Anonymous wrote:Double daycare expenses and not wanting to feel intense financial pressure during this temporary phase in life.

Anonymous wrote:I'm just getting my first 401k at 32 (thanks to grad school and postdoc type work that didn't offer them), but my spouse is out of work so I'll be supporting our family with kids on $68k gross until we are a two income household. I definitely won't have $18k to spare, but I'll put in up to the employer match.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found this excerpt from an article in Business Insider:

"In fact, according to data from Vanguard, just 4% of people earning below $50,000 a year max out their 401(k) at the current limits, and 11% of people who make between $50,000 and $100,000 do. People making over $100,000 are the most likely to max out their 401(k), perhaps unsurprisingly, with 32% making the highest allowable contribution."

Anyone else find these numbers much higher than expected? These numbers seem way too high to me.

Sounds right to me. I bet if you further break it down to higer income over 50% are maxing out who make over 200k. Its the other 50% who are the dumb dumbs.

I don’t max it out to the $18.5k as I am considered a “highly compensated employee” at $120,001 per year and am limited alto 5% of earnings - not even enough to get the full employer match.

It's part of the law related to 401Ks. If the lower compensated employees in a business are not contributing to their 401Ks, there are limits as to how much higher compensated employees can put in. This prevents the 401k from being a tool for savings for just the higher end of a company. Op's company needs to find ways to encourage savings amongst their lower paid staff, through education, matching, higher wages or some combination there of.

Can you explain this -- is this a company rule? Because I've never heard of this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it really that inconceivable that not everyone's budgets allow them to max out their 401k every year?

I think a better question would have been to direct that at high income people. Obviously someone making 100k or less might not be able to contribute max, but what baffles me is upper income people making 150k+ not contributing the full amount, or even worse those in the 250k range.

Anonymous wrote:Because we are both military and have 20 year retirement pensions right around the corner. Plus, we both maxed out our TSPs for the first 8 or 9 years of our career. We finally sat down and did the math and realized we were going to be stupid rich when we retired at 60. So we reduced our contributions and decided to live a little while we were young, healthy and had kids still in the house. Still don't regret the decision.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it really that inconceivable that not everyone's budgets allow them to max out their 401k every year?

I think a better question would have been to direct that at high income people. Obviously someone making 100k or less might not be able to contribute max, but what baffles me is upper income people making 150k+ not contributing the full amount, or even worse those in the 250k range.

I don’t know why you would be baffled when you don’t know what people’s expenses are. We have two kids in private school, which eats up $50K plus a year. No, public school is not an option. We have a second home I inherited that we are trying to sell because it’s too expensive to maintain with tuition costs and having to pay for college for twins in a few years. So, you are really ignorant and uninformed.

So, the family paying 50K/year for private school and not saving for retirement is calling someone else ignorant and uninformed? There are lots of good reasons why many people cannot maximize retirement savings but this one is laughable. You got yourself into the situation where you cannot use public schools. Your response should have been “poor decision making”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it really that inconceivable that not everyone's budgets allow them to max out their 401k every year?

I think a better question would have been to direct that at high income people. Obviously someone making 100k or less might not be able to contribute max, but what baffles me is upper income people making 150k+ not contributing the full amount, or even worse those in the 250k range.

I don’t know why you would be baffled when you don’t know what people’s expenses are. We have two kids in private school, which eats up $50K plus a year. No, public school is not an option. We have a second home I inherited that we are trying to sell because it’s too expensive to maintain with tuition costs and having to pay for college for twins in a few years. So, you are really ignorant and uninformed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found this excerpt from an article in Business Insider:

"In fact, according to data from Vanguard, just 4% of people earning below $50,000 a year max out their 401(k) at the current limits, and 11% of people who make between $50,000 and $100,000 do. People making over $100,000 are the most likely to max out their 401(k), perhaps unsurprisingly, with 32% making the highest allowable contribution."

Anyone else find these numbers much higher than expected? These numbers seem way too high to me.

Sounds right to me. I bet if you further break it down to higer income over 50% are maxing out who make over 200k. Its the other 50% who are the dumb dumbs.

I don’t max it out to the $18.5k as I am considered a “highly compensated employee” at $120,001 per year and am limited alto 5% of earnings - not even enough to get the full employer match.

It's part of the law related to 401Ks. If the lower compensated employees in a business are not contributing to their 401Ks, there are limits as to how much higher compensated employees can put in. This prevents the 401k from being a tool for savings for just the higher end of a company. Op's company needs to find ways to encourage savings amongst their lower paid staff, through education, matching, higher wages or some combination there of.

Can you explain this -- is this a company rule? Because I've never heard of this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found this excerpt from an article in Business Insider:

"In fact, according to data from Vanguard, just 4% of people earning below $50,000 a year max out their 401(k) at the current limits, and 11% of people who make between $50,000 and $100,000 do. People making over $100,000 are the most likely to max out their 401(k), perhaps unsurprisingly, with 32% making the highest allowable contribution."

Anyone else find these numbers much higher than expected? These numbers seem way too high to me.

Sounds right to me. I bet if you further break it down to higer income over 50% are maxing out who make over 200k. Its the other 50% who are the dumb dumbs.

I don’t max it out to the $18.5k as I am considered a “highly compensated employee” at $120,001 per year and am limited alto 5% of earnings - not even enough to get the full employer match.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I'm getting a little flak for this question but that's actually a bit reassuring. We've had times when we had a ton of outgoing expenses (two in daycare) but solid salaries. It was stressful but survivable. Now we're in a situation where it's precarious. I'm in my early 40s. The crap has hit the fan. I don't recall exactly when I started maxing out my 401k but I think it was when I was 24. It's hard for me to pull back. But, perhaps needs must.

I'm 48, a divorced, single mom of three kids ages 8-16, with no child support because I "make too much." (80K take home after taxes) I have NEVER maxed out my 401k because there simply isn't enough left over after basic expenses. I do my best to contribute a small sum to a modest 401k and college funds (that will barely put a dent in their expenses). If you are doing your best, as I know I am, stop stressing and count your blessings. If you've been maxing since 24 you're in a better place than the majority of Americans.

Anonymous wrote:I think your questions seems a littttttle disingenuous because it seems braggy?

Fully funding a 401K at 24 is pretty exceptional and rare. Being gobsmacked that circumstances could change is naive. Asking why seems obvious: people don't fully fund their 401Ks because they can't, or don't care enough, or don't need to.

Anonymous wrote:If you are not putting the max into your 401k, why not?

We had to move for DH's job and I, therefore, had to change jobs. I haven't yet returned to my previous earning level. We're financially hurting but I refuse to back down from maxing out my 401k. Has anyone else backed down? Does it freak you out?