# Lifestyles & Discussion > Personal Prosperity >  Should I rape my own 401K?

## Yukon Cornelius

As of today, my 401k plan through my employer will allow me to withdraw (not borrow) around 60,000 of my total 401k.

I will take a bit of a hit on taxes but I really want to get the hell as much as I can out of my company's 401k plan.  I would like to maybe use half to do some home improvements (I know this is not an investment) and invest the rest in overseas markets, commodities, etc...

Thoughts?

----------


## Seraphim

> As of today, my 401k plan through my employer will allow me to withdraw (not borrow) around 60,000 of my total 401k.
> 
> I will take a bit of a hit on taxes but I really want to get the hell as much as I can out of my company's 401k plan.  I would like to maybe use half to do some home improvements (I know this is not an investment) and invest the rest in overseas markets, commodities, etc...
> 
> Thoughts?


Yes do it. And yes a home improvement is an investment, particularly if you are adding in quality work/items/in demand improvements. That and you will likely enjoy the house more if it is something you will use a lot. 

If you are ALLOWED to withdraw YOUR money without much of a penalty, do it. Just do your research and invest it wisely and you'll be ok.

----------


## brandon

Depends on your age. If you're younger than 40 I wouldn't do it.

----------


## ILUVRP

Not knowing your tax bracket , but lets say taxes take 25% ( 15k ) , i think there is a 10% goverment penalty ( 6k ) , or $21,000 total , you net 39k. You lose > 30%. 

You may take 10-15 years to recap the 30% even if you are right in your investments.

Also you would be losing the return of the $21,000 if you leave it in the 401K.

Its a tough choice. With home values forcast to drop another 10%. Also if you buy gold/silver , you have to store it somewhere. Starting 2012 all gold sales/buys over $600 must be reported.

I would buy farm land.

----------


## Seraphim

> Depends on your age. If you're younger than 40 I wouldn't do it.


What was the avergae (approximately) loss of 401k's and retirement savings plan in the USA for 2008? 25-50%?

----------


## brandon

> What was the avergae (approximately) loss of 401k's and retirement savings plan in the USA for 2008? 25-50%?


Something like that. Your point?

----------


## SooperDave

Do it in the following way: 

Take the max loan you can take

Stretch out the term as long as possible (20+ years?) to minimize payments

When you leave your job you'll have to pay it off or pat the penalties and taxes that year

But put off paying that stuff as far into the future as possible

----------


## Jordan

> What was the avergae (approximately) loss of 401k's and retirement savings plan in the USA for 2008? 25-50%?


What was the average (approximate) loss for silver in the USA for 1980?  (Since you appear to recommend silver in every thread you post.)  Oh, how about the average (approximate) loss for homes in the USA from 2007-2008?

Cherry picking one year to define an investment strategy is pathetic.  It just goes to show that your input is based more on fear and irrational decision-making than it is facts and evidence.

----------


## Seraphim

> Something like that. Your point?


My point is this:

Retirement savings plans are general investments into a market that is inherently rigged against the little guy. 

Typically these retirement plans consist of 10-30% BONDS. People seem to often be closer to the 30% level. The reason why you get a tax break for (labelled as non taxable income) putting money in these accounts is that in doing so you are pruchasing a substantial amount of the Govt's debt. Without your RRSP's and 401K's the Govt's GOES BANKRUPT.

So for those of you who preach END THE FED (or Central Banking in general). Take your money OUT OF THE 401K's AND RRSP's. By putting your money there you prop up the very system you abhor.

----------


## pacelli

Before you do anything like raping your 401k, I'd strongly recommend you read the book "The Lies about Money" by Ric Edelman.

----------


## Seraphim

> What was the average (approximate) loss for silver in the USA for 1980?  (Since you appear to recommend silver in every thread you post.)  Oh, how about the average (approximate) loss for homes in the USA from 2007-2008?
> 
> Cherry picking one year to define an investment strategy is pathetic.  It just goes to show that your input is based more on fear and irrational decision-making than it is facts and evidence.


