401K account balance

[Anonymous]

Stupid question: what does it mean to be "vested"? I worked for a fortune 5 company for over a decade and made putmrather well during that time before I left to be SAH. They fortunately matched the 401K contributions so I have a fair amount there, and I remember at year 10 I was told I was "vested". Does this guarantee a pension of some kind on top of my 401k? (Good question for the benefits hotline, but hell it's Staurday night and Both I and you are bored....)

[Anonymous]

It usually means you can keep their matching contributions. If you leave the company before becoming fully vested you can lose the matched contribution

[Anonymous]

We're both 40. 401k as of yesterday =1.1 mil. On schedule to make it 10 mil when we plan to retire at 60 if the annual returns average 7% in the next 20 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is the point of all of these on line pissing contests?

To see how screwed you are...or at least I am. HA HA HA HA!

[Anonymous]

34, about $150k, but have another million and a half in non 401k.

[Anonymous]

$0 (zero), saving outside 401k plans. We're 37 and 38, HHI = $200k. By the time you'd want to cash out your 401k in 20-25 yrs it'll be somehow confiscated anyway so.

http://www.newswire.net/newsroom/financial/00079064-ira-401k-takeover-risk-by-government.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:$0 (zero), saving outside 401k plans. We're 37 and 38, HHI = $200k. By the time you'd want to cash out your 401k in 20-25 yrs it'll be somehow confiscated anyway so.

http://www.newswire.net/newsroom/financial/00079064-ira-401k-takeover-risk-by-government.html

Great point....now how many layers of tin foil do you recommend to keep the government from reading my thoughts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:36 and 37 with $625K in Roths and another $175K in non Roths.

How did you get so much? Isn't the limit $5500k/yr?

We rolled over 401ks and paid a boatload of tax. But to never pay tax on that money again. It is literally worth millions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:39 - 310,000....and a teacher! Got an early start thanks to my Dad nudging me.

when did you start and how much were you contributing over the years?

i'm 30 and have between 80-90K.

PP here. Just checked and I actually have 95K. That was a pleasant surprise.

[Anonymous]

35 and i have 55k. Way behind, but spouse has over 100k, and I am in a position to save a lot going forward (around 60-70k a year invested in stocks).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:36 and 37 with $625K in Roths and another $175K in non Roths.

How did you get so much? Isn't the limit $5500k/yr?

We rolled over 401ks and paid a boatload of tax. But to never pay tax on that money again. It is literally worth millions.

At least until Congress claws that back. Which it will some day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:36 and 37 with $625K in Roths and another $175K in non Roths.

How did you get so much? Isn't the limit $5500k/yr?

We rolled over 401ks and paid a boatload of tax. But to never pay tax on that money again. It is literally worth millions.

At least until Congress claws that back. Which it will some day.

I hear this a lot. To change the law retroactively as to money I already paid tax would both be a taking prohibited under the 5th amendment and an possibly an ex post facto law prohibited under article 1, section. 9.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:36 and 37 with $625K in Roths and another $175K in non Roths.

How did you get so much? Isn't the limit $5500k/yr?

We rolled over 401ks and paid a boatload of tax. But to never pay tax on that money again. It is literally worth millions.

At least until Congress claws that back. Which it will some day.

I hear this a lot. To change the law retroactively as to money I already paid tax would both be a taking prohibited under the 5th amendment and an possibly an ex post facto law prohibited under article 1, section. 9.

I don't claim to have any expertise on the ex post facto provision, but I do know a thing or two about the takings clause. And I can think of no case in which change in tax law has been cognizable as a taking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:36 and 37 with $625K in Roths and another $175K in non Roths.

How did you get so much? Isn't the limit $5500k/yr?

We rolled over 401ks and paid a boatload of tax. But to never pay tax on that money again. It is literally worth millions.

At least until Congress claws that back. Which it will some day.

I hear this a lot. To change the law retroactively as to money I already paid tax would both be a taking prohibited under the 5th amendment and an possibly an ex post facto law prohibited under article 1, section. 9.

And I'm sure you're a part of a well regulated militia too.

[Anonymous]

Well. I thought we were doing pretty well until I read this thread...

Fed. worker, with $160 total income (pre-tax) between my wife and I.

46, with $408,000 in 401k-style accounts, plus a pension earned of approx. $40,000. (I can start collecting as early as age 50 if I am no longer in federal service).

We have $75,000 in 529 college savings plans for DD #1 in 8th grade, and $50,000 for DD#2, in 4th.

We have a small emergency fund, but that's about it - no rental properties or other savings (we do have $300,000 in home equity, but I am treating that as not real money since we have no intention of moving).

On the plus side, virtually zero debt aside from our mortgage.