The 401K Drives Inequality: NY Times article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

yup, it's time to hold people accountable for their choices in life. We paid off our student loans (over $80K) once we graduated and the turned our focus to retirement. We bought a house we could afford, in fact well under what we could afford (DINKS, and bought so either of us would qualify to own it). We stayed in that house for 7 year and only sold when we moved for a job change. Sure we could afford nicer, but we prefer to also save. Similarly, we drove older cars while doing all of this. I had a crappy tiny car without AC in NJ and the Midwest. But it ran and was paid off and insurance was lower with it. Whereas most of our colleagues drove nicer cars, and many didn't save for retirement right out of college, even some 3-5 years out. Which was stupid because the company matched 6% (contribute up to 6% of your salary they put in a corresponding match up to 6%). There were 28 yo who didn't contribute, yet certainly had the salary to do so. After 4 years, that match was 100% ours (25% each year). That was $2.5K per year extra from the company (it was higher each year) ---a 6% bonus that wasn't taxed and grows tax free.
By age 65, just those $5K/year (us plus company match) from age 22-30 would be worth $1.5M+. Those who didn't contribute but instead chose the new car or to eat out more times each week made their choices. But it's not up to me to fund their retirement because of their bad choices. These were smart people with a decent salary. Who chose to not take advantage of it. Makes me think they also were not saving otherwise

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. Anyone who talks about SS being a “Ponzi scam” discredits themselves immediately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

yup, it's time to hold people accountable for their choices in life. We paid off our student loans (over $80K) once we graduated and the turned our focus to retirement. We bought a house we could afford, in fact well under what we could afford (DINKS, and bought so either of us would qualify to own it). We stayed in that house for 7 year and only sold when we moved for a job change. Sure we could afford nicer, but we prefer to also save. Similarly, we drove older cars while doing all of this. I had a crappy tiny car without AC in NJ and the Midwest. But it ran and was paid off and insurance was lower with it. Whereas most of our colleagues drove nicer cars, and many didn't save for retirement right out of college, even some 3-5 years out. Which was stupid because the company matched 6% (contribute up to 6% of your salary they put in a corresponding match up to 6%). There were 28 yo who didn't contribute, yet certainly had the salary to do so. After 4 years, that match was 100% ours (25% each year). That was $2.5K per year extra from the company (it was higher each year) ---a 6% bonus that wasn't taxed and grows tax free.
By age 65, just those $5K/year (us plus company match) from age 22-30 would be worth $1.5M+. Those who didn't contribute but instead chose the new car or to eat out more times each week made their choices. But it's not up to me to fund their retirement because of their bad choices. These were smart people with a decent salary. Who chose to not take advantage of it. Makes me think they also were not saving otherwise

Congrats boomer on not buying any lattes or avocado toast. You’re a hero.

[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?

DP, but why not just raise the payroll cap. It makes no sense that someone making up to 168k pays tax on that full amount but someone making $1M a year also only pays tax on the first 168k.

Everyone should contribute a percentage based on their full salary and then it will be funded with those who make the most contributing the most.

Means testing SS is just another way to harm the middle and UMC when it is the very wealthy who truly do not need it. The person making < $150k who manages to save up $1M in retirement is not a who should be taking the hit on inadequate SS funding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP, but why not just raise the payroll cap. It makes no sense that someone making up to 168k pays tax on that full amount but someone making $1M a year also only pays tax on the first 168k.

Everyone should contribute a percentage based on their full salary and then it will be funded with those who make the most contributing the most.

Means testing SS is just another way to harm the middle and UMC when it is the very wealthy who truly do not need it. The person making < $150k who manages to save up $1M in retirement is not a who should be taking the hit on inadequate SS funding.

Your idea is also harming the middle and UMC… the families making 200K are just going to get hit even harder. Per usual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP, but why not just raise the payroll cap. It makes no sense that someone making up to 168k pays tax on that full amount but someone making $1M a year also only pays tax on the first 168k.

