401k savings limit to increase in 2023

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most people cannot afford to do this

The people who cannot afford to do this don’t really need to save this much. Median HHI is around $78K and everyone knows that 20% of income needs to be set aside for retirement savings. That’s only $15,600 needed per year, so no need to save more by traditional standards.

The real concern is for those families that make more than $145K per year. The $29K allowance between 401k and IRA contributions isn’t really enough for these people. Congress should change the rules so that pre-tax contribution limits vary as a percentage of HHI so that everyone is permitted to save 20% of their income for retirement. This is especially true for high HHI families since social security replaces a lesser percentage of income as income increases. DH and I both work, but the $58K allowance between our collective retirement plans isn’t even 10% of our HHI. And we don’t even get a tax break on the IRA contributions anyway. So illogical and unfair. LMC and MC families don’t know how lucky they are!

Really? I'd rather have twice as much money even if I couldn't put away as high a proportion in taxed advantaged accounts....wouldn't you?

Yes, but nothing prevents someone from making twice as much money. It is a personal choice. Get a second job. Become a physician instead of a teacher. Become an engineer instead of an bus driver. If you don’t have the skills, get them. Reading books is free. Financial Aid is available for those in need. You get the idea.

On the other hand, when it comes to tax-advantaged savings, there are very limited personal choices. There are literally laws that prevent high income individuals from saving the same percentage of their income pre-tax as their lower income counterparts. This is on top of a progressive tax bracketing structure and on top of many tax deductions that phase out with income and on top of many tax credits that phase out with income.

A person with an HHI of $500K paying taxes on 80% of their income is still paying taxes on $400K as compared to someone with an HHI of $160K who ends up paying taxes on only $128K. The high income individual is still paying a lot more in taxes, despite the more equitable savings structure. Do we really need to keep piling on countless nonlinear penalties for earned income?!? No one is calling for anything as radical as a flat income tax here.

This is such a rude post. I’m a teacher with a Master’s degree and 2 kids. I already coach and sponsors as many after school activities as I can and still barely making ends meet. When exactly would I work a second job? Just the childcare funds alone would eat up the income.

Here’s a novel concept: stop trying to live a physician’s lifestyle on a teacher’s salary!

I think you're in the wrong thread, this one is about the physicians whining that the teacher gets to put a higher % of her income in a 401k. Even though they both can put in the exact same dollar amount - literally, the "problem" is that they have more money than the teacher.

No, this is typical cherry picking of rules for taxation. When it comes to taking taxes, it is done as a percentage of income (and progressively at that)…but, when it comes to proving a tax-sheltered deduction, it is implemented as a fixed dollar amount. This is illogical, as it nonlinearly benefits those in lower income brackets, thereby incentivizing people to remain in low income tax brackets. Is this all some sort of extravagant ploy to reward low-paying careers that provide inherent public benefit? If so, maybe this is somewhat sensible after all. If it is just a welfare system, however, it really needs to be eliminated and overhauled with a better plan.

Nonlinearly benefits, eh? You are trying too hard to come across as smart; it is not working.

On the contrary, I’m trying exceptionally hard to communicate using commonplace adverbs and linguistic descriptions that might permit even a fraction of my intellect to be understood and accurately interpreted by imbeciles such as you. Alas, however, it is so very difficult to effectively communicate with the mentally challenged amongst us. My objective and irrefutably factual commentary is met only with overly simplistic, baseless, and subjective quips delivered with infantile execution at best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe how bitter they are that some poor people are getting a larger proportional "payback" from Social Security. The vast, vast, VAST majority of these people aren't even people who can possibly put away the 401k savings limit, so the "advantage" they have over you is purely theoretical, and I'm reasonably sure you wouldn't trade for the lifestyle of someone whose primary income in retirement is from SS. (I have an HHI of $160k and day care bills, and I'm not sure we will be able to afford to max out with these new limits, so I know people making much less would have a very hard time with it, and the statistics on US retirement savings are pretty dismal.)

If you're upset that if someone with much less than you is getting a proportional tax break you're not, I suggest rolling around in your much larger absolute quantity of money to feel better.

The payback from SS is proportional to what you paid in. However, most people who scream about the limit on collecting SS from people don't seem to realize that and that there is a cap on what you get paid back which is proportional to what you paid in

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most people cannot afford to do this

The people who cannot afford to do this don’t really need to save this much. Median HHI is around $78K and everyone knows that 20% of income needs to be set aside for retirement savings. That’s only $15,600 needed per year, so no need to save more by traditional standards.