No I was making a point. Look at those very same investments now? They are barely back to where they were before. Adjust for inflation: Substantially lower. Gold? and Gold mining stocks? Very quickly recovered and went to nominal all time highs. 

Read my post that I typed out as you posted this one.

----------


## Jordan

> My point is this:
> 
> Retirement savings plans are general investments into a market that is inherently rigged against the little guy. 
> 
> Typically these retirement plans consist of 10-30% BONDS. People seem to often be closer to the 30% level. The reason why you get a tax break for (labelled as non taxable income) putting money in these accounts is that in doing so you are pruchasing a substantial amount of the Govt's debt. Without your RRSP's and 401K's the Govt's GOES BANKRUPT.
> 
> So for those of you who preach END THE FEB (or Central Banking in general). Take your money OUT OF THE 401K's AND RRSP's. By putting your moeny there you prop up the very system you abhor.


More ill informed nonsense.

You can say that short term trading is rigged against the little guy, but buy and hold investment strategies have provided far more winners than losers.   Broad market investments perform quite well in both generating an income from dividends and providing capital gains as businesses grow.

A 401k can be invested in whatever you want.  You can have a 100% stock 401k, if you'd like.  Oh, and a slight majority of funds offer a trading window which allow you to buy any stock/fund/etf that your heart desires.  Leave out the conspiracy theories and you'll find that the taxing system for 401ks is entirely rational.  401ks allow tax free compounding of returns, and give the US government a stake in the performance of the financial markets.

As long as the average return of a US retirement fund is greater than the cost to borrow through treasuries, it makes sense for the US government to want taxes later, instead of up front.

How does a 401k support the system that we abhor?  I'd love to hear your explanation for that one.

----------


## psi2941

Investment Disclaimer
All investments involve different degrees of risk. You should be aware of your risk tolerance level and financial situations at all times. Furthermore, you should read all transaction onfirmations, monthly, and year-end statements. Read any and all prospectuses carefully before making any investment decisions. You are free at all times to accept or reject all investment recommendations made by the Ronpaulforums.com. All products sold are subject to market risk and may result in the entire loss to the client's investment. (For example: excessive withdrawals may result in the depletion of your account). Please understand that any losses are attributed to market forces beyond the control or prediction of a 14 year old or 15 year old depending on the user ID on ronpaulforums.com. As you know, a recommendation, which you are free to accept or reject, is not a guarantee for the successful performance of an investment and we are expressly prohibited from guaranteeing accounts against losses arising from market conditions.

before everyone is screaming to cash out your 401k and convert it to gold do you mind if i ask what is your 401k in? if its agriculture or energy keep your 401k

----------


## Seraphim

[QUOTE=Jordan;2834053]More ill informed nonsense.

You can say that short term trading is rigged against the little guy, but buy and hold investment strategies have provided far more winners than losers.   Broad market investments perform quite well in both generating an income from dividends and providing capital gains as businesses grow.

A 401k can be invested in whatever you want.  You can have a 100% stock 401k, if you'd like.  Oh, and a slight majority of funds offer a trading window which allow you to buy any stock/fund/etf that your heart desires.  Leave out the conspiracy theories and you'll find that the taxing system for 401ks is entirely rational.  401ks allow tax free compounding of returns, and give the US government a stake in the performance of the financial markets.

As long as the average return of a US retirement fund is greater than the cost to borrow through treasuries, it makes sense for the US government to want taxes later, instead of up front.

*How does a 401k support the system that we abhor?  I'd love to hear your explanation for that one.[/*QUOTE]

I did mention the "cookie cutter" plans that are heavily bond invested, did I not?

----------


## Jordan

> No I was making a point. Look at those very same investments now? They are barely back to where they were before. Adjust for inflation: Substantially lower. Gold? and Gold mining stocks? Very quickly recovered and went to nominal all time highs. 
> 
> Read my post that I typed out as you posted this one.


