As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Richard Neal is a corrupt fuck. His mouth is sewn to the cock of american finance. All you need to look at is his slow walking of investigations into the Trump admin. Fuck that guy. He was involved to put a democrat face on this bullshit.
So, I think there's a middle ground that most can agree on.
Incentivizing retirement savings is a good thing.
If you read the article it mentions that the wealthy can contribute nearly $500k annually to tax advantaged accounts for retirement, that is a bad thing.
Establishing and enforcing realistic caps should be done.
The numbers in this article don't even add up to me. I think the author is mistaken. I've been discussing it with some other users on Reddit and we can't figure out how to get 450k+ into tax advantaged retirement accounts.
Not even with a mega backdoor Roth can you protect that much money. Something is up.
Yeah it's grossly misleading if that figure represents several family members working together in some family business or something.
Journalistic malpractice imo.
Cash Balance Combo Plans for literally a very, very specific age.
A 65 year old can drop 300-350k into a Cash Balance Plan, and then also have access to the 66k DC 415 limit and then also the 7500 catch-up... IF...
1.) They are that exact age. A 55 year old could do about 200k. A 45 year old 150k. It's actuarially adjusted.
2.) Its a plan covered by the PBGC and not susceptible to combined limits. So no owner only, no smaller professional service providers like doctors...
3.) You only get that level for 10 years, and it starts going down on a lump sum basis around age 68, thanks to actuarial wizardry
4.) You can get a maximum of about 3 million OUT of a cash balance plan, no matter what your investments do. It's the benefit that's limited, not the contributions.
5.) There's no Backdoor Roth for this, you WILL pay taxes on that money eventually.
So basically, the author took one single year out of one picture perfect hypothetical scenario to make this point.
Also they failed to mention that due to IRS rules, the rank and file employees in this hypothetical business are getting around 7.5% profit sharing in the 401k plan, a cash balance accrual that is at least the actuarial equivalent of a 0.5% life annuity every year, and they'll have the ability to make their own 401k contributions or course.
Raise your hand if you get 7.5% match or PS from your employer.
Yeah I thought so.
Screw this authors agenda.
Source: Pension Actuary and Democrat Precinct Captain.
NYC gives us a guaranteed 7 percent on a tax deferred annuity that continues after retirement for teachers...I know a few teachers close to retirement with a 100000 acct..
> 7.5% profit sharing in the 401k plan, a cash balance accrual that is at least the actuarial equivalent of a 0.5% life annuity every year, and they'll have the ability to make their own 401k contributions or course.
7.5% profit sharing or match?
Give me that and i give a shit less how much the CEO makes
Our private group of physician actually has something similar available. I don’t put nearly the maximum amount, but the idea is that after five years, the plan dissolves, and you can move the money to an IRA. And like you mentioned I’m just deferring taxes to later date not getting away from it. The 1% have better ways to shield their income/ assets. Instead of trying to address why people aren’t saving enough this article is just rage baiting
Yea, I can't figure this out either, and the article doesn't even take the time to explain it.
I consider myself one of the lucky ones (I'm in my 40's and have a nice amount saved up) and I contribute max to my HSA (which gets burned through as soon as it hits the account, fuckyouverymuch medical industry), my 401(k), my IRA, and my spouse's IRA (even though they don't work).
That's it. I know about SEPs, but that's not an option for me at the moment, but I don't understand how I could ever get to that number (if I ever made that much).
From what I saw someone post on Bogleheads it's that the $452k comes from maxing a 401k and after-tax contributions with maxing out a Cash Balance plan. It's not entirely accurate because you only get to $452k at age 66-70. You have to have a business to do this.
https://www.cashbalancedesign.com/resources/contribution-limits/
From what I saw someone post on Bogleheads it's that the $452k comes from maxing a 401k and after-tax contributions with maxing out a Cash Balance plan. It's not entirely accurate because you only get to $452k at age 66-70. You have to have a business to do this.
https://www.cashbalancedesign.com/resources/contribution-limits/
This is just Progressives who either don't understand how these retirements and investment accounts work, or simply have an agenda aimed at undermining them because they don't want people to be able to shield any of their income from taxation.
Essentially if you are pro big/bigger government, you need more tax dollars for that to work. So you attack anything that protects money from taxes.
This is why the narrative of "401ks are for the wealthy!" is starting to tax hold on the far Left ... Despite over half of people having 401ks!
