The 401K Drives Inequality: NY Times article.

[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.

Because when you raise the payroll cap, you also have to raise the payout amount. Someone making $20M contributes the same as someone making $160K. They also receive the same max payout.

SS is NOT a welfare program. You cannot just tax your way out of it. If you change it to a welfare program, then it can easily be cut/eliminated.
We already tax Medicare on the entire salary (1.6%). No way D or Rs would vote for taxing SS on entire salary. Companies would be paying 6.2% along with the employees. It will never happen. As it should not happen.

[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.

The rich may not "need it". But we paid into it so are entitled to our returns.
We already pay 37% taxes, 6.2% SS, 1.6% Medicare (on all income) and our state taxes typically 8-10%. What more do you want? At some point, the solution cannot just be to tax the shit out of people and then say they are not eligible for the programs you forced them to pay into. Given that majority of our income is W2 based, we have paid top tax rate.


I'd have much preferred to not pay into SS and have that money to myself to invest wisely. It would be worth at least double the payout I will ever receive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

For the final time, SS is NOT a welfare program. It was designed based on you pay in and then you receive it back at retirement age. That means if you raise the cap for paying in, you have to increase the payout. You cannot just tax the entire thing. Employers would lower salaries for everyone in the company if you did this, as they pay out 6.2% for each employee salary. Don't kid yoursefl---they wouldn't just reduce the HHI employees salaries, they would reduce EVERYONES.

[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.

Then you must payout to the one making $2M. So instead of $4873/month, they would get $50K+/month. Don't really think you want to do that.

Also, employers pay 6.2% of SS tax and employee pays 6.2%. Do you really think this will not affect everyone's salaries? They will reduce the people making $50K salary as well to help pay for this. So I'd expect a 10% pay cut in the under $150K range at most companies. I suspect that is not what you want

[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.

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.

THIS 1000%

[Anonymous]

Government should Start a savings from birth account for all new borns.
Yes, government

[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.

Then you must payout to the one making $2M. So instead of $4873/month, they would get $50K+/month. Don't really think you want to do that.

Also, employers pay 6.2% of SS tax and employee pays 6.2%. Do you really think this will not affect everyone's salaries? They will reduce the people making $50K salary as well to help pay for this. So I'd expect a 10% pay cut in the under $150K range at most companies. I suspect that is not what you want

This post is remarkably full of assertions of what PP believes should happen stated as axiomatic laws of the universe. No, in fact, if the cap on SS tax is raised then payouts don’t have to be raised, and certainly not in a way that wouldn’t be revenue positive. Also, no, there is no evidence that companies would lower wages for lower paid workers based on the relatively small number of higher earners paying more SS tax.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then you must payout to the one making $2M. So instead of $4873/month, they would get $50K+/month. Don't really think you want to do that.

Also, employers pay 6.2% of SS tax and employee pays 6.2%. Do you really think this will not affect everyone's salaries? They will reduce the people making $50K salary as well to help pay for this. So I'd expect a 10% pay cut in the under $150K range at most companies. I suspect that is not what you want

This post is remarkably full of assertions of what PP believes should happen stated as axiomatic laws of the universe. No, in fact, if the cap on SS tax is raised then payouts don’t have to be raised, and certainly not in a way that wouldn’t be revenue positive. Also, no, there is no evidence that companies would lower wages for lower paid workers based on the relatively small number of higher earners paying more SS tax.

Don't kid yourself---yes they would. Somewhere like Chase, Amazon, Google, Meta and other companies with lots of high income earners most definately would not just lower the salaries of the higher paid workers. They would spread that cost across everyone. It would somehow affect everyone.

[Anonymous]

I am a partner at my boutique firm and 80% of my firm get's paid over the SS limit. If with a decent chunk making multiples. We absolutely would cut or at least reduce the future increases to combat an higher SS tax. My profits aren't being cut because politicians can't do their jobs.

[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.

I make a little bit more than this and will have managed to save more than $1 million in 401(k) and Roth accounts by the time I retire, but I would not be opposed to paying more taxes later if it means keeping Social Security viable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then you must payout to the one making $2M. So instead of $4873/month, they would get $50K+/month. Don't really think you want to do that.

Also, employers pay 6.2% of SS tax and employee pays 6.2%. Do you really think this will not affect everyone's salaries? They will reduce the people making $50K salary as well to help pay for this. So I'd expect a 10% pay cut in the under $150K range at most companies. I suspect that is not what you want

This post is remarkably full of assertions of what PP believes should happen stated as axiomatic laws of the universe. No, in fact, if the cap on SS tax is raised then payouts don’t have to be raised, and certainly not in a way that wouldn’t be revenue positive. Also, no, there is no evidence that companies would lower wages for lower paid workers based on the relatively small number of higher earners paying more SS tax.

The PP basically did post axiomatic laws of the universe.

I bet you’re still trying to figure out why the minimum wage hike in DC is a main contributor the restaurants all over the city closing down.

[Anonymous]

There are a limited number of choices for social security—

We can cut benefits
We can increase taxes
We can increase immigration to provide more workers.

It’s kind of silly to say increasing taxes is off the table or would require increasing benefits. No one is saying that reducing benefits means that the first $25k of earnings should be FICA tax-free.

[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.

I make a little bit more than this and will have managed to save more than $1 million in 401(k) and Roth accounts by the time I retire, but I would not be opposed to paying more taxes later if it means keeping Social Security viable.

I'm the PP who posted the $1 million comment. I didn't say that I wouldn't be willing to put in a little more, delaying my benefits a little, or receive a slightly reduced amount. That wasn't the discussion at the time. The discussion was nothing. We would get nothing.

I am willing to take a revised version of benefits. But, I'm not willing to take nothing.

[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.

I make a little bit more than this and will have managed to save more than $1 million in 401(k) and Roth accounts by the time I retire, but I would not be opposed to paying more taxes later if it means keeping Social Security viable.

+1. I make around this as well in my 30s and have been maxing out my 401k since I was 24 years old. I have been thinking about retirement and making smart financial choices since I was 24 years old. I was living on a tight budget at 24 years old to prioritize maxing out my retirement. No, my private retirement savings don’t need to be taxed further because other 24 year olds didn’t read financial blogs and didn’t save for retirement. My 401k is not a welfare account, and neither is social security.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are a limited number of choices for social security—

We can cut benefits
We can increase taxes
We can increase immigration to provide more workers.

It’s kind of silly to say increasing taxes is off the table or would require increasing benefits. No one is saying that reducing benefits means that the first $25k of earnings should be FICA tax-free.

I don’t know how many times I have to post this, but Congress will just appropriate the money, it will balloon our deficit and we will either inflate or tax our way out of it.