Silver is as high as it was in 1980?  Gold?  When adjusted for inflation, you would've lost over the last thirty years.  Nevermind the fact that neither gold nor silver generate an income, so what you see is what you get.

Gold and silver are driven by fear, so it is only reasonable that they would appreciate in the economic climate we have today.  However, how long that fear will persist is anyone's guess.

----------


## Jordan

> I did mention the "cookie cutter" plans that are heavily bond invested, did I not?


Most people should have some exposure to bonds.  The typical recommendation is to take 100, subtract your age, and that is how much you should have invested in stocks.  Your age as a number is how much you should have in fixed income.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> As of today, my 401k plan through my employer will allow me to withdraw (not borrow) around 60,000 of my total 401k.
> 
> I will take a bit of a hit on taxes but I really want to get the hell as much as I can out of my company's 401k plan.  I would like to maybe use half to do some home improvements (I know this is not an investment) and invest the rest in overseas markets, commodities, etc...
> 
> Thoughts?


If you roll it directly over into a qualified IRA, then you don't have to pay the penalty or taxes. Or maybe a Roth IRA if you are young, but then you might have to pay some taxes first (but after that everything is tax-free). Use a discount brokerage like ScotTrade or TD Ameritrade and you can invest the money in almost anything you want.

----------


## ILUVRP

I would suggest rather than taping into the 401K , you said you would put money into your home, it sounds like you have equity in your home and not under water , i don't think you would put money into a home that was under water.

With 30 year mtg at about 4.6% , i would look at a refi and pull all the cash out i could.

If the SHTF just mail them the keys.

----------


## Seraphim

> *Silver is as high as it was in 1980?  Gold?  When adjusted for inflation, you would've lost over the last thirty years.  Nevermind the fact that neither gold nor silver generate an income, so what you see is what you get.*
> Gold and silver are driven by fear, so it is only reasonable that they would appreciate in the economic climate we have today.  However, how long that fear will persist is anyone's guess.


Sure if you bought and held and did not realize silver was in a ludicrous bubble. 

There is also the fact that Central banks for 22 years were NET SELLERS of PM's. Now they are net buyers and that will likely continue. Combine that with wikedly supressed PM prices due to paper gold/silver satisfying a large % of the demand and voila you have prices that are lower then they "should" be. 

I've never once said you will make a  ton of money in gold and silver. They are very safe savings plans, that short of buying at a market top of a mania, you are probably ok.

----------


## Jordan

> Sure if you bought and held and did not realize silver was in a ludicrous bubble. 
> 
> There is also the fact that Central banks for 22 years were NET SELLERS of PM's. Now they are net buyers and that will likely continue. *Combine that with wikedly supressed PM prices due to paper gold/silver satisfying a large % of the demand and voila you have prices that are lower then they "should" be.* 
> 
> I've never once said you will make a  ton of money in gold and silver. They are very safe savings plans, that short of buying at a market top of a mania, you are probably ok.


So are my common stock holdings suppressed because of the option market?  Futures?

This argument (in bold) never gets old. I think it has been repeated 439058093440 times by people who don't understand that "paper" elements exist for practically every market.  

For example, the derivatives market has leveraged the value of practically everything to a point where it may be worth as much as $500 trillion.  Does that mean that if we got rid of it, that everything on this planet would be worth 10-20 times more?  No, obviously not.

----------


## Seraphim

> So are my common stock holdings suppressed because of the option market?  Futures?
> 
> This argument (in bold) never gets old. I think it has been repeated 439058093440 *times by people who don't understand that "paper" elements exist for practically every market. * 
> 
> For example, the derivatives market has leveraged the value of practically everything to a point where it may be worth as much as $500 trillion.  Does that mean that if we got rid of it, that everything on this planet would be worth 10-20 times more?  No, obviously not.



