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!

You are really disgusting

You seem to be confused regarding the way taxes work. Perhaps an explanation with more numbers?

Household #1: MFJ couple with taxable income of $647,851 has a federal tax liability of $174,253 and an effective tax rate of 26.9%.

Household #2: MFJ family of five with taxable income of $178,151 has a federal tax liability of $30,427 and an effective tax rate of only 17.1%.

These are the actual tax liabilities for 2022. Clearly, Household #2 is the more disgusting of the two, refusing to pay their fair share.

Even worse, we have two people in Household #1 that are paying $87,126.50 EACH into the federal government, yet five people in Household #2 paying only $6,085.40 EACH into the same federal government. Few things are more patently egregious than a person that stands by and watches another person be forced to pay 14X as much to receive the same benefits and services.

So, by your reasoning...make less money?

I mean I am all for lower income taxes..or at least tax rates based off of higher cost of living areas. 400k in DC is vastly different than 400k in Omaha. In Omaha, they live like kings. In DC, for a family of 5, they are solidly living a "middle class" existence.

This is really out of touch.

No it's not. Avg single family home sale price in DC proper was just over 1M. With rates today, a mortgage on a 1M home (again, average..aka middle class) with 20% down, and you're looking at 5,500 - 6,000/mo easily. If you have three kids, 400k/yr won't get you many luxurious with a 6k + mortgage.

If you net 60% of your salary you're spending roughly 1/3 of your take home pay just on your mortgage. Sure you're not eating ramen, but you aren't driving around fancy cars and fancy international trips like the politicians think you are.

I think what you're missing is that an actual middle class family with 3 kids who doesn't already own property simply doesn't have the option of a single family home in DC. It's a different scale of "basics" than someone making $150k, who's most likely looking outside DC and has to deal with the commute, or maybe able to find a rowhome east of the Anacostia, where the $400k family is unlikely to buy. The vast, vast majority of my friends with HHIs under $200k live across Maryland.

Yes, but according to that PP, those friends are lucky, because they get to save a higher percentage of their incomes in tax-advantaged retirement accounts, so they're still better off than anyone who has a $1 million house in upper NW and earns a much higher salary.

[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!

You are really disgusting

You seem to be confused regarding the way taxes work. Perhaps an explanation with more numbers?

Household #1: MFJ couple with taxable income of $647,851 has a federal tax liability of $174,253 and an effective tax rate of 26.9%.

Household #2: MFJ family of five with taxable income of $178,151 has a federal tax liability of $30,427 and an effective tax rate of only 17.1%.

These are the actual tax liabilities for 2022. Clearly, Household #2 is the more disgusting of the two, refusing to pay their fair share.

Even worse, we have two people in Household #1 that are paying $87,126.50 EACH into the federal government, yet five people in Household #2 paying only $6,085.40 EACH into the same federal government. Few things are more patently egregious than a person that stands by and watches another person be forced to pay 14X as much to receive the same benefits and services.

So, by your reasoning...make less money?

I mean I am all for lower income taxes..or at least tax rates based off of higher cost of living areas. 400k in DC is vastly different than 400k in Omaha. In Omaha, they live like kings. In DC, for a family of 5, they are solidly living a "middle class" existence.

This is really out of touch.

No it's not. Avg single family home sale price in DC proper was just over 1M. With rates today, a mortgage on a 1M home (again, average..aka middle class) with 20% down, and you're looking at 5,500 - 6,000/mo easily. If you have three kids, 400k/yr won't get you many luxurious with a 6k + mortgage.

If you net 60% of your salary you're spending roughly 1/3 of your take home pay just on your mortgage. Sure you're not eating ramen, but you aren't driving around fancy cars and fancy international trips like the politicians think you are.

I think what you're missing is that an actual middle class family with 3 kids who doesn't already own property simply doesn't have the option of a single family home in DC. It's a different scale of "basics" than someone making $150k, who's most likely looking outside DC and has to deal with the commute, or maybe able to find a rowhome east of the Anacostia, where the $400k family is unlikely to buy. The vast, vast majority of my friends with HHIs under $200k live across Maryland.

Yes, but according to that PP, those friends are lucky, because they get to save a higher percentage of their incomes in tax-advantaged retirement accounts, so they're still better off than anyone who has a $1 million house in upper NW and earns a much higher salary.

