Should 401ks be phased out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, let’s just impose communism at this point.


You don’t even need 401k. Setup your own IRA.

Maybe states shouldn’t tax the crap out of people so much and they wouldn’t move in retirement? Get your taxes under control, dimwits.

States don't "tax the crap out of people." Get a grip.

America is a low-tax jurisdiction in the world. We're a bloody tax haven, in fact.

Tell people in IL, NJ, CA, or NY their state isn’t taxing the crap out of them. Clearly you’ve never lived in a state like NJ imposing $10k property taxes for a modest $450k home.

I’d sock as much money away as possible in a 401k to avoid stupid state taxes in dumb states like IL/CA/NJ for 30+ and then move to the lowest tax state possible to avoid decades or of paying for dumb democrat/progressive ideas.

The liberal bastion of Texas has the 6th highest property tax rate in the US. Keep that in mind while you rant about stupid and dumb states.

But no state income tax.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would rather see the social security cap eliminated first.

Also, the spousal benefit of the Social security should be eliminated if the spouse is collecting at the same time. A non-contributor should only receive social security survivor benefits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems a growing movement. So many people don’t have one and the people who do a huge tax giveaway to rich.

Look at all the New Yorkers retired to Florida who avoided SALT taxes for 40 years on 401k contributions now in Florida.

If we could tax those trillions would solve a lot of problems

That Art History degree must not be working out for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, let’s just impose communism at this point.


You don’t even need 401k. Setup your own IRA.

Maybe states shouldn’t tax the crap out of people so much and they wouldn’t move in retirement? Get your taxes under control, dimwits.

States don't "tax the crap out of people." Get a grip.

America is a low-tax jurisdiction in the world. We're a bloody tax haven, in fact.

Tell people in IL, NJ, CA, or NY their state isn’t taxing the crap out of them. Clearly you’ve never lived in a state like NJ imposing $10k property taxes for a modest $450k home.

I’d sock as much money away as possible in a 401k to avoid stupid state taxes in dumb states like IL/CA/NJ for 30+ and then move to the lowest tax state possible to avoid decades or of paying for dumb democrat/progressive ideas.

The liberal bastion of Texas has the 6th highest property tax rate in the US. Keep that in mind while you rant about stupid and dumb states.

But no state income tax.

And then there’s NJ which has both sky high property tax and high income tax rates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:401k should not transfer tax liability to a new state. It is deferred compensation and should be taxed in the state where it was earned, like CA does for RSU awards.

401k is for the MC/UMC, not the rich.

I feel this is fair, even though I have a place in a low tax zone!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, let’s just impose communism at this point.


You don’t even need 401k. Setup your own IRA.

Maybe states shouldn’t tax the crap out of people so much and they wouldn’t move in retirement? Get your taxes under control, dimwits.

States don't "tax the crap out of people." Get a grip.

America is a low-tax jurisdiction in the world. We're a bloody tax haven, in fact.

Tell people in IL, NJ, CA, or NY their state isn’t taxing the crap out of them. Clearly you’ve never lived in a state like NJ imposing $10k property taxes for a modest $450k home.

I’d sock as much money away as possible in a 401k to avoid stupid state taxes in dumb states like IL/CA/NJ for 30+ and then move to the lowest tax state possible to avoid decades or of paying for dumb democrat/progressive ideas.

The liberal bastion of Texas has the 6th highest property tax rate in the US. Keep that in mind while you rant about stupid and dumb states.

No income tax tho, dimwit.

[Anonymous]

I think it's an absolutely terrible idea but it's getting some press: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2024/02/08/case-against-401k-ira-retirement-tax-breaks/72506433007/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:401k should not transfer tax liability to a new state. It is deferred compensation and should be taxed in the state where it was earned, like CA does for RSU awards.

401k is for the MC/UMC, not the rich.

I agree with this. There are significant disadvantages with 401ks/IRAs - Withdrawals are taxed at future income tax rates (which are not known). RMDs force you to withdraw and be taxed whether you need the money or not. Inherited IRAs have to be liquidated within 5 years (at income tax rates). You can't claim losses on investments in IRAs/401ks...

It's 10 years.

Right - 401k is 10 years, IRA is 5 years.

No, it's not.