The real concern is for those families that make more than $145K per year. The $29K allowance between 401k and IRA contributions isn’t really enough for these people. Congress should change the rules so that pre-tax contribution limits vary as a percentage of HHI so that everyone is permitted to save 20% of their income for retirement. This is especially true for high HHI families since social security replaces a lesser percentage of income as income increases. DH and I both work, but the $58K allowance between our collective retirement plans isn’t even 10% of our HHI. And we don’t even get a tax break on the IRA contributions anyway. So illogical and unfair. LMC and MC families don’t know how lucky they are!

Really? I'd rather have twice as much money even if I couldn't put away as high a proportion in taxed advantaged accounts....wouldn't you?

Yes, but nothing prevents someone from making twice as much money. It is a personal choice. Get a second job. Become a physician instead of a teacher. Become an engineer instead of an bus driver. If you don’t have the skills, get them. Reading books is free. Financial Aid is available for those in need. You get the idea.

On the other hand, when it comes to tax-advantaged savings, there are very limited personal choices. There are literally laws that prevent high income individuals from saving the same percentage of their income pre-tax as their lower income counterparts. This is on top of a progressive tax bracketing structure and on top of many tax deductions that phase out with income and on top of many tax credits that phase out with income.

A person with an HHI of $500K paying taxes on 80% of their income is still paying taxes on $400K as compared to someone with an HHI of $160K who ends up paying taxes on only $128K. The high income individual is still paying a lot more in taxes, despite the more equitable savings structure. Do we really need to keep piling on countless nonlinear penalties for earned income?!? No one is calling for anything as radical as a flat income tax here.

This is such a rude post. I’m a teacher with a Master’s degree and 2 kids. I already coach and sponsors as many after school activities as I can and still barely making ends meet. When exactly would I work a second job? Just the childcare funds alone would eat up the income.

Here’s a novel concept: stop trying to live a physician’s lifestyle on a teacher’s salary!

I think you're in the wrong thread, this one is about the physicians whining that the teacher gets to put a higher % of her income in a 401k. Even though they both can put in the exact same dollar amount - literally, the "problem" is that they have more money than the teacher.

No, this is typical cherry picking of rules for taxation. When it comes to taking taxes, it is done as a percentage of income (and progressively at that)…but, when it comes to proving a tax-sheltered deduction, it is implemented as a fixed dollar amount. This is illogical, as it nonlinearly benefits those in lower income brackets, thereby incentivizing people to remain in low income tax brackets. Is this all some sort of extravagant ploy to reward low-paying careers that provide inherent public benefit? If so, maybe this is somewhat sensible after all. If it is just a welfare system, however, it really needs to be eliminated and overhauled with a better plan.

You are truly a financial retard

Thank you for disclosing both your IQ and your age on this anonymous forum: 67. Your response lacks sophistication as well as any sign of thoughtful research or investigative skill. Moreover, your rapacious inability to grasp the most fundamental of financial principles suggests you’re a prototypical member of a more elderly ilk, looking for senior discounts and welfare grants to subsidize your now-permanent commitment to indolence. Wonderfully played!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most people cannot afford to do this

The people who cannot afford to do this don’t really need to save this much. Median HHI is around $78K and everyone knows that 20% of income needs to be set aside for retirement savings. That’s only $15,600 needed per year, so no need to save more by traditional standards.

The real concern is for those families that make more than $145K per year. The $29K allowance between 401k and IRA contributions isn’t really enough for these people. Congress should change the rules so that pre-tax contribution limits vary as a percentage of HHI so that everyone is permitted to save 20% of their income for retirement. This is especially true for high HHI families since social security replaces a lesser percentage of income as income increases. DH and I both work, but the $58K allowance between our collective retirement plans isn’t even 10% of our HHI. And we don’t even get a tax break on the IRA contributions anyway. So illogical and unfair. LMC and MC families don’t know how lucky they are!

Really? I'd rather have twice as much money even if I couldn't put away as high a proportion in taxed advantaged accounts....wouldn't you?

Yes, but nothing prevents someone from making twice as much money. It is a personal choice. Get a second job. Become a physician instead of a teacher. Become an engineer instead of an bus driver. If you don’t have the skills, get them. Reading books is free. Financial Aid is available for those in need. You get the idea.

On the other hand, when it comes to tax-advantaged savings, there are very limited personal choices. There are literally laws that prevent high income individuals from saving the same percentage of their income pre-tax as their lower income counterparts. This is on top of a progressive tax bracketing structure and on top of many tax deductions that phase out with income and on top of many tax credits that phase out with income.