Absolutely. The person with the $1 million house in upper NW and earns a much higher salary is much worse off than their lower income colleagues. They’re paying disproportionately more of their income into taxes and, therefore, are operating at a substantial handicap. While it is true that their net income is higher, this factor is completely irrelevant. Not all people deserve to make the same salary. It varies as a function of market demand, job difficulty, and skills required. Most importantly, career choice is entirely controllable by every individual. Everyone has access to the same career options and income generating potential.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So, are you arguing that your mom should be eating cat food and living on the street?

Is she collecting on a spouse 's earnings record? Seems unlikely she paid enough on her own record for that to be true.

[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!

You are really disgusting

You seem to be confused regarding the way taxes work. Perhaps an explanation with more numbers?

Household #1: MFJ couple with taxable income of $647,851 has a federal tax liability of $174,253 and an effective tax rate of 26.9%.

Household #2: MFJ family of five with taxable income of $178,151 has a federal tax liability of $30,427 and an effective tax rate of only 17.1%.

These are the actual tax liabilities for 2022. Clearly, Household #2 is the more disgusting of the two, refusing to pay their fair share.

Even worse, we have two people in Household #1 that are paying $87,126.50 EACH into the federal government, yet five people in Household #2 paying only $6,085.40 EACH into the same federal government. Few things are more patently egregious than a person that stands by and watches another person be forced to pay 14X as much to receive the same benefits and services.

So, by your reasoning...make less money?

I mean I am all for lower income taxes..or at least tax rates based off of higher cost of living areas. 400k in DC is vastly different than 400k in Omaha. In Omaha, they live like kings. In DC, for a family of 5, they are solidly living a "middle class" existence.

This is really out of touch.

No it's not. Avg single family home sale price in DC proper was just over 1M. With rates today, a mortgage on a 1M home (again, average..aka middle class) with 20% down, and you're looking at 5,500 - 6,000/mo easily. If you have three kids, 400k/yr won't get you many luxurious with a 6k + mortgage.

If you net 60% of your salary you're spending roughly 1/3 of your take home pay just on your mortgage. Sure you're not eating ramen, but you aren't driving around fancy cars and fancy international trips like the politicians think you are.

I think what you're missing is that an actual middle class family with 3 kids who doesn't already own property simply doesn't have the option of a single family home in DC. It's a different scale of "basics" than someone making $150k, who's most likely looking outside DC and has to deal with the commute, or maybe able to find a rowhome east of the Anacostia, where the $400k family is unlikely to buy. The vast, vast majority of my friends with HHIs under $200k live across Maryland.

Yes, but according to that PP, those friends are lucky, because they get to save a higher percentage of their incomes in tax-advantaged retirement accounts, so they're still better off than anyone who has a $1 million house in upper NW and earns a much higher salary.

Absolutely. The person with the $1 million house in upper NW and earns a much higher salary is much worse off than their lower income colleagues. They’re paying disproportionately more of their income into taxes and, therefore, are operating at a substantial handicap. While it is true that their net income is higher, this factor is completely irrelevant. Not all people deserve to make the same salary. It varies as a function of market demand, job difficulty, and skills required. Most importantly, career choice is entirely controllable by every individual. Everyone has access to the same career options and income generating potential.

I can't tell if you're actually the PP who's been complaining about this, or someone parodying them, that's how out there this is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So, are you arguing that your mom should be eating cat food and living on the street?

No, I'm arguing my mother doesn't need social security. My father already draws his own as well which I am more amenable too since he was the one working all those years but he also did quite well in retirement accounts. I will inherit "a large sum of money" (probably millions).

[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!

You are really disgusting

You seem to be confused regarding the way taxes work. Perhaps an explanation with more numbers?

Household #1: MFJ couple with taxable income of $647,851 has a federal tax liability of $174,253 and an effective tax rate of 26.9%.

Household #2: MFJ family of five with taxable income of $178,151 has a federal tax liability of $30,427 and an effective tax rate of only 17.1%.

These are the actual tax liabilities for 2022. Clearly, Household #2 is the more disgusting of the two, refusing to pay their fair share.

Even worse, we have two people in Household #1 that are paying $87,126.50 EACH into the federal government, yet five people in Household #2 paying only $6,085.40 EACH into the same federal government. Few things are more patently egregious than a person that stands by and watches another person be forced to pay 14X as much to receive the same benefits and services.

So, by your reasoning...make less money?