And this makes it right?


Derivatives are just bets man. Place a bet with another corporation, and as often is the case, the bet value is worth more then the profits you'll earn from your clients, so bet against your clients and profit from it. That is EXACTLY what Goldman Sachs did (among others). The derivatives also hid debts from current and potential investors. They did NOT supress the value of their companies. THEY INFLATED THEM.

----------


## Jordan

> And this makes it right?
> 
> 
> Derivatives are just bets man. Place a bet with another corporation, and as often is the case, the bet value is worth more then the profits you'll earn from your clients, so bet against your clients and profit from it. That is EXACTLY what Goldman Sachs did (among others). The derivatives also hid debts from current and potential investors. They did supress the value of their companies. THEY INFLATED THEM.


I don't know why it isn't right for someone to make a contractual bet with someone else.

If I wanted to bet you $10,000 that gold would be worth $1500 or more by December 2010, why couldn't I?  Why should that be illegal?

These MBS were not sold to individual investors, they were sold to investment banks and hedge funds that aren't exactly dumb enough to buy whatever crosses their trading desks.  All parties new what was in the deal, and didn't have to buy the products being offered.

Derivatives hid debts?  They suppressed the value of their companies?  

I'd love to hear how this works.

----------


## ILUVRP

I will jump into this to say some derivative's are good , like-- airlines hedgeing oil--miners selling forward their metals-- when i had a farm ( 200a , 160 tillable ) i always sold the crops forward, i knew my costs, waited until the crops were going to be ok , went to the local elevator and sold 75% of what i figgered what the fields would yield in corn, soybeans, wheat, then just delivered the crops to the elevator , they were covering themselfs by selling contracts on the Chicago Board of Trade. 

The big banks- headge funds like goldmansucks-jp morgan made a mess of the  Derivatives mkt.

I will say i own gold/silver and some small miners. I think of PM'S as a insurance policy.

----------


## Seraphim

> I don't know why it isn't right for someone to make a contractual bet with someone else.
> 
> If I wanted to bet you $10,000 that gold would be worth $1500 or more by December 2010, why couldn't I?  Why should that be illegal?
> 
> These MBS were not sold to individual investors, they were sold to investment banks and hedge funds that aren't exactly dumb enough to buy whatever crosses their trading desks.  All parties new what was in the deal, and didn't have to buy the products being offered.
> 
> Derivatives hid debts?  They suppressed the value of their companies?  
> 
> I'd love to hear how this works.


Dude the derivatives market has many aspects. Why do you think Lehman Brother's almost collpased the system? They were trading virtually valueless assets for their huge debt obligations to hide teh debts on their quarterly reports. This kept their investors from knowing what was going on and NEW investors were not scared off. 

And did you seriously just defend a company making bets that go against their own investors? Are you that morally corrupt or did you just not read what I said?

Companies like Goldman Sachs were making bets with other companies that in simplified form was "I'll bet you 300B dollars our investments will drop 200B in the coming weeks". With their gigantic stake in the market, companies like that can and DO cause wild fluctuations in prices. Goldman gets 300B$ and their investors lose. NO PROBLEMS THERE?

Do you not see the conflict of interest or did you just skim over what I said and missed that tid bit?

----------


## Jordan

> Dude the derivatives market has many aspects. Why do you think Lehman Brother's almost collpased the system? They were trading virtually valueless assets for their huge debt obligations to hide teh debts on their quarterly reports. This kept their investors from knowing what was going on and NEW investors were not scared off.


They almost collapsed the system because the derivatives market is a highly leveraged marketplace.  

Leverage, through the theory of large numbers, allows risk management and arbitrage algorithms to turn tiny (fraction of a percentage point) profits to be large enough to attract interest.  A .02% return is a waste of time, leverage it up 100 times and exit within a half year, and (according to the sharpe ratio) it is a suitable investment and an area where capital should be deployed.




