insist Germany paid its debts. Germany’s debts were un-payable and the hardship caused led to the rise of the Nazis and the Second World War.

The US used the Second World War to gain debt leverage over the UK, so it could dismantle what remained of its Empire after the war and take control. Financially it was the UK that lost the Second World War, lots of money went to Germany to help it rebuild.

The US did help Europe rebuild after the war, but in a way that left the US has the most powerful nation on Earth, the UK needed to be taken down a peg or two.

Things were relatively harmonious and co-operative afterwards, although the UK was forced to take its very unpleasant medicine.

It wasn’t long before US started to develop imperial ambitions of its own and started to see South America as an area that needed to be run in accordance with US desires. It didn’t use war but just control of leaders, debt and economic sanctions as its weapons.

Things gradually developed with more interference throughout the developed world, ensuring natural resources were available for US use at knock down prices.

More recently the US has been around the world ransacking nations through Milton Freidman’s “shock therapy” and Brazil is the current target.

The US is always looking to use its power to gain advantage and trade agreements like TTIP and TPP are heavily weighted in favour of the US. The declining power of the US has not allowed these agreements to be pushed through in the usual manner.

The US ransacked Russia through Yeltsin and Milton Freidman’s “shock therapy”, but the chaos that followed paved the way for Putin.

US businesses were looking for short term profit and China and India seemed ideal for cheap labour. Most Western manufacturing was forced into China due to price competition allowing China to grow into the powerful nation it is today.

The US has inadvertently created its new adversaries, China and Russia under Putin.

The US has also been busy ransacking itself for the benefit of the few. The last phase of many great imperial nations is when they bring the ransacking they have used elsewhere home.

The US has military bases in almost every nation on Earth to ensure its imperial power is there for all to see, but its huge military spending is undermining the US itself.

A co-operative world under US hegemony was always a fantasy with its imperial ambitions.

Unfortunately, it has now created its own enemies, Russia and China, and is undermining itself by ransacking the home nation whilst engaging in massive military spending to keep its empire under control.

The corruption of the base is now clear for all to see with Trump and Clinton.

The end is nigh.

NewHugh's picture

Well then Mr Gloom and Doom just off yourself NOW and the rest of us will VOTE FOR TRUMP so that we at least have a chance that an outsider like Trump can kick that conniving cunt Killary and her 1% constituents to the curb!

americanreality's picture

So naïve.  Nothing will change either way. 

Dugald's picture


Self inflicted injuries......

Kina's picture

First there is war, revolution, retribution, reset -

French worked it out... 

BritBob's picture



Secretary Clinton on Falklands during press conference with Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, Buenos Aires 2010 : 'As to the first point, we want very much to encourage both countries to sit down. Now, we cannot make either one do so, but we think it is the right way to proceed. So we will be saying this publicly, as I have been, and we will continue to encourage exactly the kind of discussion across the table that needs to take place .'

Now if she'd been well-briefed or done some independent research (she must employ staff to help her out) Hillary wouldn't have fallen for that usurpation (seriously half the world was usurped in the 19th century) and those numerous resolutions that are just proposals from the UN Decolonisation Committee, a committee made up of member states like Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and Syria. Hm. Should have done better...

bh2's picture

Clinton could have simply said: "These two countries should negotiate."  Five words rather than 64.  (I assume she must price her Wall Street speeches by volume rather than weight.)

bardot63's picture

they weren't paying for her speech.  they were paying for influence.  they don't believe her anymore than you should.  they pay those speech fees to buy her.

Wow72's picture

I was thinking no vote, but after seeing the MEDIA BIAS, especially after the debate, I'm THINKING I WILL VOTE TRUMP.

Im starting to think TRUMP is the real deal.





bardot63's picture

Trump is the enemy of everything I despise.  Media, Wall St., government, republican rino cowards are all scared shitless of Trump.  That is his main attraction.

Cheapie's picture

This maggot Tony James might be Clinton's Treasury Secretary if elected. This is made possible by the sinister forces that prop up this grotesque monster Hillary Clinton.