I mean I am all for lower income taxes..or at least tax rates based off of higher cost of living areas. 400k in DC is vastly different than 400k in Omaha. In Omaha, they live like kings. In DC, for a family of 5, they are solidly living a "middle class" existence.

This is really out of touch.

No it's not. Avg single family home sale price in DC proper was just over 1M. With rates today, a mortgage on a 1M home (again, average..aka middle class) with 20% down, and you're looking at 5,500 - 6,000/mo easily. If you have three kids, 400k/yr won't get you many luxurious with a 6k + mortgage.

If you net 60% of your salary you're spending roughly 1/3 of your take home pay just on your mortgage. Sure you're not eating ramen, but you aren't driving around fancy cars and fancy international trips like the politicians think you are.

I think what you're missing is that an actual middle class family with 3 kids who doesn't already own property simply doesn't have the option of a single family home in DC. It's a different scale of "basics" than someone making $150k, who's most likely looking outside DC and has to deal with the commute, or maybe able to find a rowhome east of the Anacostia, where the $400k family is unlikely to buy. The vast, vast majority of my friends with HHIs under $200k live across Maryland.

Yes, but according to that PP, those friends are lucky, because they get to save a higher percentage of their incomes in tax-advantaged retirement accounts, so they're still better off than anyone who has a $1 million house in upper NW and earns a much higher salary.

Absolutely. The person with the $1 million house in upper NW and earns a much higher salary is much worse off than their lower income colleagues. They’re paying disproportionately more of their income into taxes and, therefore, are operating at a substantial handicap. While it is true that their net income is higher, this factor is completely irrelevant. Not all people deserve to make the same salary. It varies as a function of market demand, job difficulty, and skills required. Most importantly, career choice is entirely controllable by every individual. Everyone has access to the same career options and income generating potential.

I can't tell if you're actually the PP who's been complaining about this, or someone parodying them, that's how out there this is.

+1

[Anonymous]

I’ll continue to max out (plus catch up), but damn, it stinks to see that my 401k losses this year equate to every penny I’ve paid in this year, plus an additional $80k. I know my contributions aren’t “lost” but instead being used to “buy low” but it is tough to ignore.

[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:

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 really disgusting

You seem to be confused regarding the way taxes work. Perhaps an explanation with more numbers?

Household #1: MFJ couple with taxable income of $647,851 has a federal tax liability of $174,253 and an effective tax rate of 26.9%.

Household #2: MFJ family of five with taxable income of $178,151 has a federal tax liability of $30,427 and an effective tax rate of only 17.1%.

These are the actual tax liabilities for 2022. Clearly, Household #2 is the more disgusting of the two, refusing to pay their fair share.

Even worse, we have two people in Household #1 that are paying $87,126.50 EACH into the federal government, yet five people in Household #2 paying only $6,085.40 EACH into the same federal government. Few things are more patently egregious than a person that stands by and watches another person be forced to pay 14X as much to receive the same benefits and services.

So, by your reasoning...make less money?

I mean I am all for lower income taxes..or at least tax rates based off of higher cost of living areas. 400k in DC is vastly different than 400k in Omaha. In Omaha, they live like kings. In DC, for a family of 5, they are solidly living a "middle class" existence.

This is really out of touch.

No it's not. Avg single family home sale price in DC proper was just over 1M. With rates today, a mortgage on a 1M home (again, average..aka middle class) with 20% down, and you're looking at 5,500 - 6,000/mo easily. If you have three kids, 400k/yr won't get you many luxurious with a 6k + mortgage.

If you net 60% of your salary you're spending roughly 1/3 of your take home pay just on your mortgage. Sure you're not eating ramen, but you aren't driving around fancy cars and fancy international trips like the politicians think you are.

I think what you're missing is that an actual middle class family with 3 kids who doesn't already own property simply doesn't have the option of a single family home in DC. It's a different scale of "basics" than someone making $150k, who's most likely looking outside DC and has to deal with the commute, or maybe able to find a rowhome east of the Anacostia, where the $400k family is unlikely to buy. The vast, vast majority of my friends with HHIs under $200k live across Maryland.

Yes, but according to that PP, those friends are lucky, because they get to save a higher percentage of their incomes in tax-advantaged retirement accounts, so they're still better off than anyone who has a $1 million house in upper NW and earns a much higher salary.

