The 401K Drives Inequality: NY Times article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a moderate Democrat. I am so sick of the increasingly liberal media crapping on any tool that was created to help the middle class and that the population actually uses to successfully to amass average wealth. 401ks replaced pensions. Now that the UMC and -gasp- upper class are tilizing them, it’s suddenly another tool in the woke lefts “oppressed be oppressor” narrative. I am so fed up. The UMC will never be taxed enough until they’ve given away all their income to be on par with someone in a career earning a quarter of what they do.

I don't think most people realized just how much the rich could abuse them until reports about Romney's $100 million retirement account came out

Romney didn’t “abuse” them. He played by the same rules as everyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like the beginning of a new indoctrination attempt among the progressive left - subtly attacking 401ks to set up the justification for crippling them through much higher taxes down the road.

Anyway, I know the NYT well enough to do the opposite of what they tell you to do.

We should be taxing 401(k)s or at a minimum we should means test social security so that 401(k) millionaires aren't collecting social security as the system runs out of money to provide for those underprivileged people who truly need it.

I'm a 401k "millionaire" in my 40s. I started contributing when I was 25 and not making much. I've never broken 150k a year but I've been putting money away regularly. I've also been contributing to SS every single pay period, which has been nonstop since the age of 16. Heck yeah, I deserve the money that I've been putting in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like the beginning of a new indoctrination attempt among the progressive left - subtly attacking 401ks to set up the justification for crippling them through much higher taxes down the road.

Anyway, I know the NYT well enough to do the opposite of what they tell you to do.

We should be taxing 401(k)s or at a minimum we should means test social security so that 401(k) millionaires aren't collecting social security as the system runs out of money to provide for those underprivileged people who truly need it.

Keep your dirty progressive purple haired claws off my 401k and social security accounts. I think there's a Queers for Gaza rooftop party being hosted by Hamas you should be headed for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like the beginning of a new indoctrination attempt among the progressive left - subtly attacking 401ks to set up the justification for crippling them through much higher taxes down the road.

Anyway, I know the NYT well enough to do the opposite of what they tell you to do.

We should be taxing 401(k)s or at a minimum we should means test social security so that 401(k) millionaires aren't collecting social security as the system runs out of money to provide for those underprivileged people who truly need it.

I'm a 401k "millionaire" in my 40s. I started contributing when I was 25 and not making much. I've never broken 150k a year but I've been putting money away regularly. I've also been contributing to SS every single pay period, which has been nonstop since the age of 16. Heck yeah, I deserve the money that I've been putting in.

Everyone does! From those making 100K or 50K or 800K or 2M to any amount. You used methods to save and you paid into SS, so you are entitled to it all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Social security is essentially a federal pension for all, the problem is that US culture doesn't support increasing contributions (in the form of taxes) in order to increase payouts, plus there are generational issues with this based on baby booms/busts.

But if you really wanted to make pensions universal, that's how you'd do it. Not by requiring or encouraging companies to provide them (as a PP noted, pensions can be very restrictive in terms of your career and you have to trust the company/government entity to actually fund it) but by making SS more robust so that people were essentially forced to save for their own retirement.

SS relies on a growing population and high employment. it’s not sustainable either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Social security is essentially a federal pension for all, the problem is that US culture doesn't support increasing contributions (in the form of taxes) in order to increase payouts, plus there are generational issues with this based on baby booms/busts.

But if you really wanted to make pensions universal, that's how you'd do it. Not by requiring or encouraging companies to provide them (as a PP noted, pensions can be very restrictive in terms of your career and you have to trust the company/government entity to actually fund it) but by making SS more robust so that people were essentially forced to save for their own retirement.

SS relies on a growing population and high employment. it’s not sustainable either.

We have the largest population today than we have any other point and one of the highest employment rates too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Social security is essentially a federal pension for all, the problem is that US culture doesn't support increasing contributions (in the form of taxes) in order to increase payouts, plus there are generational issues with this based on baby booms/busts.

But if you really wanted to make pensions universal, that's how you'd do it. Not by requiring or encouraging companies to provide them (as a PP noted, pensions can be very restrictive in terms of your career and you have to trust the company/government entity to actually fund it) but by making SS more robust so that people were essentially forced to save for their own retirement.

SS relies on a growing population and high employment. it’s not sustainable either.

We have the largest population today than we have any other point and one of the highest employment rates too.

You need a large working population relative to retirees. Boomers are a very large generation relative to gen X and gen y.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like the beginning of a new indoctrination attempt among the progressive left - subtly attacking 401ks to set up the justification for crippling them through much higher taxes down the road.

Anyway, I know the NYT well enough to do the opposite of what they tell you to do.

We should be taxing 401(k)s or at a minimum we should means test social security so that 401(k) millionaires aren't collecting social security as the system runs out of money to provide for those underprivileged people who truly need it.

Let me understand... people who have saved a lot in their 401k and are paying a ton of taxes should not be able to collect social security that they paid into because other people didn't save enough?

I grew up lower income. I lived frugally and saved a lot. I also worked my way through a (b rated) state college so that I could graduate debt free.

So, not only do you expect us to foot the bill for those who got their college loans paid off, but also we should not be able to collect social security so that those who may have not saved as much or lived as frugally to save for retirement can still get more.

GTFO.

Social Security is going bankrupt. What's left should be reserved for those who need it -- not 401(k) millionaires. This is the way it's going to be, whether you like it or not. Who do you think has the votes -- the 401(k) millionaire set or the rest of the struggling population? Diversity, Equity and Inclusion mean anything to you or are you still living in the 1950s in your head?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like the beginning of a new indoctrination attempt among the progressive left - subtly attacking 401ks to set up the justification for crippling them through much higher taxes down the road.