Which brings me to Ray Dalio, who in 2010 hired James Comey to be his head counsel at a place that was rife with surveillance cameras, sex, fear and non-disclosure agreements. Dalio's viewpoint on politics is seen here from a recent interview:

    SCHATZKER:  Ray, I'm curious to know because we talked a lot about the machine, we talked a lot about cycles and how the economy works. What role does politics play in that? American politics is attracting an enormous amount of attention.  Two days ago we had Super Tuesday.  It seems as though Mr. Trump is on his way to winning the Republican nomination.  Things could change.  Do you have to recalibrate your models to account for things like that?
    DALIO:  I'm going to take the first part of the question rather than the recalibrate part of the question, just to be answering.   If you go on the Web, YouTube, I'll plug for there, I took 30 minutes to say how the economic machine works.  And there's a part that will explain everything I know.   And basically what happens is there is a part in the cycle where there is tension.  And when you get to this phase of the cycle, there is tension between the haves and have-nots and also there's a frustration with government.

    And what is happening in the United States is not very much different than what is happening in Spain or what is happening in many countries, that there is a frustration.    We have a situation in which emotionally charged individuals, who may not be well informed in choosing leader, might select leaders who are not capable and are emotional themselves. 

         And if that happens in these countries, which is more prone to happen in these circumstances where there are these tensions, then that means that you get a type of leadership which handles the situations worse than if you had more capable, more moderate type of people who understand how the machine works and how they deal with it.

         So whose hands it is in is important.  OK.  And how fragmentation exists, if where one group, fighting against another group, it is going to be bad.  If there is, in a sense, a moderation and a bringing together of people in terms of a common mission and thoughtful disagreement, while we're talking about thoughtful disagreement, if you can work your way through to get at the right answers, then this is all manageable.
    So politics does matter.  In answer to your question of how we deal with, we measure what their actions are.  And based on their actual actions, then we make our responses.

The "market" will certainly be curious to see what Dalio's "response" will be, and how he will be trading the "Trump phenomenon", if and when the Donald is just a few months, weeks and/or days, away from the White House.


From a very recent joint interview with Ray Dalio and Tim Geithner on CNBC

If it's Thanksgiving and you're invited to dinner at what could be President Trump's house for dinner, what would you tell him?

RAY DALIO: I'll let Tim go first.


TIMOTHY GEITHNER: I think I'm going to take refuge in my usual place, which is to not comment on the choices of our successors. That's a refuge I like.

I guess I would say -- I would just try to make a virtue of something that I think Ray helped define. It would be a good thing for us to value as a country, which is, you want people to be able to take some time and try to look at the long arc of challenge ahead of us and try to think about strategy to help better position to deal with those things and try to take that long view so that, as you go into the politics and the messy, ugly, terrible politics that constrain those choices, you've got to view at least an idea of what we need to be trying to do for the economy long term.

And, you know, as a country, in history, we were really excellent at the really important moments of doing that. And that's really the most important thing. And I think what -- that ability to sort of go deeper and try to understand the forces shaping the quality of opportunity people have in this country and how we can better address those, what the government does, that takes a lot of care and thought.

And it has to be done in that quiet moment where you can push the politics away. And whoever is in any of those jobs, you want them to -- I don't know if that's Comey's joy, there may not be that much joy in it -- but they should try to figure out a way to find that space to think about that early before they get overwhelmed by the constraints.

>> Tim's advice, I think, is good advice.

Calm down and make sure you understand how the economic machine works. You know, be open-minded. I think what scares Tim and I the most about the populism is that that's extremism. We don't want extremism. We don't want to rush. We want to be able to understand that things are complicated.

>> I thought your answer might be to meditate.

I want to thank both of these gentlemen for a great conversation. Ray Dalio and Timothy Geithner. Thank you.


Dailio and James and the wall street pirates will make countless billions off of the mandatory Tony James forced savings scheme.






PrivetHedge's picture

True he does want a top job, but that's not a secret - it's in the mainstream.
He's a clever chap though, the fees he charges for managing people's funds below par go straight to Clinton to buy his new job.

It's a win win.

Wahooo's picture's gone.

de3de8's picture

Just more personal sovereignty taken away

1980XLS's picture

Payback's a Bitch.

Don't Elect one.

Last of the Middle Class's picture

Holy shit, just go down the street with a gun and hold up anyone you see for their cash. There is no difference. This all started with IRA's and the run on wall street still hasn't ended.

Erek's picture

Can't happen in a cashless society.

