Should 401ks be phased out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:44 percent of employees have no access to a 401k.

And IRAs have lower contribution limits and no
match.

100% of the 44% of employees that have no access to a 401k still have access to an alternative job and employer that does offer a 401k. We’re not talking indentured servants here. Everyone has a choice.

Furthermore, for those that do have immediate access to a 401k, maximum employee contributions tend to be fixed, regardless of income. Thus, the plans inherently favor the poor, LMC, and MC. These are the lucky ones able to save the recommended 20% towards retirement in a tax-sheltered account. The much less fortunate individual with an income of $325K, for instance, can barely save 7% pre-tax. If anything needs to be fixed, it is this. Everyone – regardless of income – should be permitted to save up to 20% pre-tax in a 401k or similar plan.

Congrats on making the dumbest comment on this thread!

Where are these ~44% of jobs open, waiting for employees to take them?

Not to mention how many poor people can afford to set aside 20% of their income. Even if an employer kicks in a safe harbor piddling $1-2k.

My previous employer put in 7% of my total income/bonus earned into my 401k every year, year after year for over 15 yrs. I didn’t need scrimp and save to max out because I was getting at my lowest a cool $25k+ deposited into my account every year.

The more I made the more free money they gave me. Santa Clause for the working stiffs.

I’m almost certain not one single working poor person is getting $25k of free money deposited into their 401ks every year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:44 percent of employees have no access to a 401k.

And IRAs have lower contribution limits and no
match.

100% of the 44% of employees that have no access to a 401k still have access to an alternative job and employer that does offer a 401k. We’re not talking indentured servants here. Everyone has a choice.

Furthermore, for those that do have immediate access to a 401k, maximum employee contributions tend to be fixed, regardless of income. Thus, the plans inherently favor the poor, LMC, and MC. These are the lucky ones able to save the recommended 20% towards retirement in a tax-sheltered account. The much less fortunate individual with an income of $325K, for instance, can barely save 7% pre-tax. If anything needs to be fixed, it is this. Everyone – regardless of income – should be permitted to save up to 20% pre-tax in a 401k or similar plan.

Congrats on making the dumbest comment on this thread!

Where are these ~44% of jobs open, waiting for employees to take them?

Not to mention how many poor people can afford to set aside 20% of their income. Even if an employer kicks in a safe harbor piddling $1-2k.

My previous employer put in 7% of my total income/bonus earned into my 401k every year, year after year for over 15 yrs. I didn’t need scrimp and save to max out because I was getting at my lowest a cool $25k+ deposited into my account every year.

The more I made the more free money they gave me. Santa Clause for the working stiffs.

I’m almost certain not one single working poor person is getting $25k of free money deposited into their 401ks every year.

I’ve always been interested in what Australia does with their Super Annuitization.

Payroll taxes are used for a mandatory investment account. I’m not sure the specifics, but basically you and the employer have to invest in an investment vehicle to be used at retirement. So everyone has a 401k-type vehicle at every job they have, with a company contribution.

[Anonymous]

Make the 401k into an aussi super. Then all employers have to contribute 5-10%. Solves equity in one fell swoop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:44 percent of employees have no access to a 401k.

And IRAs have lower contribution limits and no
match.

100% of the 44% of employees that have no access to a 401k still have access to an alternative job and employer that does offer a 401k. We’re not talking indentured servants here. Everyone has a choice.

Furthermore, for those that do have immediate access to a 401k, maximum employee contributions tend to be fixed, regardless of income. Thus, the plans inherently favor the poor, LMC, and MC. These are the lucky ones able to save the recommended 20% towards retirement in a tax-sheltered account. The much less fortunate individual with an income of $325K, for instance, can barely save 7% pre-tax. If anything needs to be fixed, it is this. Everyone – regardless of income – should be permitted to save up to 20% pre-tax in a 401k or similar plan.

Congrats on making the dumbest comment on this thread!

Where are these ~44% of jobs open, waiting for employees to take them?

Not to mention how many poor people can afford to set aside 20% of their income. Even if an employer kicks in a safe harbor piddling $1-2k.

My previous employer put in 7% of my total income/bonus earned into my 401k every year, year after year for over 15 yrs. I didn’t need scrimp and save to max out because I was getting at my lowest a cool $25k+ deposited into my account every year.

The more I made the more free money they gave me. Santa Clause for the working stiffs.

I’m almost certain not one single working poor person is getting $25k of free money deposited into their 401ks every year.

Those are the "perks" of having a gold collar job. The working poor also are not being giving company stock options as part of their compensation package, or health benefits that for any size family cost less than $200/month (medical, vision and dental all included). However, for jobs that do offer this, you typically need a college degree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You got to hand it to Boomers - cheap college, last generation with meaningful participation in defined benefit pensions, benefitted from tax advantages of newly created IRAs and 401Ks at the beginning of their professional careers, got the "peace dividend" of end of Cold War which led to multiple bull runs, multiple tech booms, long periods of accommodative monetary policies to fuel asset accumulation, and 40 years of supple side tax cuts.


And now - as they enter retirement en mass - they are benefitting from the highest risk free rates in 30+ years.

If you're a white Boomer without a disability/mental illness and don't have a net worth of at least $2.5M I really do question what the hell you were doing with your time over the past 50 years.

You conveniently left out crippling inflation during most of the ‘70d coupled with a flat stock market, severe recessions in 1982-83 and 1991-92, the financial crisis of 2008, a basically flat stock market durin 2000-2011, and the gradual elimination of defined benefit pensions. Oh yeah, your parents have had a grand old time….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You got to hand it to Boomers - cheap college, last generation with meaningful participation in defined benefit pensions, benefitted from tax advantages of newly created IRAs and 401Ks at the beginning of their professional careers, got the "peace dividend" of end of Cold War which led to multiple bull runs, multiple tech booms, long periods of accommodative monetary policies to fuel asset accumulation, and 40 years of supple side tax cuts.


And now - as they enter retirement en mass - they are benefitting from the highest risk free rates in 30+ years.

If you're a white Boomer without a disability/mental illness and don't have a net worth of at least $2.5M I really do question what the hell you were doing with your time over the past 50 years.

You conveniently left out crippling inflation during most of the ‘70d coupled with a flat stock market, severe recessions in 1982-83 and 1991-92, the financial crisis of 2008, a basically flat stock market durin 2000-2011, and the gradual elimination of defined benefit pensions. Oh yeah, your parents have had a grand old time….

They did. Much easier than today. Competition in corporate america was way less...if you were a white boomer. Anyone with a college degree in the 70s thats a white male should easily have a 7 figure net worth ..plus a pension!

[Anonymous]

I don't understand why the US simply doesn't have a sovereign wealth fund that would be on top of social security. Have everyone have vested interest in the financial health of this country's economy. It can be paid out in lump sums per year or whatever. Norway already has a trillion+ dollar sovereign wealth fund that gives each one of their residents something like $100k. Alaska has a wealth fund for its residents already. Why not just make it for the whole country?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why the US simply doesn't have a sovereign wealth fund that would be on top of social security. Have everyone have vested interest in the financial health of this country's economy. It can be paid out in lump sums per year or whatever. Norway already has a trillion+ dollar sovereign wealth fund that gives each one of their residents something like $100k. Alaska has a wealth fund for its residents already. Why not just make it for the whole country?

Because "business titans" want the U.S. government to sell/lease American assets for pennies on the dollar because "the private sector can do it better."

There is zero social solidarity in the U.S. You eat what you kill.