> And did you seriously just defend a company making bets that go against their own investors? Are you that morally corrupt or did you just not read what I said?


Would it be wrong for a bookie (that's what a market maker is, FYI) to take a bet from someone else and balance it out with another bet from another person, taking the spread as a profit?




> Companies like Goldman Sachs were making bets with other companies that in simplified form was "I'll bet you 300B dollars our investments will drop 200B in the coming weeks". With their gigantic stake in the market, companies like that can and DO cause wild fluctuations in prices. Goldman gets 300B$ and their investors lose. NO PROBLEMS THERE?


No, there are no problems there.

The corporations, hedge funds, and investment banks, that bought these MBS packages were bullish on MB securities.  Goldman Sachs, at the time these products were sold, was equally bullish.

It wasn't until later that Goldman switched from net long, to market neutral, then eventually net short in its positions.  See my comment above.  This is an industry standard, it is not inherently immoral, and it is absolutely not fraudulent.  Every bet must be met with a counterparty, and that counterparty could be someone else, or if Goldman saw an opportunity for profit, itself.




> Do you not see the conflict of interest or did you just skim over what I said and missed that tid bit?


Would it be a conflict of interest for me to make a bet with you, then make the opposite bet with someone else, hoping to profit regardless of the outcome?  No, that is the job of a market marker, broker, and in gambling, a bookie.

----------


## WaltM

> As of today, my 401k plan through my employer will allow me to withdraw (not borrow) around 60,000 of my total 401k.
> 
> I will take a bit of a hit on taxes but I really want to get the hell as much as I can out of my company's 401k plan.  I would like to maybe use half to do some home improvements (I know this is not an investment) and invest the rest in overseas markets, commodities, etc...
> 
> Thoughts?


home improvements ARE investments if it's a way to avoid higher costs later in repairs, or a way to charge more on rent in the future.

----------


## WaltM

> And this makes it right?
> 
> 
> Derivatives are just bets man. Place a bet with another corporation, and as often is the case, the bet value is worth more then the profits you'll earn from your clients, so bet against your clients and profit from it. That is EXACTLY what Goldman Sachs did (among others). The derivatives also hid debts from current and potential investors. They did NOT supress the value of their companies. THEY INFLATED THEM.


who cares if it's right?

they exist, and they're enforceable. 

sure, you might not be paid if the money source isn't coming, but you can't ignore that they exist and have their properties (and people still depend on them)

----------


## WaltM

> And did you seriously just defend a company making bets that go against their own investors? Are you that morally corrupt or did you just not read what I said?


if they did the opposite you'd complain that they selfishly care only of themselves with no regard to other people.

----------


## Seraphim

> if they did the opposite you'd complain that they selfishless care only of themselves with no regard to other people.


Lol, what?

----------


## RCA

best...thread...title...EVER

----------


## WaltM

> Lol, what?


you say it's somehow wrong to bet against his own investors (or his own funds, if that), as if that's a conflict of interest, when in fact, it's called insurance and covering your bases against odds. 

Now, had a company arrogantly and confidently bet only FOR their investors, would that be your ideal management strategy? Had they failed in the bet (all or nothing, in this case, getting nothing), would you not complain that they were short sighted, selfish and irresponsible?

----------


## Seraphim

> you say it's somehow wrong to bet against his own investors (or his own funds, if that), as if that's a conflict of interest, when in fact, it's called insurance and covering your bases against odds. 
> 
> Now, had a company arrogantly and confidently bet only FOR their investors, would that be your ideal management strategy? Had they failed in the bet (all or nothing, in this case, getting nothing), would you not complain that they were short sighted, selfish and irresponsible?


Lol no, because in the case of GS they hedged their bets against their clients, and for their own profit, and profited by HURTING their clients.

----------


## WaltM

> Lol no, because in the case of GS they hedged their bets against their clients, and for their own profit, and profited by HURTING their clients.


should they hurt other people just to help their clients instead?