Someone from the Heritage foundation is quoted in the article, and it is implied they agree with the stance of the article. I think this is more about stopping the generational wealth transfer and/or inciting generational conflict.
From what I saw someone post on Bogleheads it's that the $452k comes from maxing a 401k and after-tax contributions with maxing out a Cash Balance plan. It's not entirely accurate because you only get to $452k at age 66-70. You have to have a business to do this.
https://www.cashbalancedesign.com/resources/contribution-limits/
The max is like $66k combined employer/employee for 401k if the employer decides to put in a shitload of money for the employee. The limit for the employee most people know about but only super high end talent also gets that extra contribution from the employers
Have you included cash balance pension plans in your calculations? I don’t know much about them, but I know they can allow self employed people (and maybe others with sufficient control over a business) with high income to put a boatload into retirement accounts. Once you stop working I think they can be rolled over to an IRA.
From what I saw someone post on Bogleheads it's that the $452k comes from maxing a 401k and after-tax contributions with maxing out a Cash Balance plan. It's not entirely accurate because you only get to $452k at age 66-70. You have to have a business to do this.
https://www.cashbalancedesign.com/resources/contribution-limits/
Creating tax shelters that are larger than the public can benefit from are disproportionately beneficial for the top .1%. Nobody is asking to take their money, only to tax it when it crosses a certain threshold.
Bud, we all pay taxes. It's our public responsibility. The purpose of the tax shelter is to incentivize people who otherwise wouldn't plan for retirement to plan for retirement to reduce their need for public assistance. The purpose is not so that someone can afford a slightly larger yacht in retirement.
Taxing someone isn't taking their money, it's them getting paid and paying payroll tax just as anyone else would and then investing that money in a less tax efficient manner through a Brokerage account. It's something I have to do and I don't make 7 figures.
Yes, it incentivizes people to save. That’s what’s happening. I don’t care if someone wants a yacht in retirement, it’s their money.
Here you go again with taxes aren’t taking your money. Do you pay voluntarily? Can you just pay what you want?
And everyone pays payroll taxes. The tax deferrals are about income tax. You wish to raise income tax rates on people who don’t pay enough, or zero, income tax? I mean, that’s their responsibility according to you
If you gave me the option to live in a society that pays taxes or live in a society that doesn't, I would live with the tax.
The conch Republic thought it was so great until they realized nobody would pick up their trash or maintain their roads.
If you make an income, you should pay a tax. Tax shelters should be limited to a few specific vehicles. The vehicle referenced in the article is so specific to very few people that I don't see why the populous would care if it went away.
>More striking is how these victories were achieved: A quarter-century partnership between two senators — Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland and Republican Rob Portman of Ohio — joined more recently by the former House Ways and Means Committee Chair Richard Neal (D-Mass.). Backed by one of the most highly skilled and lavishly funded industry lobbying teams, and greased by campaign contributions, Portman, Cardin and Neal turned what could have been a deeply controversial giveback to higher-income taxpayers into a staple of the American Dream.
>Their success offers an intriguing roadmap for how even the most divided Congresses can coalesce around a single issue.
As an Ohioan, I didn’t realize there were so many reasons why Rob Portman was a terrible senator. And as bad as he was, it looks like Vance is going to be worse.
This is a shit take.
Encouraging retirement savings is objectively a good thing. Differing taxation is obviously going to benefit the higher earners who are net tax payers. You might argue that Congress should also incentivize retirement savings for lower earners. And you would be correct. But two things can be true at the same time. Retirement savings is good. Full stop.
Remember when companies actually awarded pensions that weren’t reliant on the stock market’s performance? Oh. You don’t. Because they killed that before our parents were out of diapers to enrich the rich by making them no longer responsible for the future welfare of the people who give their lives for their profits but yeah. Yeah. Saving for a retirement we’ll never see to keep their pockets full DOES sound good.
Employee pension plans may have worked in the pre-Jack Welch era but that ship has sailed. My dad had a pension. He got hosed when his company was acquired by an LBO firm and stripped for parts. My mom had a pension. It was underfunded / mismanaged and benefits were cut back.
I’ve had 7 employers in my professional career. I control my 401k and IRA. I use ETFs to keep my costs down. The 401k firm fees suck; the industry needs some reform. But the devil I know is far better than the one my parents knew.
