The 401K Drives Inequality: NY Times article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The trouble with 401k are the limits are too high. A married 50 year old couple can put in 60k a year. If they have a high income and a really good match it could equal 120k a year!!

But a middle class 50 year old man with stay at home wife and kids at best can afford 6 percent. And maybe a crappy match 50 cents on a dollar. If he makes 100k his total contribution is 7.5k a year.

Over time it is millions of dollars in difference

They still get taxed on it. It’s not some massive give away.

[Anonymous]

My biggest problem with 401k’s is that they allow spouses to drain those accounts in the event of a long, drawn-out, messy divorce. Pensions are attached to a person and cannot be raided. That’s a real benefit for some whose non-working spouses incur huge lawyer costs for years and refuse to mediate.

[Anonymous]

I wish they would raise the IRA limits so that people could get the benefit of a 401k without being tied to an employer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The trouble with 401k are the limits are too high. A married 50 year old couple can put in 60k a year. If they have a high income and a really good match it could equal 120k a year!!

But a middle class 50 year old man with stay at home wife and kids at best can afford 6 percent. And maybe a crappy match 50 cents on a dollar. If he makes 100k his total contribution is 7.5k a year.

Over time it is millions of dollars in difference

The limits are too low. 23k is a joke for under 50. You should just be able to contribute up to the DC max if you want

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The trouble with 401k are the limits are too high. A married 50 year old couple can put in 60k a year. If they have a high income and a really good match it could equal 120k a year!!

But a middle class 50 year old man with stay at home wife and kids at best can afford 6 percent. And maybe a crappy match 50 cents on a dollar. If he makes 100k his total contribution is 7.5k a year.

Over time it is millions of dollars in difference

Damn, you're right. People that make more money, can save more money. If someone only told me this earlier. Why is this not well known? The rich keep all the knowledge to themselves.

[Anonymous]

I’m so sick of the misuse of the word “privileged”. In the article Forbus describes herself as “privileged” and yet doesn’t know when she will be able to stop working. In fact she isn’t “privileged”; she’s just your average middle class person. Being free from want should be a right, not a “privilege”. The misuse of this word, which really is a stereotype of white people, an othering, just reinforces the hierarchy of the 1% oligarchy we live in.

[Anonymous]

I worked my butt off and lived frugally to build up my 401k to $1.5mil. I come from a low income, immigrant family, parents don't speak English. There is nothing privileged about my background, I assure you (also abused). I lived in a cockroach infested one bedroom apartment with six people in it at one point in my life.

You know what's a great motivator to work hard and save? Being poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is this even published? How does this benefit anyone?

The US will never go back to the defined benefit systems.

It was published because the Dems want to steal your 401k in the name of "equity".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some of us are lucky period! I started my career in big tech and within 10 years I honestly save for retirement far more than most Americans would ever dream to have for retirement after a 40 years career. Our system rewards luck but we keep telling those who are not lucky to work harder and if you deviate from thai logic you are a socialist so ridiculous. And don't get me started with the so called self made people. Statistically they are a very small minority. America is a great success model if you make it. And both parties are very good at hiding those who didn't make it behind closed doors so we don't see them don't hear about them and just forget about them. Call me a socialist if you wish whatever. All I know is I was lucky to be born in the right family with the right wealth and afforded me the chance to attend a great college. Yeah I am sure that's the case for every American lol

Worked hard in high school, go into a good college, worked hard, got a good job, worked hard and saved for retirement - how is any of this "luck"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you a white male?

Pensions benefit men who don’t have to step out of the workforce for childrearing.

401ks and private brokerage accounts allow for worker mobility. You’re not tied to an employer for life.

Women don't have to do this. That's a choice. I'm a teacher (with a pension) who took off six weeks for maternity leave. This was at the end of April so I had the summer off too. I drained nearly all of my sick leave to do this (that's another post) but I didn't take time off for childrearing. Most people don't have the money to do that.

Of course but you had the summer OFF from work. Most people do not have that.

[Anonymous]

I have so many friends who just kind of float through life dabbling in jobs that interest them, traveling whenever they want, and focusing more time and energy on their family. I’m the boring person with the 9 to 5 and yes, the 401(k). The 401(k) motivates me to stick with my job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The trouble with 401k are the limits are too high. A married 50 year old couple can put in 60k a year. If they have a high income and a really good match it could equal 120k a year!!

But a middle class 50 year old man with stay at home wife and kids at best can afford 6 percent. And maybe a crappy match 50 cents on a dollar. If he makes 100k his total contribution is 7.5k a year.

Over time it is millions of dollars in difference

The limits are too low. 23k is a joke for under 50. You should just be able to contribute up to the DC max if you want

I own a business and can put away 50K/year. Thankful for that!

[Anonymous]

This is a dumb article. Progressives like to believe in the zero sum fallacy and usually assume all success comes at the expense of someone else, which is not remotely true. Most things in life are not zero sum games where one persons success comes entirely at the expense of other people. If they think the current contribution limit is too high, it can be lower. I would be ok with tying contribution limits to a certain percentage of the median household in the US. Maybe the cap could be 25% of the median household income per person, which would correspond around $18,750. The US budget situation is terrible and there will need to be some reductions in the amount of current tax breaks unfortunately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd rather not read what progressive think since they always want to abolish a system because the MC/UMC use it. Recently (before Biden) they tried to do away with PSLF student loan forgiveness because of doctors and lawyers apparently using it.

Anyways, I think the only options would be to up the scale of social security or create one of those sovereign funds like some Gulf countries have to supplement retirements.

Yes, shares of a sovereign wealth fund for all from birth is a MUCH better idea than all of this communist crap of taxing more in the name of equity. Hell, even Alaska has a sovereign wealth fund for its residents. Norway has a sovereign wealth fund for its citizens. A sovereign wealth fund that pays out regularly would give ALL an equal and vested interest in the economy of the country. Much, much better idea.

Better idea for who?? The US? With our $34 Trillion in national debt and with our current annual deficit spending?? We live in capitalist society with a diverse population that is going to result in uneven outcomes. That is the reality. You have options for saving for retirement in addition to Govt sponsored Social Security. Can not rely on any one instrument to provide ample income when retire. Once pensions went way in the 1980s, it was clear that the burden was on the individual. I got the message while in my 20s, and took action to save/invest for retirement. I don't know what you do for those people who are unable to save or make poor choices throughout their lifetimes. I'm sure they drove better cars and took many more vacations than I ever did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:401k allows people to be mobile. The problem is that 401ks aren’t a great deal. They’re an ok deal but not a great one. But it’s probably the best option that is feasible politically…

smh....401ks are not a great deal? That is an ignorant comment from some one who lacks perspective. I know many people that by age 60 have $1 million+ or nearly that amount in their 401k. And some will also have a paid off house by 60. And Roth 401ks are an even better deal. The 401-k is just one of the spigots you utilize in retirement. Hopefully you have three streams of income. 401-k, SS, taxable investment accts, some people will have pensions and/or rental income. The more spigots the better.