A person with an HHI of $500K paying taxes on 80% of their income is still paying taxes on $400K as compared to someone with an HHI of $160K who ends up paying taxes on only $128K. The high income individual is still paying a lot more in taxes, despite the more equitable savings structure. Do we really need to keep piling on countless nonlinear penalties for earned income?!? No one is calling for anything as radical as a flat income tax here.

This is such a rude post. I’m a teacher with a Master’s degree and 2 kids. I already coach and sponsors as many after school activities as I can and still barely making ends meet. When exactly would I work a second job? Just the childcare funds alone would eat up the income.

Here’s a novel concept: stop trying to live a physician’s lifestyle on a teacher’s salary!

I think you're in the wrong thread, this one is about the physicians whining that the teacher gets to put a higher % of her income in a 401k. Even though they both can put in the exact same dollar amount - literally, the "problem" is that they have more money than the teacher.

No, this is typical cherry picking of rules for taxation. When it comes to taking taxes, it is done as a percentage of income (and progressively at that)…but, when it comes to proving a tax-sheltered deduction, it is implemented as a fixed dollar amount. This is illogical, as it nonlinearly benefits those in lower income brackets, thereby incentivizing people to remain in low income tax brackets. Is this all some sort of extravagant ploy to reward low-paying careers that provide inherent public benefit? If so, maybe this is somewhat sensible after all. If it is just a welfare system, however, it really needs to be eliminated and overhauled with a better plan.

You are truly a financial retard

Thank you for disclosing both your IQ and your age on this anonymous forum: 67. Your response lacks sophistication as well as any sign of thoughtful research or investigative skill. Moreover, your rapacious inability to grasp the most fundamental of financial principles suggests you’re a prototypical member of a more elderly ilk, looking for senior discounts and welfare grants to subsidize your now-permanent commitment to indolence. Wonderfully played!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most people cannot afford to do this

The people who cannot afford to do this don’t really need to save this much. Median HHI is around $78K and everyone knows that 20% of income needs to be set aside for retirement savings. That’s only $15,600 needed per year, so no need to save more by traditional standards.

The real concern is for those families that make more than $145K per year. The $29K allowance between 401k and IRA contributions isn’t really enough for these people. Congress should change the rules so that pre-tax contribution limits vary as a percentage of HHI so that everyone is permitted to save 20% of their income for retirement. This is especially true for high HHI families since social security replaces a lesser percentage of income as income increases. DH and I both work, but the $58K allowance between our collective retirement plans isn’t even 10% of our HHI. And we don’t even get a tax break on the IRA contributions anyway. So illogical and unfair. LMC and MC families don’t know how lucky they are!

Really? I'd rather have twice as much money even if I couldn't put away as high a proportion in taxed advantaged accounts....wouldn't you?

Yes, but nothing prevents someone from making twice as much money. It is a personal choice. Get a second job. Become a physician instead of a teacher. Become an engineer instead of an bus driver. If you don’t have the skills, get them. Reading books is free. Financial Aid is available for those in need. You get the idea.

On the other hand, when it comes to tax-advantaged savings, there are very limited personal choices. There are literally laws that prevent high income individuals from saving the same percentage of their income pre-tax as their lower income counterparts. This is on top of a progressive tax bracketing structure and on top of many tax deductions that phase out with income and on top of many tax credits that phase out with income.

A person with an HHI of $500K paying taxes on 80% of their income is still paying taxes on $400K as compared to someone with an HHI of $160K who ends up paying taxes on only $128K. The high income individual is still paying a lot more in taxes, despite the more equitable savings structure. Do we really need to keep piling on countless nonlinear penalties for earned income?!? No one is calling for anything as radical as a flat income tax here.

This is such a rude post. I’m a teacher with a Master’s degree and 2 kids. I already coach and sponsors as many after school activities as I can and still barely making ends meet. When exactly would I work a second job? Just the childcare funds alone would eat up the income.

Here’s a novel concept: stop trying to live a physician’s lifestyle on a teacher’s salary!

I think you're in the wrong thread, this one is about the physicians whining that the teacher gets to put a higher % of her income in a 401k. Even though they both can put in the exact same dollar amount - literally, the "problem" is that they have more money than the teacher.

No, this is typical cherry picking of rules for taxation. When it comes to taking taxes, it is done as a percentage of income (and progressively at that)…but, when it comes to proving a tax-sheltered deduction, it is implemented as a fixed dollar amount. This is illogical, as it nonlinearly benefits those in lower income brackets, thereby incentivizing people to remain in low income tax brackets. Is this all some sort of extravagant ploy to reward low-paying careers that provide inherent public benefit? If so, maybe this is somewhat sensible after all. If it is just a welfare system, however, it really needs to be eliminated and overhauled with a better plan.