But you can/will get ripped off electronically at every whim, and there wouldn't be a thing you could do about it.

bardot63's picture

A cashless society is exactly how and why it would happen. Cash represents private wealth.  Also gold and silver, real estate, valuable collectables.  Once all your cash is electronic, you are at the mercy of anyone controlling cyber systems and you'll never know what hit you.  Vanguard recenly moved all IRA cash out of their old Prime Money Market and into a US treasury money fund.  Didn't ask my opinion, just did it with my digital wealth.  It is long established law that your deposit in your bank/savings/checking/CD is no longer your money.  You've loaned it to the institution.  It's their money.  You are an unsecured creditor.  And the easiest way for you to lose it is for them to simply decide to claim it. 

Latitude25's picture

Poor predators.  Must be no one voluntarily wants their pension robbery schemes.

floosy's picture

We have a something similar in the UK, except it's "Managed" by the treasury rather than private firms.  It's called "National Insurance" and is a tax of about 11% on everything you earn from around 10K up to a cap of around 35K p.a. Additionally your employer has to pay another 12% worth of your earnings (out of their money) to the tax man as the "Employers NI Contribution".  It is supposed to fund your state pension and national health service cover.  Of course in reality it does neither and is simply another earnings tax, but do you think the proles can see that?

Fucking socialist tax polices.

BigDawgz's picture

We already have that...its called 'Social Security'...and it gets stolen by the government every chance they get.  This idiot's proposal would be in ADDITION to what we already pay.

Wahooo's picture

I hope Drudge picks this up. A 3% payroll tax on all working suckers, er, Americans. Nice.

bardot63's picture

Actually, ZH is just as good or better than Drudge for breaking headline articles.  I am a frequent critic of ZH's sometimes incomprehensible style of writing, but it's clear to me that media pundits and politicos, DC bureaucrats and the lugnuts running foreign capitals read ZH.  If Clintonistas get control of your money, your guns, your news and info, and your internet, ZH will be among the first to disappear, or more likely, it will just be morphed into an online CNN for propaganda purposes.

Panic Mode's picture

They don't use their own money to donate to Clinton. They *funnel* tax payer and their investors money to donate to Clinton.

Squidbilly's picture

remove all jews from government, education, media and banking.

wankstain's picture

i suppose tony james must be jewish -  isn't he??

Graph's picture

Tony is marxist / communist according to more than a half of ZH posters.

RopeADope's picture

The neoliberals will loot Social Security in the first two years of a Clinton presidency. They have to strike now, before the idea of a sovereign money Social Security Fund takes hold among the American citizenry.

Naturally, the Paul Ryans of the Beltway will assist her administration.

silverer's picture

Social Security was looted years ago. Originally, there was 4.4 trillion in the trust account. Right now, all benefits are paid out of the current tax stream. There's been no cash in the account for many years now. The Government Accounting Office (GAO), says the money runs out in about eight years. What they are actually saying is that the tax income stream annually will be unable to cover the annual paid out benefits. 'Insolvent' is the word they used.

wide angle tree's picture

Government power is evil. The true purpose of most laws is to give the government more power. The idiots in charge always want to control and enslave the people. They want to take all your wealth and kill you. Of course they can't come out and tell you this directly. The stated purpose is always a feel good lie. It's for the children, it's for your safety, it's to save the planet, it will save lives... on and on.

silverer's picture

MillionDollarBogus will explain clearly why this man is an expert and that this is a perfect solution to everything. Just go with it, you will be happier if you don't get anything you work for.

Downtoolong's picture


If you won’t voluntarily do what we say is good for you (and makes us rich), then we will force you to do it, even if it kills you.


Oh, I almost forgot, "It’s for the children”.


saveUSsavers's picture


Downtoolong's picture


If you think about it, Tony Jame’s scheme is another attempt to transfer the management of Social Security to Wall Street in disguise.




RopeADope's picture

Well, Bill Clinton did say he was running on behalf of Hillary.

This time there won't be a Lewinsky to derail it all.

HenryKissingerChurchill's picture

This time there won't be a Lewinsky to derail it all.
Do you mean
a) Hillary would not fuck Lewinsky? why not?
b) Hillary would add Lewinsky to her arkancide list if she dares to talk?