Everyone should contribute a percentage based on their full salary and then it will be funded with those who make the most contributing the most.

Means testing SS is just another way to harm the middle and UMC when it is the very wealthy who truly do not need it. The person making < $150k who manages to save up $1M in retirement is not a who should be taking the hit on inadequate SS funding.

Your idea is also harming the middle and UMC… the families making 200K are just going to get hit even harder. Per usual.

Depends on how their income is made. I have a 300K HHI and because DH and I make fairly similar amounts we’re paying payroll tax on all 300K. But right now a single earner making 300K only pays it on $168K.

And in your 200K example, many of those households are made up of 2 salaries of people paying tax on their full income too.

Whereas if the 200k is from one single earner then right now that family’s HHI is not fully taxed and the non-working spouse will still be able to collect at least some SS on their spouse’s earnings record even though their family didn’t pay in on their full HHI.

Just have it so everyone pays on their full salary and phase it out so that everyone making like 300k or more collects the same flat amount.

[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.

Fat chance. There’s no way that SS is going away for anyone - it may get reduced or some people may pay more into it, but no politician in their right mind will try to take all SS benefits from people who have already paid into the system.

[Anonymous]

They should get rid of the spousal benefit for SS. Everyone has the option to work, women are not limited by an expectation they stay home. If you don’t work, you shouldn’t get SS. This will encourage more people to work, which is what the system needs. Having to provide payment to 2 people when only one person paid in, results in a deficit to the system. The country can’t afford this.
I also agree with getting rid of the cap, not just increasing it. Tax the person that made $1 million and $2 million just as you would the one who made $150k.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should get rid of the spousal benefit for SS. Everyone has the option to work, women are not limited by an expectation they stay home. If you don’t work, you shouldn’t get SS. This will encourage more people to work, which is what the system needs. Having to provide payment to 2 people when only one person paid in, results in a deficit to the system. The country can’t afford this.
I also agree with getting rid of the cap, not just increasing it. Tax the person that made $1 million and $2 million just as you would the one who made $150k.

Stay at home moms provide a tremendous benefit to our society. They take care of lots of societal unpaid matters that other people don't have time to deal with. Who do you think runs the girl scout troop, the PTA, the Sunday School. Who has the flexibility to take kids to doctors appointments.

People who stay home to take care of kids make our society better and provide value you obviously don't appreciate. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not value.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should get rid of the spousal benefit for SS. Everyone has the option to work, women are not limited by an expectation they stay home. If you don’t work, you shouldn’t get SS. This will encourage more people to work, which is what the system needs. Having to provide payment to 2 people when only one person paid in, results in a deficit to the system. The country can’t afford this.
I also agree with getting rid of the cap, not just increasing it. Tax the person that made $1 million and $2 million just as you would the one who made $150k.

But we also need more children and being able to stop working and still be eligible for SS and Medicare allows more flexibility to have children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should get rid of the spousal benefit for SS. Everyone has the option to work, women are not limited by an expectation they stay home. If you don’t work, you shouldn’t get SS. This will encourage more people to work, which is what the system needs. Having to provide payment to 2 people when only one person paid in, results in a deficit to the system. The country can’t afford this.
I also agree with getting rid of the cap, not just increasing it. Tax the person that made $1 million and $2 million just as you would the one who made $150k.

But we also need more children and being able to stop working and still be eligible for SS and Medicare allows more flexibility to have children.

Yes, exactly. The immigration boom has allowed us to avoid the realizations that Europe and Japan have made about how terrible it is to have kids these days. And how that means many fewer people are doing it. Taking away some of the few benefits for choosing to have kids our society offers is a bad plan. Other places offer free child care and significant maternity leave. We don't have that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Fat chance. There’s no way that SS is going away for anyone - it may get reduced or some people may pay more into it, but no politician in their right mind will try to take all SS benefits from people who have already paid into the system.