You are truly a financial retard

Thank you for disclosing both your IQ and your age on this anonymous forum: 67. Your response lacks sophistication as well as any sign of thoughtful research or investigative skill. Moreover, your rapacious inability to grasp the most fundamental of financial principles suggests you’re a prototypical member of a more elderly ilk, looking for senior discounts and welfare grants to subsidize your now-permanent commitment to indolence. Wonderfully played!

You said ilk. Were you dropped on your head when you were young

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most people cannot afford to do this

The people who cannot afford to do this don’t really need to save this much. Median HHI is around $78K and everyone knows that 20% of income needs to be set aside for retirement savings. That’s only $15,600 needed per year, so no need to save more by traditional standards.

The real concern is for those families that make more than $145K per year. The $29K allowance between 401k and IRA contributions isn’t really enough for these people. Congress should change the rules so that pre-tax contribution limits vary as a percentage of HHI so that everyone is permitted to save 20% of their income for retirement. This is especially true for high HHI families since social security replaces a lesser percentage of income as income increases. DH and I both work, but the $58K allowance between our collective retirement plans isn’t even 10% of our HHI. And we don’t even get a tax break on the IRA contributions anyway. So illogical and unfair. LMC and MC families don’t know how lucky they are!

You are aware that post tax savings are not outlawed, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe how bitter they are that some poor people are getting a larger proportional "payback" from Social Security. The vast, vast, VAST majority of these people aren't even people who can possibly put away the 401k savings limit, so the "advantage" they have over you is purely theoretical, and I'm reasonably sure you wouldn't trade for the lifestyle of someone whose primary income in retirement is from SS. (I have an HHI of $160k and day care bills, and I'm not sure we will be able to afford to max out with these new limits, so I know people making much less would have a very hard time with it, and the statistics on US retirement savings are pretty dismal.)

If you're upset that if someone with much less than you is getting a proportional tax break you're not, I suggest rolling around in your much larger absolute quantity of money to feel better.

The payback from SS is proportional to what you paid in. However, most people who scream about the limit on collecting SS from people don't seem to realize that and that there is a cap on what you get paid back which is proportional to what you paid in

This is BS. My mother worked in an administrative type job in the 70's for only a few years until she quit for good at age 30 when she had me. She's now collecting $1300 a month in SS, far exceeding what she ever paid into it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most people cannot afford to do this

The people who cannot afford to do this don’t really need to save this much. Median HHI is around $78K and everyone knows that 20% of income needs to be set aside for retirement savings. That’s only $15,600 needed per year, so no need to save more by traditional standards.

The real concern is for those families that make more than $145K per year. The $29K allowance between 401k and IRA contributions isn’t really enough for these people. Congress should change the rules so that pre-tax contribution limits vary as a percentage of HHI so that everyone is permitted to save 20% of their income for retirement. This is especially true for high HHI families since social security replaces a lesser percentage of income as income increases. DH and I both work, but the $58K allowance between our collective retirement plans isn’t even 10% of our HHI. And we don’t even get a tax break on the IRA contributions anyway. So illogical and unfair. LMC and MC families don’t know how lucky they are!

Really? I'd rather have twice as much money even if I couldn't put away as high a proportion in taxed advantaged accounts....wouldn't you?

Yes, but nothing prevents someone from making twice as much money. It is a personal choice. Get a second job. Become a physician instead of a teacher. Become an engineer instead of an bus driver. If you don’t have the skills, get them. Reading books is free. Financial Aid is available for those in need. You get the idea.

On the other hand, when it comes to tax-advantaged savings, there are very limited personal choices. There are literally laws that prevent high income individuals from saving the same percentage of their income pre-tax as their lower income counterparts. This is on top of a progressive tax bracketing structure and on top of many tax deductions that phase out with income and on top of many tax credits that phase out with income.

A person with an HHI of $500K paying taxes on 80% of their income is still paying taxes on $400K as compared to someone with an HHI of $160K who ends up paying taxes on only $128K. The high income individual is still paying a lot more in taxes, despite the more equitable savings structure. Do we really need to keep piling on countless nonlinear penalties for earned income?!? No one is calling for anything as radical as a flat income tax here.

This is such a rude post. I’m a teacher with a Master’s degree and 2 kids. I already coach and sponsors as many after school activities as I can and still barely making ends meet. When exactly would I work a second job? Just the childcare funds alone would eat up the income.

