Should 401ks be phased out?

[Anonymous]

Seems a growing movement. So many people don’t have one and the people who do a huge tax giveaway to rich.

Look at all the New Yorkers retired to Florida who avoided SALT taxes for 40 years on 401k contributions now in Florida.

If we could tax those trillions would solve a lot of problems

[Anonymous]

Sure, let’s remove the only remaining method of saving money for an ever longer retirement. Great idea. I guess we should all do ritualistic suicide once we hit 70. As far as people moving states, that’s New York’s issue for electing corrupt politicians in Albany who only know tax and spend giveaway politics.

[Anonymous]

I think this is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard in my life. Most people don’t have enough to retire and now you want to punish those that have saved and planned their whole lives. Taxing the huge portion of Americans who actually plan their life out is crazy. Americans are incentivized to plan with these tax breaks, including the mortgage deductions and child taxes. These rule incentivize stability in society - you want to uproot that?!?! Crazy!

[Anonymous]

This is crazy. No.

[Anonymous]

401k should not transfer tax liability to a new state. It is deferred compensation and should be taxed in the state where it was earned, like CA does for RSU awards.

401k is for the MC/UMC, not the rich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think this is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard in my life. Most people don’t have enough to retire and now you want to punish those that have saved and planned their whole lives. Taxing the huge portion of Americans who actually plan their life out is crazy. Americans are incentivized to plan with these tax breaks, including the mortgage deductions and child taxes. These rule incentivize stability in society - you want to uproot that?!?! Crazy!

Paying people to move to Florida does not incentivize stability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sure, let’s remove the only remaining method of saving money for an ever longer retirement. Great idea. I guess we should all do ritualistic suicide once we hit 70. As far as people moving states, that’s New York’s issue for electing corrupt politicians in Albany who only know tax and spend giveaway politics.

You can still save for retirement even if you pay taxes.

[Anonymous]

Old people Genx and older 401k should be taxed based on their net worth not income

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sure, let’s remove the only remaining method of saving money for an ever longer retirement. Great idea. I guess we should all do ritualistic suicide once we hit 70. As far as people moving states, that’s New York’s issue for electing corrupt politicians in Albany who only know tax and spend giveaway politics.

That would make society better the boomers are destroying everyone and everything and sucking up all the money in their old age

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:401k should not transfer tax liability to a new state. It is deferred compensation and should be taxed in the state where it was earned, like CA does for RSU awards.

401k is for the MC/UMC, not the rich.

I agree with this. There are significant disadvantages with 401ks/IRAs - Withdrawals are taxed at future income tax rates (which are not known). RMDs force you to withdraw and be taxed whether you need the money or not. Inherited IRAs have to be liquidated within 5 years (at income tax rates). You can't claim losses on investments in IRAs/401ks...

[Anonymous]

No, because they were savings vehicles more than investment vehicles. People saved their way into comfortable retirement while the companies milked them with every possible fee. The fees made by the companies should be taxed at higher rate as the are before tax. The balance would be 30 percent higher if it wasn't for the unnecessary fees.

[Anonymous]

Lots of people no longer have pensions. We were told for decades to scrape by and live frugally to put the money into a 401k bc it’s your only means to a pension. This isn’t gravy for people. Come on. It’s hard work to sacrifice and save.

[Anonymous]

What would you recommend as an alternative to 401ks?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:401k should not transfer tax liability to a new state. It is deferred compensation and should be taxed in the state where it was earned, like CA does for RSU awards.

401k is for the MC/UMC, not the rich.

I agree with this. There are significant disadvantages with 401ks/IRAs - Withdrawals are taxed at future income tax rates (which are not known). RMDs force you to withdraw and be taxed whether you need the money or not. Inherited IRAs have to be liquidated within 5 years (at income tax rates). You can't claim losses on investments in IRAs/401ks...

I agree. For all the reasons above, they're not a good tool for intergenerational wealth transfer. Add that contribution limits are relatively low. They are designed for MC and UMC to save for retirement in lieu of pensions.

[Anonymous]

This is seriously beyond stupid. Unless you're recommending UBI and a stronger pension system as a replacement, please get out.