It's possibly confusing because of a law passed in 2019, but for anyone who passed away in 2020 or later who is older than RMD age (so the most common scenario), a non-spousal beneficiary has 10 years to deplete the retirement account. If it is in a 401k, you are required to roll the money to an Inherited IRA (unless you are a spouse). If it's in an IRA, it also rolls to an inherited IRA.

The 5 year rule only came into play when the person who passed away was younger than RMD age, and the beneficiary did not begin taking distributions based on their own life expectancy right away. But this only applies for anyone who passed away before 2020, so it no longer matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would rather see the social security cap eliminated first.

Also, the spousal benefit of the Social security should be eliminated if the spouse is collecting at the same time. A non-contributor should only receive social security survivor benefits.

I do find it strange that this sort of double dipping is allowed (a couple collecting twice on one person's earnings).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would rather see the social security cap eliminated first.

Also, the spousal benefit of the Social security should be eliminated if the spouse is collecting at the same time. A non-contributor should only receive social security survivor benefits.

I do find it strange that this sort of double dipping is allowed (a couple collecting twice on one person's earnings).

+1 This should have been eliminated with younger Boomers. At this point it should be eliminated for those 30 and younger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:401k should not transfer tax liability to a new state. It is deferred compensation and should be taxed in the state where it was earned, like CA does for RSU awards.

401k is for the MC/UMC, not the rich.

Over a 35 year career I worked in five states while contributing to a 401k. Good luck with your idea.

Yup, that would be a logistical nightmare

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems a growing movement. So many people don’t have one and the people who do a huge tax giveaway to rich.

Look at all the New Yorkers retired to Florida who avoided SALT taxes for 40 years on 401k contributions now in Florida.

If we could tax those trillions would solve a lot of problems

This is the dumbest and most informed post I’ve seen in quite some time. Most people who work (earned income) can contribute to a 401K either through their employer or an individual 401K.

Yes, even Fast food and grocery stores and mall type stores do have 401K for full time employees
The tool is there for tax free growth for everyone. whether you choose to take advantage of it or not is your choice. But we need to encourage people to save, not take away tax advantaged tools for doing so. If a retiree doesn't have enough money, then it falls on fed govt and states to provide for them (Medicaid, etc) I'd prefer we give tax breaks to ensure it doesn't happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would rather see the social security cap eliminated first.

You can't do that, because then you turn SS into even more of a welfare program unless you're willing to also proportionally increase benefits to retirees. And then moment you turn it into a welfare program, any semblance of bipartisan support for SS dies an ugly death.

Exactly. SS is not a welfare program, it is a program you and your employers contribute to. So Bill gates collects the same thing as someone who makes $187K for 10+ years (or whatever the current max/cutoff is) when they hit 65. If you increase the cap (or remove it) and don't pay out proportionally then it's a welfare program.

As it is, the UMC/Rich already pay (with no cap) 1.45% for medicare tax. If you are rich and mostly viaW2 income, you already pay an extra 1.45% for medicare on entire earnings. Trust me when I say I will see no difference in my payouts for medicare/insurance coverage for paying that on $2M+ each year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, let’s just impose communism at this point.


You don’t even need 401k. Setup your own IRA.

Maybe states shouldn’t tax the crap out of people so much and they wouldn’t move in retirement? Get your taxes under control, dimwits.

States don't "tax the crap out of people." Get a grip.

America is a low-tax jurisdiction in the world. We're a bloody tax haven, in fact.

Tell people in IL, NJ, CA, or NY their state isn’t taxing the crap out of them. Clearly you’ve never lived in a state like NJ imposing $10k property taxes for a modest $450k home.

I’d sock as much money away as possible in a 401k to avoid stupid state taxes in dumb states like IL/CA/NJ for 30+ and then move to the lowest tax state possible to avoid decades or of paying for dumb democrat/progressive ideas.

The liberal bastion of Texas has the 6th highest property tax rate in the US. Keep that in mind while you rant about stupid and dumb states.

No income tax tho, dimwit.

Hey dimwit, high property taxes can easily make up for low state income taxes. Try holding up a mirror.

[Anonymous]

NYC top tax rate is 14.7 perfect. A dual income NYC couple is putting 60k into 401k. NYC losing out on $8,800 a year on taxes. But wait all those dividends and bond interest in 401k NYC should also be taxing.

Then that rich couple moves to Florida prior to RMDs and completely avoids any NYC tax

That same couple, their nanny, maid etc they would laugh in their face if they asked for a 401k.