Here’s a novel concept: stop trying to live a physician’s lifestyle on a teacher’s salary!

I think you're in the wrong thread, this one is about the physicians whining that the teacher gets to put a higher % of her income in a 401k. Even though they both can put in the exact same dollar amount - literally, the "problem" is that they have more money than the teacher.

No, this is typical cherry picking of rules for taxation. When it comes to taking taxes, it is done as a percentage of income (and progressively at that)…but, when it comes to proving a tax-sheltered deduction, it is implemented as a fixed dollar amount. This is illogical, as it nonlinearly benefits those in lower income brackets, thereby incentivizing people to remain in low income tax brackets. Is this all some sort of extravagant ploy to reward low-paying careers that provide inherent public benefit? If so, maybe this is somewhat sensible after all. If it is just a welfare system, however, it really needs to be eliminated and overhauled with a better plan.

Nonlinearly benefits, eh? You are trying too hard to come across as smart; it is not working.

On the contrary, I’m trying exceptionally hard to communicate using commonplace adverbs and linguistic descriptions that might permit even a fraction of my intellect to be understood and accurately interpreted by imbeciles such as you. Alas, however, it is so very difficult to effectively communicate with the mentally challenged amongst us. My objective and irrefutably factual commentary is met only with overly simplistic, baseless, and subjective quips delivered with infantile execution at best.

You sound like krs one

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most people cannot afford to do this

The people who cannot afford to do this don’t really need to save this much. Median HHI is around $78K and everyone knows that 20% of income needs to be set aside for retirement savings. That’s only $15,600 needed per year, so no need to save more by traditional standards.

The real concern is for those families that make more than $145K per year. The $29K allowance between 401k and IRA contributions isn’t really enough for these people. Congress should change the rules so that pre-tax contribution limits vary as a percentage of HHI so that everyone is permitted to save 20% of their income for retirement. This is especially true for high HHI families since social security replaces a lesser percentage of income as income increases. DH and I both work, but the $58K allowance between our collective retirement plans isn’t even 10% of our HHI. And we don’t even get a tax break on the IRA contributions anyway. So illogical and unfair. LMC and MC families don’t know how lucky they are!

Really? I'd rather have twice as much money even if I couldn't put away as high a proportion in taxed advantaged accounts....wouldn't you?

Yes, but nothing prevents someone from making twice as much money. It is a personal choice. Get a second job. Become a physician instead of a teacher. Become an engineer instead of an bus driver. If you don’t have the skills, get them. Reading books is free. Financial Aid is available for those in need. You get the idea.

On the other hand, when it comes to tax-advantaged savings, there are very limited personal choices. There are literally laws that prevent high income individuals from saving the same percentage of their income pre-tax as their lower income counterparts. This is on top of a progressive tax bracketing structure and on top of many tax deductions that phase out with income and on top of many tax credits that phase out with income.

A person with an HHI of $500K paying taxes on 80% of their income is still paying taxes on $400K as compared to someone with an HHI of $160K who ends up paying taxes on only $128K. The high income individual is still paying a lot more in taxes, despite the more equitable savings structure. Do we really need to keep piling on countless nonlinear penalties for earned income?!? No one is calling for anything as radical as a flat income tax here.

This is such a rude post. I’m a teacher with a Master’s degree and 2 kids. I already coach and sponsors as many after school activities as I can and still barely making ends meet. When exactly would I work a second job? Just the childcare funds alone would eat up the income.

Here’s a novel concept: stop trying to live a physician’s lifestyle on a teacher’s salary!

I think you're in the wrong thread, this one is about the physicians whining that the teacher gets to put a higher % of her income in a 401k. Even though they both can put in the exact same dollar amount - literally, the "problem" is that they have more money than the teacher.

No, this is typical cherry picking of rules for taxation. When it comes to taking taxes, it is done as a percentage of income (and progressively at that)…but, when it comes to proving a tax-sheltered deduction, it is implemented as a fixed dollar amount. This is illogical, as it nonlinearly benefits those in lower income brackets, thereby incentivizing people to remain in low income tax brackets. Is this all some sort of extravagant ploy to reward low-paying careers that provide inherent public benefit? If so, maybe this is somewhat sensible after all. If it is just a welfare system, however, it really needs to be eliminated and overhauled with a better plan.

Nonlinearly benefits, eh? You are trying too hard to come across as smart; it is not working.