----------


## Seraphim

> should they hurt other people just to help their clients instead?


You are serious right now? We're talking about conciously moving against your own clients who have trusted their money with your firm. They (GS) purposely dropped their own investments (ultimately losing their clients money) so that the firm (GS) could profit from a derivatives bet they made with another bank. You are rationalizing this behaviour? WOW. All I'm going to say. I'm done with you if you think that OK.

----------


## WaltM

> You are serious right now?


yes.




> We're talking about conciously moving against your own clients who have trusted their money with your firm.


is a company's objective not to make money?




> They (GS) purposely dropped their own investments (ultimately losing their clients money) so that the firm (GS) could profit from a derivatives bet they made with another bank.


Should the opposite be considered more moral?

That they never turned their backs on their clients and won money by winning it from other people?





> You are rationalizing this behaviour? WOW. All I'm going to say. I'm done with you if you think that OK.

----------


## Seraphim

> yes.
> 
> 
> 
> is a company's objective not to make money?
> 
> 
> 
> Should the opposite be considered more moral?
> ...


NO INVESTMENT FIRMS ARE SUPPOSED TO MAKE MONEY FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR INVESTORS. NOT SCREW THE INVESTORS AND PROFIT FROM IT. ARE YOU SOME KIND OF FASCIST PRICK? IS IT OK TO POISON PEOPLE IF IT IS PROFITABLE?

Moron. For real. You suck. That kind of mentality is allowing the world to get raped and pillaged by corporations. Fascism is not free market capitalism. You advocate Corporate Rule, even if only implictly. 

Have fun in Auschwitz.

----------


## WaltM

> NO INVESTMENT FIRMS ARE SUPPOSED TO MAKE MONEY FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR INVESTORS.


So if they bet against other people, and won money for their investors, that's moral, correct?





> NOT SCREW THE INVESTORS AND PROFIT FROM IT.


So it's OK to screw OTHER PEOPLE and profit from it, and profit their investors?




> ARE YOU SOME KIND OF FASCIST PRICK? IS IT OK TO POISON PEOPLE IF IT IS PROFITABLE?


According to you, as long as they don't poison their own investors.




> Moron. For real. You suck. That kind of mentality is allowing the world to get raped and pillaged by corporations. Fascism is not free market capitalism.


What happened to "buyer beware" and "why would anybody want to make you money" and "responsibility"?




> You advocate Corporate Rule, even if only implictly.


yeah, I do, I'm not a communist.




> *Have fun in Auschwitz.*


*
?????????? you did NOT just say that!*

----------


## Jordan

> You are serious right now? We're talking about conciously moving against your own clients who have trusted their money with your firm.


Not true.  GS did not use investment capital to buy the MBS.  The MBS were sold to other investment banks who wanted to bet on their success.




> They (GS) purposely dropped their own investments (ultimately losing their clients money) so that the firm (GS) could profit from a derivatives bet they made with another bank. You are rationalizing this behaviour? WOW. All I'm going to say. I'm done with you if you think that OK.


That, again, is not true.

Look, I hate Goldman Sachs just like everyone else, but there is no need to lie about what they did.

----------


## Seraphim

Communism and Facism are the same thing lol. Corporate and Govt rule with no regard for the individual.

You advocate corporate rule and think that somehow it is defensible by saying YA IM NOT A COMMUNIST. Lol. 

Your statements are backward. Free Market Capitalism is NOT corporate rule. It's CORPORATE SERVITUDE. CORPORATIONS, IN A FREE MARKET SERVE US! NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

Auschwitz was set up by a CORPORATE RULED STATE. This was my point. History repeats itself. Give Corporations the reigns, I dare you. We'll see what happens.

----------


## WaltM

> Communism and Facism are the same thing lol.


No they are not. 

Communism doesn't believe in property. It puts society before individuals.




> Corporate and Govt rule with no regard for the individual.