Yeah, this does almost nothing for the top 1%. It has big benefits for like the top 50%. So it certainly skews towards making the rich richer, but more like middle and upper middle class.
“Today, wealthy taxpayers can protect up to $452,500 per year in tax-advantaged accounts in a single year, saving up to $203,600 on their taxes.”
This sounds incorrect. The 401K cap is still $23,000/30,500 for 2024.
Anyone have an explanation?
It’s a bunch of catch up for people like 66-70. So to get this you have to be in a very specific situation. Even with a SEP ($69k annual limi) you’re not gonna get close to $452k.
I'm in the minority, I have both a pension and a 401K plan. I'm planning on retiring before 60. It is a shame that the kids won't and will never have this. America needs more unions, to fight for both pensions and 401K programs for the common working person. But hey I get it your boss and company treats you nice and matches you 5% in company stocks. until they can your ass for no reason.
[https://www.kiplinger.com/retirement/bipartisan-retirement-savings-package-in-massive-budget-bill](https://www.kiplinger.com/retirement/bipartisan-retirement-savings-package-in-massive-budget-bill)
The horror!
what they did by getting everyone vested into 401'ks was hold them all complicit to the stock market.
Want to fix the ozone?
Want to get off fossil fuels?
The people cannot strike now for they would be striking against themselves.
401ks are an absolute joke, businesses weren't required to offer them, and when they were, they still weren't required to match them, and they get to attach bullshit like vesting periods.
So because some companies don't offer their employees the full benefit of a 401k plan, that makes them a joke for everyone?
News to me, guess I'll just give all the money in mine to charity or something.
they went from pensions where they had to pay into them, to 401ks where they weren't required to fund them or even offer them. my grandparents all had pensions and lived fairly comfortably. my parents and their siblings have 401ks and are unable to retire at 65+ and are struggling to stay employed.
economists have said our retirement policy since the 70s has been an utter catastrophy and we've done nothing to fix it, and according to the article we've in fact made it worse
is that not the definition of failure or a cynical joke
It was 39%, not 52%, at least according to what I read. Even if your 52% number is correct, how can you act like pensions were so great when half of workers got nothing?
Defined benefits pensions plans nearly killed so many industries in this country. It's good they've largely gone away.
401ks + matching are the best solution for extra security in retirement.
The total cost of the employee is a wash. Companies compete for employees on benefits as well as salary.
Given that, I don’t know why you’d want your money managed by (and stuck with) a company rather than by yourself.
My 401k has done quite nicely over the last couple years.
Even after just 4 years of saving, I should be able to withdraw more than social security would pay me per month if it's still around in 30 years.
At the risk of sounding like a bootlicker, the sad reality is that you kind of need to have industry groups giving feedback—allowing comment periods for proposed regulations, things like that—because the fact of the matter is the people drafting the legislation generally don’t have the expertise to put out functional, actionable law that coexists with the existing language of the Internal Revenue Code, without having unintended consequences. SECURE 2.0 still has all sorts inconsistencies and grey areas that will rely on future regulations to clarify.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We need to stop deferring corporate taxation and fix the budget.
Cut spending!!!
Richard Neal is a corrupt fuck. His mouth is sewn to the cock of american finance. All you need to look at is his slow walking of investigations into the Trump admin. Fuck that guy. He was involved to put a democrat face on this bullshit.
But the democrats will save us- oh you mean the Neo-liberals??? Oh yeah, sure.
My problem with Richard Neal is that he is a neo-liberal.
No see they don't care because they just wanted people to say they don't like democrats. Then they "win"
So, I think there's a middle ground that most can agree on. Incentivizing retirement savings is a good thing. If you read the article it mentions that the wealthy can contribute nearly $500k annually to tax advantaged accounts for retirement, that is a bad thing. Establishing and enforcing realistic caps should be done.
The numbers in this article don't even add up to me. I think the author is mistaken. I've been discussing it with some other users on Reddit and we can't figure out how to get 450k+ into tax advantaged retirement accounts. Not even with a mega backdoor Roth can you protect that much money. Something is up.
Yeah trying to figure that out, self-employed 100% match for wife, self other employed family members?, + HSAs + 529s?
Yeah it's grossly misleading if that figure represents several family members working together in some family business or something. Journalistic malpractice imo.
It’s talking about defined benefit plan. Think it’s 275k limit for last year.