On the contrary, I’m trying exceptionally hard to communicate using commonplace adverbs and linguistic descriptions that might permit even a fraction of my intellect to be understood and accurately interpreted by imbeciles such as you. Alas, however, it is so very difficult to effectively communicate with the mentally challenged amongst us. My objective and irrefutably factual commentary is met only with overly simplistic, baseless, and subjective quips delivered with infantile execution at best.

You sound like krs one

Or Miss Melody

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most people cannot afford to do this

The people who cannot afford to do this don’t really need to save this much. Median HHI is around $78K and everyone knows that 20% of income needs to be set aside for retirement savings. That’s only $15,600 needed per year, so no need to save more by traditional standards.

The real concern is for those families that make more than $145K per year. The $29K allowance between 401k and IRA contributions isn’t really enough for these people. Congress should change the rules so that pre-tax contribution limits vary as a percentage of HHI so that everyone is permitted to save 20% of their income for retirement. This is especially true for high HHI families since social security replaces a lesser percentage of income as income increases. DH and I both work, but the $58K allowance between our collective retirement plans isn’t even 10% of our HHI. And we don’t even get a tax break on the IRA contributions anyway. So illogical and unfair. LMC and MC families don’t know how lucky they are!

Really? I'd rather have twice as much money even if I couldn't put away as high a proportion in taxed advantaged accounts....wouldn't you?

Yes, but nothing prevents someone from making twice as much money. It is a personal choice. Get a second job. Become a physician instead of a teacher. Become an engineer instead of an bus driver. If you don’t have the skills, get them. Reading books is free. Financial Aid is available for those in need. You get the idea.

On the other hand, when it comes to tax-advantaged savings, there are very limited personal choices. There are literally laws that prevent high income individuals from saving the same percentage of their income pre-tax as their lower income counterparts. This is on top of a progressive tax bracketing structure and on top of many tax deductions that phase out with income and on top of many tax credits that phase out with income.

A person with an HHI of $500K paying taxes on 80% of their income is still paying taxes on $400K as compared to someone with an HHI of $160K who ends up paying taxes on only $128K. The high income individual is still paying a lot more in taxes, despite the more equitable savings structure. Do we really need to keep piling on countless nonlinear penalties for earned income?!? No one is calling for anything as radical as a flat income tax here.

This is such a rude post. I’m a teacher with a Master’s degree and 2 kids. I already coach and sponsors as many after school activities as I can and still barely making ends meet. When exactly would I work a second job? Just the childcare funds alone would eat up the income.

Here’s a novel concept: stop trying to live a physician’s lifestyle on a teacher’s salary!

I think you're in the wrong thread, this one is about the physicians whining that the teacher gets to put a higher % of her income in a 401k. Even though they both can put in the exact same dollar amount - literally, the "problem" is that they have more money than the teacher.

No, this is typical cherry picking of rules for taxation. When it comes to taking taxes, it is done as a percentage of income (and progressively at that)…but, when it comes to proving a tax-sheltered deduction, it is implemented as a fixed dollar amount. This is illogical, as it nonlinearly benefits those in lower income brackets, thereby incentivizing people to remain in low income tax brackets. Is this all some sort of extravagant ploy to reward low-paying careers that provide inherent public benefit? If so, maybe this is somewhat sensible after all. If it is just a welfare system, however, it really needs to be eliminated and overhauled with a better plan.

You are truly a financial retard

Thank you for disclosing both your IQ and your age on this anonymous forum: 67. Your response lacks sophistication as well as any sign of thoughtful research or investigative skill. Moreover, your rapacious inability to grasp the most fundamental of financial principles suggests you’re a prototypical member of a more elderly ilk, looking for senior discounts and welfare grants to subsidize your now-permanent commitment to indolence. Wonderfully played!

You said ilk. Were you dropped on your head when you were young

It’s okay that your vocabulary is limited in depth and breadth…we can’t all operate at the 99th percentile, after all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most people cannot afford to do this

The people who cannot afford to do this don’t really need to save this much. Median HHI is around $78K and everyone knows that 20% of income needs to be set aside for retirement savings. That’s only $15,600 needed per year, so no need to save more by traditional standards.

The real concern is for those families that make more than $145K per year. The $29K allowance between 401k and IRA contributions isn’t really enough for these people. Congress should change the rules so that pre-tax contribution limits vary as a percentage of HHI so that everyone is permitted to save 20% of their income for retirement. This is especially true for high HHI families since social security replaces a lesser percentage of income as income increases. DH and I both work, but the $58K allowance between our collective retirement plans isn’t even 10% of our HHI. And we don’t even get a tax break on the IRA contributions anyway. So illogical and unfair. LMC and MC families don’t know how lucky they are!