Absolutely. The person with the $1 million house in upper NW and earns a much higher salary is much worse off than their lower income colleagues. They’re paying disproportionately more of their income into taxes and, therefore, are operating at a substantial handicap. While it is true that their net income is higher, this factor is completely irrelevant. Not all people deserve to make the same salary. It varies as a function of market demand, job difficulty, and skills required. Most importantly, career choice is entirely controllable by every individual. Everyone has access to the same career options and income generating potential.

I can't tell if you're actually the PP who's been complaining about this, or someone parodying them, that's how out there this is.

+1

I know, right?!? Can you believe the sheer audacity?

Poor people deserve to live in squalor and eat low quality, canned meat products. No, better yet, we should allow poor people to cut off and sell parts of their bodies that we can then process into canned mystery meat to serve to other poor people. Of course, then the one-armed people will be complaining about how they sacrificed an arm to receive a windfall of cash, only to have a substantially greater percentage of it lost to federal taxes. JFC!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ll continue to max out (plus catch up), but damn, it stinks to see that my 401k losses this year equate to every penny I’ve paid in this year, plus an additional $80k. I know my contributions aren’t “lost” but instead being used to “buy low” but it is tough to ignore.

It’s best not to look. The market goes up, the market goes down, unless you need the money soon you should only care about the long term results.

[Anonymous]

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!

You are really disgusting

You seem to be confused regarding the way taxes work. Perhaps an explanation with more numbers?

Household #1: MFJ couple with taxable income of $647,851 has a federal tax liability of $174,253 and an effective tax rate of 26.9%.

Household #2: MFJ family of five with taxable income of $178,151 has a federal tax liability of $30,427 and an effective tax rate of only 17.1%.

These are the actual tax liabilities for 2022. Clearly, Household #2 is the more disgusting of the two, refusing to pay their fair share.

Even worse, we have two people in Household #1 that are paying $87,126.50 EACH into the federal government, yet five people in Household #2 paying only $6,085.40 EACH into the same federal government. Few things are more patently egregious than a person that stands by and watches another person be forced to pay 14X as much to receive the same benefits and services.

So, by your reasoning...make less money?

I mean I am all for lower income taxes..or at least tax rates based off of higher cost of living areas. 400k in DC is vastly different than 400k in Omaha. In Omaha, they live like kings. In DC, for a family of 5, they are solidly living a "middle class" existence.

This is really out of touch.

No it's not. Avg single family home sale price in DC proper was just over 1M. With rates today, a mortgage on a 1M home (again, average..aka middle class) with 20% down, and you're looking at 5,500 - 6,000/mo easily. If you have three kids, 400k/yr won't get you many luxurious with a 6k + mortgage.

If you net 60% of your salary you're spending roughly 1/3 of your take home pay just on your mortgage. Sure you're not eating ramen, but you aren't driving around fancy cars and fancy international trips like the politicians think you are.

Yes it is. Middle class families cannot afford this. Middle class families live in townhouses or apartments. They cannot put 20% down on a 1M home. Middle class families aren't doing anything luxurious. They often aren't saving for the future, fully funding college or taking vacations in the Caribbean. Middle class is when you save whatever you can, drive to the beach for a vacation (no, not MV), you don't send your kids to top public schools, and your kids don't have an expensive hobby. What you are describing is an upper middle class life. There are different levels within that, but this is not "middle class". The best representation of Middle Class is the tv show Roseanne or Family Matters and there are a lot of people like that in the DC area.

[Anonymous]

Good God, I can’t imagine 6K mortgage. We would be house poor.

[Anonymous]

One of the PPs is posting that people can save in a 401k AND IRA in the same year. Is this true? My accountant told me I can’t do both. He may have been wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So, are you arguing that your mom should be eating cat food and living on the street?

No, I'm arguing my mother doesn't need social security. My father already draws his own as well which I am more amenable too since he was the one working all those years but he also did quite well in retirement accounts. I will inherit "a large sum of money" (probably millions).

Nowadays, workers need to pay into the system for roughly 10 years to get anything. Also - you should be happy for your mom. If she weren’t so lucky to be married to a high earner, she’s be destitute with $1300. She can always donate it she agrees with you that she doesn’t need it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of the PPs is posting that people can save in a 401k AND IRA in the same year. Is this true? My accountant told me I can’t do both. He may have been wrong.

What accountant told you this nonsense? I would be worried about what other wrong information they use while dabbling with my finances.