Americans Are Putting Billions More Than Usual in Their 401(k)s • Hacker News Board

Re: Americans Are Putting Billions More Than Usual in Their 401(k)s

#221

Post by dlp211 » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 7:25 PM UTC

jeremyt wrote: post #199

dlp211 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To pile on to this. Even is SS makes no changes whatsoever, they can still pay out ~75% of the benefits starting in the late 2020's or early 2030's and all the way through the 2080's or 2090's based on the SS Trustee report. SS is going to be around unless we choose to elect officials that dismantle it. The fear mongering and apathy needs to stop.

I'm sorry, but this statement is not true. These numbers require the use of the Social Security trust fund. The Social Security trust fund is a "special issue treasury bond" in which money is deposited and then spent by the US government. So, when the trustees say that Social Security can pay 75% of the benefits, what they mean is that there are enough IOUs in the trust fund to pay 75% of the benefits. But when we st…

All you are saying is that the US needs to continue to service its debt without defaulting. Since there is no sign that we will default now or later, this is simply more fear mongering.

Re: Americans Are Putting Billions More Than Usual in Their 401(k)s

#222

Post by legodt » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 7:25 PM UTC

tingletech wrote: post #80

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is not an entitlement, it's your money That's not how social security works. Every dollar you pay in flies out to fund promises made in years past. "Your" social security money needs to be earned by our children.

That's why we need immigration policies that let us keep enough working age people in the country

I'm a big dummy, deletia

Re: Americans Are Putting Billions More Than Usual in Their 401(k)s

#223

Post by RestlessMind » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 7:25 PM UTC

monocasa wrote: post #208

cmurf wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's amusing. I'm 45 and said the same thing when I was in my mid-20's. And now I think it's just naive. The most docile 60 year olds I know become positively vitriolic at the idea of even the age of benefit payout being changed by 5 years. If Social Security were just done away with, I guarantee you the violent revolution they'd be considering wouldn't involve clever devices that take people's heads off cleanly, q…

> The most docile 60 year olds I know become positively vitriolic at the idea of even the age of benefit payout being changed by 5 years. I guess I'm afraid of a slow rollout. ie. everyone who's 40 and older gets normal social security, if you're ~35 now, you'll have to wait a few years more. It's exactly the kind of "we got ours" BS that the boomers are so known for.

Honestly, I don't think its such a bad idea. Life expectancy in 1935 was 62. Today its 79. So if we want the program to be solvent, we have to adopt one or more of the following solutions: keep increasing the SS-eligibility age in tandem with life expectancy, increase the FICA tax, cut benefits

Re: Americans Are Putting Billions More Than Usual in Their 401(k)s

#224

Post by mahyarm » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 7:25 PM UTC

chatmasta wrote: post #198

chrisabrams wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bingo! This is the best attitude I have seen in the whole thread. Social Security is an authoritarian play, or a power play. Another way to look at it: if every single US tax payer had to manually pay their taxes, instead of them being auto-drawn from their respective W2 employer, you'd see more people asking the question "who's money is this really?" This is why the fair tax or similar plans will never pass. The pow…

This is a great point I don't see brought up often enough. It also has a lot of implications for the "gig economy" and independent contractors. If the majority of the workforce works as independent contractors, the government will not be able to use employers to collect ("withhold") taxes automatically from workers' paychecks. The IRS will need to wait for the contractors to explicitly pay their own taxes. I suspect…

My guess is the government will create legislation where it requires large marketplaces to automatically withhold taxes by default, such as ebay, airbnb, uber, lyft, task rabbit, amazon, doordash etc.

Re: Americans Are Putting Billions More Than Usual in Their 401(k)s

#225

Post by kesselvon » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 7:27 PM UTC

adventured wrote: post #117

hillz wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean... He did lose the popular vote. So 'most' people didn't have an influence on the election. Or at least, the plurality of people.

Trump easily won the popular vote for the 48 states that aren't California and New York. Popular vote indeed. There's a very good reason the electoral college exists.

"If I discount 20% of the nation's population, he won the popular vote"

Re: Americans Are Putting Billions More Than Usual in Their 401(k)s

#226

Post by cmurf » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 7:28 PM UTC

monocasa wrote: post #208

cmurf wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's amusing. I'm 45 and said the same thing when I was in my mid-20's. And now I think it's just naive. The most docile 60 year olds I know become positively vitriolic at the idea of even the age of benefit payout being changed by 5 years. If Social Security were just done away with, I guarantee you the violent revolution they'd be considering wouldn't involve clever devices that take people's heads off cleanly, q…

> The most docile 60 year olds I know become positively vitriolic at the idea of even the age of benefit payout being changed by 5 years. I guess I'm afraid of a slow rollout. ie. everyone who's 40 and older gets normal social security, if you're ~35 now, you'll have to wait a few years more. It's exactly the kind of "we got ours" BS that the boomers are so known for.