Really? I'd rather have twice as much money even if I couldn't put away as high a proportion in taxed advantaged accounts....wouldn't you?

Yes, but nothing prevents someone from making twice as much money. It is a personal choice. Get a second job. Become a physician instead of a teacher. Become an engineer instead of an bus driver. If you don’t have the skills, get them. Reading books is free. Financial Aid is available for those in need. You get the idea.

On the other hand, when it comes to tax-advantaged savings, there are very limited personal choices. There are literally laws that prevent high income individuals from saving the same percentage of their income pre-tax as their lower income counterparts. This is on top of a progressive tax bracketing structure and on top of many tax deductions that phase out with income and on top of many tax credits that phase out with income.

A person with an HHI of $500K paying taxes on 80% of their income is still paying taxes on $400K as compared to someone with an HHI of $160K who ends up paying taxes on only $128K. The high income individual is still paying a lot more in taxes, despite the more equitable savings structure. Do we really need to keep piling on countless nonlinear penalties for earned income?!? No one is calling for anything as radical as a flat income tax here.

This is such a rude post. I’m a teacher with a Master’s degree and 2 kids. I already coach and sponsors as many after school activities as I can and still barely making ends meet. When exactly would I work a second job? Just the childcare funds alone would eat up the income.

Here’s a novel concept: stop trying to live a physician’s lifestyle on a teacher’s salary!

I think you're in the wrong thread, this one is about the physicians whining that the teacher gets to put a higher % of her income in a 401k. Even though they both can put in the exact same dollar amount - literally, the "problem" is that they have more money than the teacher.

No, this is typical cherry picking of rules for taxation. When it comes to taking taxes, it is done as a percentage of income (and progressively at that)…but, when it comes to proving a tax-sheltered deduction, it is implemented as a fixed dollar amount. This is illogical, as it nonlinearly benefits those in lower income brackets, thereby incentivizing people to remain in low income tax brackets. Is this all some sort of extravagant ploy to reward low-paying careers that provide inherent public benefit? If so, maybe this is somewhat sensible after all. If it is just a welfare system, however, it really needs to be eliminated and overhauled with a better plan.

Nonlinearly benefits, eh? You are trying too hard to come across as smart; it is not working.

On the contrary, I’m trying exceptionally hard to communicate using commonplace adverbs and linguistic descriptions that might permit even a fraction of my intellect to be understood and accurately interpreted by imbeciles such as you. Alas, however, it is so very difficult to effectively communicate with the mentally challenged amongst us. My objective and irrefutably factual commentary is met only with overly simplistic, baseless, and subjective quips delivered with infantile execution at best.

You sound like krs one

Or Miss Melody

RIP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe how bitter they are that some poor people are getting a larger proportional "payback" from Social Security. The vast, vast, VAST majority of these people aren't even people who can possibly put away the 401k savings limit, so the "advantage" they have over you is purely theoretical, and I'm reasonably sure you wouldn't trade for the lifestyle of someone whose primary income in retirement is from SS. (I have an HHI of $160k and day care bills, and I'm not sure we will be able to afford to max out with these new limits, so I know people making much less would have a very hard time with it, and the statistics on US retirement savings are pretty dismal.)

If you're upset that if someone with much less than you is getting a proportional tax break you're not, I suggest rolling around in your much larger absolute quantity of money to feel better.

The payback from SS is proportional to what you paid in. However, most people who scream about the limit on collecting SS from people don't seem to realize that and that there is a cap on what you get paid back which is proportional to what you paid in

This is BS. My mother worked in an administrative type job in the 70's for only a few years until she quit for good at age 30 when she had me. She's now collecting $1300 a month in SS, far exceeding what she ever paid into it.

Different poster here, but I’m wondering if your mother’s payment is it’s based on being the surviving spouse of your father?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe how bitter they are that some poor people are getting a larger proportional "payback" from Social Security. The vast, vast, VAST majority of these people aren't even people who can possibly put away the 401k savings limit, so the "advantage" they have over you is purely theoretical, and I'm reasonably sure you wouldn't trade for the lifestyle of someone whose primary income in retirement is from SS. (I have an HHI of $160k and day care bills, and I'm not sure we will be able to afford to max out with these new limits, so I know people making much less would have a very hard time with it, and the statistics on US retirement savings are pretty dismal.)

If you're upset that if someone with much less than you is getting a proportional tax break you're not, I suggest rolling around in your much larger absolute quantity of money to feel better.