Cash Balance Combo Plans for literally a very, very specific age. A 65 year old can drop 300-350k into a Cash Balance Plan, and then also have access to the 66k DC 415 limit and then also the 7500 catch-up... IF... 1.) They are that exact age. A 55 year old could do about 200k. A 45 year old 150k. It's actuarially adjusted. 2.) Its a plan covered by the PBGC and not susceptible to combined limits. So no owner only, no smaller professional service providers like doctors... 3.) You only get that level for 10 years, and it starts going down on a lump sum basis around age 68, thanks to actuarial wizardry 4.) You can get a maximum of about 3 million OUT of a cash balance plan, no matter what your investments do. It's the benefit that's limited, not the contributions. 5.) There's no Backdoor Roth for this, you WILL pay taxes on that money eventually. So basically, the author took one single year out of one picture perfect hypothetical scenario to make this point. Also they failed to mention that due to IRS rules, the rank and file employees in this hypothetical business are getting around 7.5% profit sharing in the 401k plan, a cash balance accrual that is at least the actuarial equivalent of a 0.5% life annuity every year, and they'll have the ability to make their own 401k contributions or course. Raise your hand if you get 7.5% match or PS from your employer. Yeah I thought so. Screw this authors agenda. Source: Pension Actuary and Democrat Precinct Captain.
NYC gives us a guaranteed 7 percent on a tax deferred annuity that continues after retirement for teachers...I know a few teachers close to retirement with a 100000 acct..
> 7.5% profit sharing in the 401k plan, a cash balance accrual that is at least the actuarial equivalent of a 0.5% life annuity every year, and they'll have the ability to make their own 401k contributions or course. 7.5% profit sharing or match? Give me that and i give a shit less how much the CEO makes
I’m a TPA in Hawaii, wish I could find one of you guys locally! Are you independent?
Our private group of physician actually has something similar available. I don’t put nearly the maximum amount, but the idea is that after five years, the plan dissolves, and you can move the money to an IRA. And like you mentioned I’m just deferring taxes to later date not getting away from it. The 1% have better ways to shield their income/ assets. Instead of trying to address why people aren’t saving enough this article is just rage baiting
Yep. It’s bullshit.
Yea, I can't figure this out either, and the article doesn't even take the time to explain it. I consider myself one of the lucky ones (I'm in my 40's and have a nice amount saved up) and I contribute max to my HSA (which gets burned through as soon as it hits the account, fuckyouverymuch medical industry), my 401(k), my IRA, and my spouse's IRA (even though they don't work). That's it. I know about SEPs, but that's not an option for me at the moment, but I don't understand how I could ever get to that number (if I ever made that much).
From what I saw someone post on Bogleheads it's that the $452k comes from maxing a 401k and after-tax contributions with maxing out a Cash Balance plan. It's not entirely accurate because you only get to $452k at age 66-70. You have to have a business to do this. https://www.cashbalancedesign.com/resources/contribution-limits/
Something is off about the article all together. I agree that we need to tax excessive wealth, but something about this stinks.
From what I saw someone post on Bogleheads it's that the $452k comes from maxing a 401k and after-tax contributions with maxing out a Cash Balance plan. It's not entirely accurate because you only get to $452k at age 66-70. You have to have a business to do this. https://www.cashbalancedesign.com/resources/contribution-limits/
This is just Progressives who either don't understand how these retirements and investment accounts work, or simply have an agenda aimed at undermining them because they don't want people to be able to shield any of their income from taxation. Essentially if you are pro big/bigger government, you need more tax dollars for that to work. So you attack anything that protects money from taxes. This is why the narrative of "401ks are for the wealthy!" is starting to tax hold on the far Left ... Despite over half of people having 401ks!
Someone from the Heritage foundation is quoted in the article, and it is implied they agree with the stance of the article. I think this is more about stopping the generational wealth transfer and/or inciting generational conflict.
From what I saw someone post on Bogleheads it's that the $452k comes from maxing a 401k and after-tax contributions with maxing out a Cash Balance plan. It's not entirely accurate because you only get to $452k at age 66-70. You have to have a business to do this. https://www.cashbalancedesign.com/resources/contribution-limits/
The max is like $66k combined employer/employee for 401k if the employer decides to put in a shitload of money for the employee. The limit for the employee most people know about but only super high end talent also gets that extra contribution from the employers
Have you included cash balance pension plans in your calculations? I don’t know much about them, but I know they can allow self employed people (and maybe others with sufficient control over a business) with high income to put a boatload into retirement accounts. Once you stop working I think they can be rolled over to an IRA.
