The 401K Drives Inequality: NY Times article.

[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.

Well you will pay taxes later. Social security is fully taxable on your federal taxes.

[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.

Only if we do it the Canadian way. Immigrants to those who can contribute and not become automatic takers. There is no way we should be allowing immigrants into the country only to give them free housing, food stamps, medical care, and spending walk around money. Ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Oh please I did all that volunteering while working full time. You don't have to SAH to run the girl scout troop or take kids to the doctor.

Social security was started to prevent people from being impoverished in old age. It’s an insurance program. SAHM’s (and dads!) exist. Put two and two together before you further engage in the mommy wars.

DP. Don't care. The SAHP should live off the one social security payment just like they live off the one working salary. How is it remotely fair that a non-contributing person receive social security on top of the social security payment to the working parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Oh please I did all that volunteering while working full time. You don't have to SAH to run the girl scout troop or take kids to the doctor.

Social security was started to prevent people from being impoverished in old age. It’s an insurance program. SAHM’s (and dads!) exist. Put two and two together before you further engage in the mommy wars.

DP. Don't care. The SAHP should live off the one social security payment just like they live off the one working salary. How is it remotely fair that a non-contributing person receive social security on top of the social security payment to the working parent.

That's welfare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Oh please I did all that volunteering while working full time. You don't have to SAH to run the girl scout troop or take kids to the doctor.

Social security was started to prevent people from being impoverished in old age. It’s an insurance program. SAHM’s (and dads!) exist. Put two and two together before you further engage in the mommy wars.

DP. Don't care. The SAHP should live off the one social security payment just like they live off the one working salary. How is it remotely fair that a non-contributing person receive social security on top of the social security payment to the working parent.

While that’s 100% true, imagine being the politician to propose that..

[Anonymous]

The title of this thread worded another way--

"Hard work drives inequality"

The reality is that people who don't work won't have 401ks.

Even convenience market jobs offer 401k's. Check out Buccees pay plan on line.

Why should those working 40-60 hours per week be dragged down by those only wanting to work 18 hours a week to keep their benefits (can't work too much or lose your assistance money).

You can have 401K money or assistance money.

[Anonymous]

The majority of stay at homes moms worked. My wife is a stay at home mom but she worked on the books 16-37 and paid 21 years of SS.

Even my 16 year old daughter paid SS on her summer job.

[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.

This is the right answer.

100%. There’s no need for the 50% spousal benefit. You were living on one income and saving for retirement on it. You can afford to retire on 1 SS payment and retirement savings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The majority of stay at homes moms worked. My wife is a stay at home mom but she worked on the books 16-37 and paid 21 years of SS.

Even my 16 year old daughter paid SS on her summer job.

What’s your point?

[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.

This is the right answer.

You do know that almost no one who is a SAHM or Dad never worked, right? Also, most work later in their kids' lives.

[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.

This is the right answer.

You do know that almost no one who is a SAHM or Dad never worked, right? Also, most work later in their kids' lives.

Then they wouldn’t get the spousal benefit. They’d receive their own benefit.

[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.

This is the right answer.

100%. There’s no need for the 50% spousal benefit. You were living on one income and saving for retirement on it. You can afford to retire on 1 SS payment and retirement savings.

+1 It’s double dipping, archaic, and totally unfair. You stay at home to support the working spouse's career. Presumably it is the better financial decision for the family - otherwise you would be working. The fact that you are so well off that you can choose this path, and then you get even more money as a reward at the end, is BS. It only makes sense in a society where women are not allowed to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The title of this thread worded another way--

"Hard work drives inequality"

The reality is that people who don't work won't have 401ks.

Even convenience market jobs offer 401k's. Check out Buccees pay plan on line.

Why should those working 40-60 hours per week be dragged down by those only wanting to work 18 hours a week to keep their benefits (can't work too much or lose your assistance money).

You can have 401K money or assistance money.

I have worked since 1996. I have never had a job that offered 401k. None of my co-workers have 401k. Roth has very low limit and one has to know about it. If you don't have a job that offers retirement, you probably won't even know or think about it unless you hear about it some other ways. I also have zeros in my SS for few years even though I worked full time. It was not my job to make sure employer pays. There is a lot of wage theft in low income jobs. Few people can question employer as they are afraid to let go. Low income workers cannot afford to not work.
I'm got myself out of this and I'm ready to retire, but there's little hope for most.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The title of this thread worded another way--

"Hard work drives inequality"

The reality is that people who don't work won't have 401ks.

Even convenience market jobs offer 401k's. Check out Buccees pay plan on line.

Why should those working 40-60 hours per week be dragged down by those only wanting to work 18 hours a week to keep their benefits (can't work too much or lose your assistance money).

You can have 401K money or assistance money.

I have worked since 1996. I have never had a job that offered 401k. None of my co-workers have 401k. Roth has very low limit and one has to know about it. If you don't have a job that offers retirement, you probably won't even know or think about it unless you hear about it some other ways. I also have zeros in my SS for few years even though I worked full time. It was not my job to make sure employer pays. There is a lot of wage theft in low income jobs. Few people can question employer as they are afraid to let go. Low income workers cannot afford to not work.
I'm got myself out of this and I'm ready to retire, but there's little hope for most.

It actually is. If you have your W2s from those years then contact the Social Security Administration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The title of this thread worded another way--

"Hard work drives inequality"

The reality is that people who don't work won't have 401ks.

Even convenience market jobs offer 401k's. Check out Buccees pay plan on line.

Why should those working 40-60 hours per week be dragged down by those only wanting to work 18 hours a week to keep their benefits (can't work too much or lose your assistance money).

You can have 401K money or assistance money.

I have worked since 1996. I have never had a job that offered 401k. None of my co-workers have 401k. Roth has very low limit and one has to know about it. If you don't have a job that offers retirement, you probably won't even know or think about it unless you hear about it some other ways. I also have zeros in my SS for few years even though I worked full time. It was not my job to make sure employer pays. There is a lot of wage theft in low income jobs. Few people can question employer as they are afraid to let go. Low income workers cannot afford to not work.
I'm got myself out of this and I'm ready to retire, but there's little hope for most.

Just because your experience above stinks doesn’t mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water wrt 401k. I do actually agree that people who can’t have access to 401k should be able to contribute much more to something like an IRA that would be equivalent to a 401k. At the same time, if workers don’t get a 401k they’re free to work elsewhere at a place that does offer one. Alternatively, I wouldn’t object either to giving the general public access to the govt TSP, which is a really awesome retirement account, if they can’t get a 401k at work.