This is already the case, since 1983. Also note that there's a huge difference in the payout depending on whether you go for early or full benefit age. https://www.nasi.org/learn/socialsecurity/retirement-age

Re: Americans Are Putting Billions More Than Usual in Their 401(k)s

#227

Post by nickjarboe » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 7:28 PM UTC

leggomylibro wrote: post #23

callinyouin wrote: post #4

I'm not planning on Social Security being around by the time I'm old enough to tap into it, and I'm also not planning on having any kids to bail me out when I go senile, so yeah I'm putting a lot into my 401k. I think a lot of people my age (turning 30 next week) are feeling the same way, so I wonder if it's younger workers driving this trend.

I'm in the same boat; I view my social security "contributions" as a lifestyle tax from the last generation, and I'd opt out of them in a second if I could. Instead, I'm planning my retirement around Roth IRAs and 401k savings. I think this is definitely a common sentiment amongst us youngsters.

I don't see why changing the tax rules around retirement accounts (like taxing Roth withdrawals) would be any more difficult than changing Social Security payouts. You never know what may happen in the future. The government could even make owning gold illegal.

Re: Americans Are Putting Billions More Than Usual in Their 401(k)s

#228

Post by legodt » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 7:28 PM UTC

thesimpsons1022 wrote: post #157

adventured wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Empire collapse (has happened with every single empire in history - what makes the U.S. exempt?) The US isn't anything like traditional historical empires for one. It hasn't built its prosperity on invading other nations to annex them and plunder their national wealth, which is traditionally how empires temporarily sustain themselves. The US built its immense wealth today (just under half of all private wealth on e…

The US has always been built on the plunder of its nonwhite inhabitants. One can wax poetic about the free market or educated work force but that is the truth. The roman republic didn't fall because of issues with resource extraction or plunder. It fell when a powerful enough demagogue named Ceasar took power and undermined it on a wave of populism. A Nero like dictator (trump) is all we really need to crash and burn…

You must be new to hackernews, not abiding by racism is a big no go by this community.

Re: Americans Are Putting Billions More Than Usual in Their 401(k)s

#229

Post by actuallyalys » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 7:28 PM UTC

chimeracoder wrote: post #62

koolba wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They'd qualify but I'm pretty sure when the law was first written it didn't have them in mind. It was specifically to prevent top level executives or business owners (>=5% of company) from creating 401k plans for only themselves.

> They'd qualify but I'm pretty sure when the law was first written it didn't have them in mind. It was specifically to prevent top level executives or business owners (>=5% of company) from creating 401k plans for only themselves. Even if that was the rhetoric used when creating the rule, I'd be very skeptical of assuming that was the case, rather than it being motivated by a desire to increase tax revenue, as a lot…

I'd challenge you on many. According to Wikipedia, only seven percent of workers make more than 100,000, never mind "far more than 115k": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United....

Also, wouldn't this rule lower revenue because more workers end up contributing? (Assuming that executives would adjust their plans rather than pay extra taxes.)

Re: Americans Are Putting Billions More Than Usual in Their 401(k)s

#230

Post by brandonmenc » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 7:28 PM UTC

monocasa wrote: post #208

cmurf wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's amusing. I'm 45 and said the same thing when I was in my mid-20's. And now I think it's just naive. The most docile 60 year olds I know become positively vitriolic at the idea of even the age of benefit payout being changed by 5 years. If Social Security were just done away with, I guarantee you the violent revolution they'd be considering wouldn't involve clever devices that take people's heads off cleanly, q…

> The most docile 60 year olds I know become positively vitriolic at the idea of even the age of benefit payout being changed by 5 years. I guess I'm afraid of a slow rollout. ie. everyone who's 40 and older gets normal social security, if you're ~35 now, you'll have to wait a few years more. It's exactly the kind of "we got ours" BS that the boomers are so known for.

> It's exactly the kind of "we got ours" BS that the boomers are so known for.

The boomers are just recipients of an anomalous post-war economic order that heavily benefitted the US for a couple decades.

The average 60-year old had no role in pulling the rug out from millennials.