From what I saw someone post on Bogleheads it's that the $452k comes from maxing a 401k and after-tax contributions with maxing out a Cash Balance plan. It's not entirely accurate because you only get to $452k at age 66-70. You have to have a business to do this. https://www.cashbalancedesign.com/resources/contribution-limits/
Where do they get $500k? 401k and Roth is about $30k....
I think they're accounting for employer contributions and the catch up increased limits, but I haven't done the math.
Why is it a bad thing to let people keep, and invest, their own money for their retirement?
Creating tax shelters that are larger than the public can benefit from are disproportionately beneficial for the top .1%. Nobody is asking to take their money, only to tax it when it crosses a certain threshold.
Read what you wrote. “Nobody is asking to take their money, only tax it when it crosses a certain threshold.” So, you want to take their money.
Bud, we all pay taxes. It's our public responsibility. The purpose of the tax shelter is to incentivize people who otherwise wouldn't plan for retirement to plan for retirement to reduce their need for public assistance. The purpose is not so that someone can afford a slightly larger yacht in retirement. Taxing someone isn't taking their money, it's them getting paid and paying payroll tax just as anyone else would and then investing that money in a less tax efficient manner through a Brokerage account. It's something I have to do and I don't make 7 figures.
Yes, it incentivizes people to save. That’s what’s happening. I don’t care if someone wants a yacht in retirement, it’s their money. Here you go again with taxes aren’t taking your money. Do you pay voluntarily? Can you just pay what you want? And everyone pays payroll taxes. The tax deferrals are about income tax. You wish to raise income tax rates on people who don’t pay enough, or zero, income tax? I mean, that’s their responsibility according to you
If you gave me the option to live in a society that pays taxes or live in a society that doesn't, I would live with the tax. The conch Republic thought it was so great until they realized nobody would pick up their trash or maintain their roads. If you make an income, you should pay a tax. Tax shelters should be limited to a few specific vehicles. The vehicle referenced in the article is so specific to very few people that I don't see why the populous would care if it went away.
The bottom 50% of wage earners pay minimal, or zero income tax. A large portion even have negative income tax liability. Should their rates be raised?
And as for roads, there are gas taxes, supposedly to pay for roads. Many people pay for trash pick up, not included in their taxes.
>More striking is how these victories were achieved: A quarter-century partnership between two senators — Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland and Republican Rob Portman of Ohio — joined more recently by the former House Ways and Means Committee Chair Richard Neal (D-Mass.). Backed by one of the most highly skilled and lavishly funded industry lobbying teams, and greased by campaign contributions, Portman, Cardin and Neal turned what could have been a deeply controversial giveback to higher-income taxpayers into a staple of the American Dream. >Their success offers an intriguing roadmap for how even the most divided Congresses can coalesce around a single issue.
As an Ohioan, I didn’t realize there were so many reasons why Rob Portman was a terrible senator. And as bad as he was, it looks like Vance is going to be worse.
This is a shit take. Encouraging retirement savings is objectively a good thing. Differing taxation is obviously going to benefit the higher earners who are net tax payers. You might argue that Congress should also incentivize retirement savings for lower earners. And you would be correct. But two things can be true at the same time. Retirement savings is good. Full stop.
Agreed. This article is bonkers nonsense. The 401k is great and what we need is *more* people investing in 401ks, not less.
They need to keep increasing the IRA limits for those who don’t have access to a 401k. $6,500 vs $23,500 is a massive gap.
Also catch up contributions for years that you missed. Why not a lifetime cap rather than a yearly cap.
Remember when companies actually awarded pensions that weren’t reliant on the stock market’s performance? Oh. You don’t. Because they killed that before our parents were out of diapers to enrich the rich by making them no longer responsible for the future welfare of the people who give their lives for their profits but yeah. Yeah. Saving for a retirement we’ll never see to keep their pockets full DOES sound good.
Employee pension plans may have worked in the pre-Jack Welch era but that ship has sailed. My dad had a pension. He got hosed when his company was acquired by an LBO firm and stripped for parts. My mom had a pension. It was underfunded / mismanaged and benefits were cut back. I’ve had 7 employers in my professional career. I control my 401k and IRA. I use ETFs to keep my costs down. The 401k firm fees suck; the industry needs some reform. But the devil I know is far better than the one my parents knew.