Corporations other than the state cannot exist under communism.

Fascism DOES regard for the individual, in this case, THE CORPORATION.




> You advocate corporate rule and think that somehow it is defensible by saying YA IM NOT A COMMUNIST. Lol.


What's wrong with that?




> Your statements are backward. Free Market Capitalism is NOT corporate rule.


How can you have corporate rule WITHOUT STARTING WITH FREE MARKET?




> It's CORPORATE SERVITUDE. CORPORATIONS, IN A FREE MARKET SERVE US! NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.


It's mutual.

Corporations who make money ultimately have to spend it.




> Auschwitz was set up by a CORPORATE RULED STATE. This was my point. History repeats itself. Give Corporations the reigns, I dare you. We'll see what happens.


How do you know what side I'm on? You can't even answer me if the reverse of your allegations to GS would be moral. 

Auschwitz was originally built for a model city to experiment technology and agriculture (yes, by a company, named IG Farben). So yes, people DID originally intend to have fun at Auschwitz, it later turn into a concentration camp as the war went on.

By the way, Fascism or Nazism produced Volkwagen, benefited IBM, and if US today counts, has a big industry in Oil, and war. 
Who has communism helped prosper? Banks?

----------


## Godisnowhere

Do not take your 401K money. You can setup a precious metals 401K and then transfer your money to it. Then buy silver. That is exactly what I have done. The silver is kept in a vault so you own the actual silver. 

I used Goldstar Trust for my precious metals IRA. I bought my silver from Colorado Gold as they have great prices for large purchase but shop around at APMEX and a few other places. 

I bought a combination of American Eagle Silver coins and some bullion but that is your choice. 

Silver is the best way to get as the mining cost is 13-14 per Oz, it is as rare as Gold and getting rarer, and is way under priced. 

I get nothing from this I am just a Christian who did a lot of research and want to help people not get killed from the 100 trillion dollar USD liability we cannot pay without inflating the dollar tremendously (which is what has to happen.

----------


## WaltM

> Do not take your 401K money. You can setup a precious metals 401K and then transfer your money to it. Then buy silver. That is exactly what I have done. The silver is kept in a vault so you own the actual silver. 
> 
> I used Goldstar Trust for my precious metals IRA. I bought my silver from Colorado Gold as they have great prices for large purchase but shop around at APMEX and a few other places. 
> 
> I bought a combination of American Eagle Silver coins and some bullion but that is your choice. 
> 
> Silver is the best way to get as the mining cost is 13-14 per Oz, it is as rare as Gold and getting rarer, and is way under priced. 
> 
> I get nothing from this I am just a Christian who did a lot of research and want to help people not get killed from the 100 trillion dollar USD liability we cannot pay without inflating the dollar tremendously (which is what has to happen.


God is "now here"

or "nowhere"?

----------


## LibForestPaul

> More ill informed nonsense.
> 
> You can say that short term trading is rigged against the little guy, but buy and hold investment strategies have provided far more winners than losers.   Broad market investments perform quite well in both generating an income from dividends and providing capital gains as businesses grow.
> 
> A 401k can be invested in whatever you want.  You can have a 100% stock 401k, if you'd like.  Oh, and a slight majority of funds offer a trading window which allow you to buy any stock/fund/etf that your heart desires.  Leave out the conspiracy theories and you'll find that the taxing system for 401ks is entirely rational.  401ks allow tax free compounding of returns, and give the US government a stake in the performance of the financial markets.
> 
> As long as the average return of a US retirement fund is greater than the cost to borrow through treasuries, it makes sense for the US government to want taxes later, instead of up front.
> 
> How does a 401k support the system that we abhor?  I'd love to hear your explanation for that one.


http://www.mymoneyblog.com/what-is-t...t-returns.html

----------


## Jordan

> http://www.mymoneyblog.com/what-is-t...t-returns.html


Was that meant to support or contradict my post?

----------