Right. Because we definitely don't have a tidal wave of poor people in this country--homegrown and imported by the millions every year--that will give politicians all the incentives they need to means-test social security and/or tax retirement savings to provide a basic retirement safety net to these poor people. Keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

yup, it's time to hold people accountable for their choices in life. We paid off our student loans (over $80K) once we graduated and the turned our focus to retirement. We bought a house we could afford, in fact well under what we could afford (DINKS, and bought so either of us would qualify to own it). We stayed in that house for 7 year and only sold when we moved for a job change. Sure we could afford nicer, but we prefer to also save. Similarly, we drove older cars while doing all of this. I had a crappy tiny car without AC in NJ and the Midwest. But it ran and was paid off and insurance was lower with it. Whereas most of our colleagues drove nicer cars, and many didn't save for retirement right out of college, even some 3-5 years out. Which was stupid because the company matched 6% (contribute up to 6% of your salary they put in a corresponding match up to 6%). There were 28 yo who didn't contribute, yet certainly had the salary to do so. After 4 years, that match was 100% ours (25% each year). That was $2.5K per year extra from the company (it was higher each year) ---a 6% bonus that wasn't taxed and grows tax free.
By age 65, just those $5K/year (us plus company match) from age 22-30 would be worth $1.5M+. Those who didn't contribute but instead chose the new car or to eat out more times each week made their choices. But it's not up to me to fund their retirement because of their bad choices. These were smart people with a decent salary. Who chose to not take advantage of it. Makes me think they also were not saving otherwise

Congrats boomer on not buying any lattes or avocado toast. You’re a hero.

Not even close to being a boomer. I'm approaching 50.

Just a fiscally smart person, even in my 20s. Comes from growing up poor and not having much. Makes you want to do well in life and ensure you are financially secure. So you don't blow thru money and you prioritize saving. BTW, my next car after that "crappy little car with no AC" was a paid for in cash Luxury car of $40K. So yes, every little bit of savings helps. Had that car before I was 28. Well worth continuing to live on a moderate budget to get on the path to success and wealth.

Or you can choose to be a highly educated 20 (everyone at company had a Masters+ in STEM field, so people who should understand numbers fairly easily) who turns down free money from your company all so you can have an extra $2.5K+ per year ($200/month pre tax, so maybe $160 in reality) to spend on dining out/extras. When if you saved that $2.5K plus the company match, you'd have $1.5M+ extra at age 65. Seems like a no brainer to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP, but why not just raise the payroll cap. It makes no sense that someone making up to 168k pays tax on that full amount but someone making $1M a year also only pays tax on the first 168k.

Everyone should contribute a percentage based on their full salary and then it will be funded with those who make the most contributing the most.

Means testing SS is just another way to harm the middle and UMC when it is the very wealthy who truly do not need it. The person making < $150k who manages to save up $1M in retirement is not a who should be taking the hit on inadequate SS funding.

Oh, the poor "UMC" upper middle class ... "B-but we're not rich, honest!"

Compared to everyone else on planet earth, and the growing tide of poor people in America, yes, Virginia, you are wealthy. And just accept that you're blessed to be in a position to not need government-provided retirement money to supplement your millions of dollars of retirement savings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Fat chance. There’s no way that SS is going away for anyone - it may get reduced or some people may pay more into it, but no politician in their right mind will try to take all SS benefits from people who have already paid into the system.

Right. Because we definitely don't have a tidal wave of poor people in this country--homegrown and imported by the millions every year--that will give politicians all the incentives they need to means-test social security and/or tax retirement savings to provide a basic retirement safety net to these poor people. Keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night.

Historically speaking there is no tidal wave of poor people coming. There were a few decades of prosperity that skews people’s perceptions but looking backwards from the Industrial Revolution till today, we are not facing some insurmountable costs to social services because of the poor. The age demographics work against us but social services like TANF and food stamps, etc are not expected to blow up the budget.