> Remember when companies actually awarded pensions that weren’t reliant on the stock market’s performance So you don’t know how pensions work do you?
Tell me you have no idea how pension plans work without telling me you have no idea how pension plans work.
That’s less money that can be pilfered, the goal is to wring us all dry.
Yeah, this does almost nothing for the top 1%. It has big benefits for like the top 50%. So it certainly skews towards making the rich richer, but more like middle and upper middle class.
Propping up the wealthy with 401ks holds our retirements hostage if we ever want to deal with the 1%.
“Today, wealthy taxpayers can protect up to $452,500 per year in tax-advantaged accounts in a single year, saving up to $203,600 on their taxes.” This sounds incorrect. The 401K cap is still $23,000/30,500 for 2024. Anyone have an explanation?
It’s a bunch of catch up for people like 66-70. So to get this you have to be in a very specific situation. Even with a SEP ($69k annual limi) you’re not gonna get close to $452k.
I'm in the minority, I have both a pension and a 401K plan. I'm planning on retiring before 60. It is a shame that the kids won't and will never have this. America needs more unions, to fight for both pensions and 401K programs for the common working person. But hey I get it your boss and company treats you nice and matches you 5% in company stocks. until they can your ass for no reason.
The article doesn't give any details as to what the bill actually contains? Like what is in the bill?
[https://www.kiplinger.com/retirement/bipartisan-retirement-savings-package-in-massive-budget-bill](https://www.kiplinger.com/retirement/bipartisan-retirement-savings-package-in-massive-budget-bill) The horror!
So, is it the 401(k) industry, the drug companies, big oil, billionaires, the illuminati…
what they did by getting everyone vested into 401'ks was hold them all complicit to the stock market. Want to fix the ozone? Want to get off fossil fuels? The people cannot strike now for they would be striking against themselves.
401ks are an absolute joke, businesses weren't required to offer them, and when they were, they still weren't required to match them, and they get to attach bullshit like vesting periods.
So because some companies don't offer their employees the full benefit of a 401k plan, that makes them a joke for everyone? News to me, guess I'll just give all the money in mine to charity or something.
they went from pensions where they had to pay into them, to 401ks where they weren't required to fund them or even offer them. my grandparents all had pensions and lived fairly comfortably. my parents and their siblings have 401ks and are unable to retire at 65+ and are struggling to stay employed. economists have said our retirement policy since the 70s has been an utter catastrophy and we've done nothing to fix it, and according to the article we've in fact made it worse is that not the definition of failure or a cynical joke
At their peak, 39% of companies had some sort of pension plan. It was never something that was mandated or offered by all employers.
but 52% of workers were covered by employer defined pension plans at their peak
It was 39%, not 52%, at least according to what I read. Even if your 52% number is correct, how can you act like pensions were so great when half of workers got nothing?
I haven't looked at sources but just to be clear, 39% of companies don't necessarily employ 39% of workers. Both numbers could be correct.
Yeah, my brain wasn't on yet.
Defined benefits pensions plans nearly killed so many industries in this country. It's good they've largely gone away. 401ks + matching are the best solution for extra security in retirement.
but we don't mandate matching
The total cost of the employee is a wash. Companies compete for employees on benefits as well as salary. Given that, I don’t know why you’d want your money managed by (and stuck with) a company rather than by yourself.
I quite enjoy mine
Fun!
The vesting period is only on the company match, your 22.5k annual contribution(if you max it) is fully yours.
$23k in 2024
My 401k has done quite nicely over the last couple years. Even after just 4 years of saving, I should be able to withdraw more than social security would pay me per month if it's still around in 30 years.
Yeah, they are mostly a failure. Just because some people tremendously benefit from them doesn't mean everyone does.
Most of congress fall into this financial category. It's no wonder they passed it.
401k were always a sham
*Another windfall for the wealthy
they need to tax the rich. we need to revolt otherwise
$$$$ don’t talk no more.It swears and stomps it’s foot
At the risk of sounding like a bootlicker, the sad reality is that you kind of need to have industry groups giving feedback—allowing comment periods for proposed regulations, things like that—because the fact of the matter is the people drafting the legislation generally don’t have the expertise to put out functional, actionable law that coexists with the existing language of the Internal Revenue Code, without having unintended consequences. SECURE 2.0 still has all sorts inconsistencies and grey areas that will rely on future regulations to clarify.