Anyway, I know the NYT well enough to do the opposite of what they tell you to do.

We should be taxing 401(k)s or at a minimum we should means test social security so that 401(k) millionaires aren't collecting social security as the system runs out of money to provide for those underprivileged people who truly need it.

I'm a 401k "millionaire" in my 40s. I started contributing when I was 25 and not making much. I've never broken 150k a year but I've been putting money away regularly. I've also been contributing to SS every single pay period, which has been nonstop since the age of 16. Heck yeah, I deserve the money that I've been putting in.

You don't need it (Social Security) and you won't get it. The sooner you realize this the easier it will be to accept it and make peace with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like the beginning of a new indoctrination attempt among the progressive left - subtly attacking 401ks to set up the justification for crippling them through much higher taxes down the road.

Anyway, I know the NYT well enough to do the opposite of what they tell you to do.

We should be taxing 401(k)s or at a minimum we should means test social security so that 401(k) millionaires aren't collecting social security as the system runs out of money to provide for those underprivileged people who truly need it.

I'm a 401k "millionaire" in my 40s. I started contributing when I was 25 and not making much. I've never broken 150k a year but I've been putting money away regularly. I've also been contributing to SS every single pay period, which has been nonstop since the age of 16. Heck yeah, I deserve the money that I've been putting in.

You don't need it (Social Security) and you won't get it. The sooner you realize this the easier it will be to accept it and make peace with it.

Then I really don't want to pay into it anymore. I've been paying into it my entire life and would prefer to drop the rope. It's never going to be enough so peace out.

But, that's not going to happen. The age may be raised and maybe the benefits will be reduced. I'm fine with all that. There is no way it's going to get eliminated for higher tax brackets. That's political death right there.

[Anonymous]

Read the conclusions.

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v72n1/v72n1p37.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Social security is essentially a federal pension for all, the problem is that US culture doesn't support increasing contributions (in the form of taxes) in order to increase payouts, plus there are generational issues with this based on baby booms/busts.

But if you really wanted to make pensions universal, that's how you'd do it. Not by requiring or encouraging companies to provide them (as a PP noted, pensions can be very restrictive in terms of your career and you have to trust the company/government entity to actually fund it) but by making SS more robust so that people were essentially forced to save for their own retirement.

SS relies on a growing population and high employment. it’s not sustainable either.

We have the largest population today than we have any other point and one of the highest employment rates too.

You need a large working population relative to retirees. Boomers are a very large generation relative to gen X and gen y.

Congressional appropriations can make everything whole. Stop with this whole “social security is broke and will cease to exist soon” garbage.

[Anonymous]

Social security is a ponzi scam.

When it was first made there were many more workers per retiree paying into the system. Now the problem is that there aren't enough workers paying in so the whole thing just collapses since there are many more retirees.


Yes, let's punish everyone who saved diligently their entire lives by taking away their social security while all of the deadbeats who pissed away their earnings buying $60k+ cars, buying top of the line iPhones, going to stupidly expensive colleges, and doing home renovations get rewarded for not saving anything like a bunch of morons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like the beginning of a new indoctrination attempt among the progressive left - subtly attacking 401ks to set up the justification for crippling them through much higher taxes down the road.

Anyway, I know the NYT well enough to do the opposite of what they tell you to do.

We should be taxing 401(k)s or at a minimum we should means test social security so that 401(k) millionaires aren't collecting social security as the system runs out of money to provide for those underprivileged people who truly need it.

Let me understand... people who have saved a lot in their 401k and are paying a ton of taxes should not be able to collect social security that they paid into because other people didn't save enough?

I grew up lower income. I lived frugally and saved a lot. I also worked my way through a (b rated) state college so that I could graduate debt free.

So, not only do you expect us to foot the bill for those who got their college loans paid off, but also we should not be able to collect social security so that those who may have not saved as much or lived as frugally to save for retirement can still get more.

GTFO.

Social Security is going bankrupt. What's left should be reserved for those who need it -- not 401(k) millionaires. This is the way it's going to be, whether you like it or not. Who do you think has the votes -- the 401(k) millionaire set or the rest of the struggling population? Diversity, Equity and Inclusion mean anything to you or are you still living in the 1950s in your head?

The fact you chose not to save does not mean I have to pay for your retirement. We started saving as soon as we graduated college, even while paying off student loans we did 6% so we could get the company match (otherwise you are throwing away free money). Once loans were paid off, we added over 50% of our student loan payments monthly to retirement. Once kids arrived we started saving for college.

I've paid in at the max and so has my spouse for 30+ years already. We had no choice, so we are entitled to our payout as well. I also pay 37% in federal tax (for an effective tax rate of over 30% most years) and the max state tax yearly as well. So I have more than contributed towards the good of society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like the beginning of a new indoctrination attempt among the progressive left - subtly attacking 401ks to set up the justification for crippling them through much higher taxes down the road.

Anyway, I know the NYT well enough to do the opposite of what they tell you to do.

We should be taxing 401(k)s or at a minimum we should means test social security so that 401(k) millionaires aren't collecting social security as the system runs out of money to provide for those underprivileged people who truly need it.

I'm a 401k "millionaire" in my 40s. I started contributing when I was 25 and not making much. I've never broken 150k a year but I've been putting money away regularly. I've also been contributing to SS every single pay period, which has been nonstop since the age of 16. Heck yeah, I deserve the money that I've been putting in.

You don't need it (Social Security) and you won't get it. The sooner you realize this the easier it will be to accept it and make peace with it.

Then I didn't need to pay into SS if I wasn't going to get a payout. It's not a welfare program, it's a pay in and get a payout program.
Perhaps you should have thought about planning for retirement on your own, and not relying on the govt and other's tax dollars to fund yours