The payback from SS is proportional to what you paid in. However, most people who scream about the limit on collecting SS from people don't seem to realize that and that there is a cap on what you get paid back which is proportional to what you paid in

This is BS. My mother worked in an administrative type job in the 70's for only a few years until she quit for good at age 30 when she had me. She's now collecting $1300 a month in SS, far exceeding what she ever paid into it.

She’s probably collecting based on your dad’s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most people cannot afford to do this

The people who cannot afford to do this don’t really need to save this much. Median HHI is around $78K and everyone knows that 20% of income needs to be set aside for retirement savings. That’s only $15,600 needed per year, so no need to save more by traditional standards.

The real concern is for those families that make more than $145K per year. The $29K allowance between 401k and IRA contributions isn’t really enough for these people. Congress should change the rules so that pre-tax contribution limits vary as a percentage of HHI so that everyone is permitted to save 20% of their income for retirement. This is especially true for high HHI families since social security replaces a lesser percentage of income as income increases. DH and I both work, but the $58K allowance between our collective retirement plans isn’t even 10% of our HHI. And we don’t even get a tax break on the IRA contributions anyway. So illogical and unfair. LMC and MC families don’t know how lucky they are!

Really? I'd rather have twice as much money even if I couldn't put away as high a proportion in taxed advantaged accounts....wouldn't you?

Yes, but nothing prevents someone from making twice as much money. It is a personal choice. Get a second job. Become a physician instead of a teacher. Become an engineer instead of an bus driver. If you don’t have the skills, get them. Reading books is free. Financial Aid is available for those in need. You get the idea.

This is amazing! In the Fed action on inflation thread, folks are discussing that the government is intentionally causing unemployment to stave off inflation. I guess blue collar folks should get four jobs instead of two, just in case! Otherwise it is just not fair for rich people.

On the other hand, when it comes to tax-advantaged savings, there are very limited personal choices. There are literally laws that prevent high income individuals from saving the same percentage of their income pre-tax as their lower income counterparts. This is on top of a progressive tax bracketing structure and on top of many tax deductions that phase out with income and on top of many tax credits that phase out with income.

A person with an HHI of $500K paying taxes on 80% of their income is still paying taxes on $400K as compared to someone with an HHI of $160K who ends up paying taxes on only $128K. The high income individual is still paying a lot more in taxes, despite the more equitable savings structure. Do we really need to keep piling on countless nonlinear penalties for earned income?!? No one is calling for anything as radical as a flat income tax here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most people cannot afford to do this

The people who cannot afford to do this don’t really need to save this much. Median HHI is around $78K and everyone knows that 20% of income needs to be set aside for retirement savings. That’s only $15,600 needed per year, so no need to save more by traditional standards.

The real concern is for those families that make more than $145K per year. The $29K allowance between 401k and IRA contributions isn’t really enough for these people. Congress should change the rules so that pre-tax contribution limits vary as a percentage of HHI so that everyone is permitted to save 20% of their income for retirement. This is especially true for high HHI families since social security replaces a lesser percentage of income as income increases. DH and I both work, but the $58K allowance between our collective retirement plans isn’t even 10% of our HHI. And we don’t even get a tax break on the IRA contributions anyway. So illogical and unfair. LMC and MC families don’t know how lucky they are!

Really? I'd rather have twice as much money even if I couldn't put away as high a proportion in taxed advantaged accounts....wouldn't you?

Yes, but nothing prevents someone from making twice as much money. It is a personal choice. Get a second job. Become a physician instead of a teacher. Become an engineer instead of an bus driver. If you don’t have the skills, get them. Reading books is free. Financial Aid is available for those in need. You get the idea.

This is amazing! In the Fed action on inflation thread, folks are discussing that the government is intentionally causing unemployment to stave off inflation. I guess blue collar folks should get four jobs instead of two, just in case! Otherwise it is just not fair for rich people.

On the other hand, when it comes to tax-advantaged savings, there are very limited personal choices. There are literally laws that prevent high income individuals from saving the same percentage of their income pre-tax as their lower income counterparts. This is on top of a progressive tax bracketing structure and on top of many tax deductions that phase out with income and on top of many tax credits that phase out with income.

A person with an HHI of $500K paying taxes on 80% of their income is still paying taxes on $400K as compared to someone with an HHI of $160K who ends up paying taxes on only $128K. The high income individual is still paying a lot more in taxes, despite the more equitable savings structure. Do we really need to keep piling on countless nonlinear penalties for earned income?!? No one is calling for anything as radical as a flat income tax here.