Earlier quoted context omitted.
You must be new to hackernews, not abiding by racism is a big no go by this community.
Yup, I burn karma on this almost daily.
100% worth it
Americans Are Putting Billions More Than Usual in Their 401(k)s
371–380 of 479 posts
Re: Americans Are Putting Billions More Than Usual in Their 401(k)s
#372Even though I'm doing all the right things like maxing out 401k etc., I can't help but feel that I will regret it later. It feels like everyone grew up hearing the same thing (people are poor planners, people go broke in retirement) and now as adults have vowed that will never be them. The problem is that now everyone thinks this way - index funds are on the rise, people are saving into their 401k, I can't help but t…
Far from "everyone" - the majority of Americans are massively undersaving. If you are able to max out your 401k every year and track the market in index funds you'll be far ahead of the vast majority of people at retirement. The first generation of people who were expected to save privately are yet to retire. 29% of 55 and older have ZERO savings, and the average of those who do is $104k, which is a $310/mo annuity (…
Just wait until the young people of this generation reach retirement. Those numbers will likely be even scarier.
Re: Americans Are Putting Billions More Than Usual in Their 401(k)s
#373Earlier quoted context omitted.
Other than the Colorado River, does California depend on other states for water? If California seceded, wouldn't they retain their part of the Colorado River Compact? Power, I'll grant you. They've been "exporting pollution" by having power plants built in other states for a while now...
> If California seceded, wouldn't they retain their part of the Colorado River Compact? Well I would imagine that deal would have to be revisited in light of a secession, no?
That's basically what my point was. Maybe they wouldn't have to, but I imagine they would.
Re: Americans Are Putting Billions More Than Usual in Their 401(k)s
#374I'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 not planning on Social Security being around by the time I'm old enough to tap into it" You need to change that attitude or your complacency will allow politicians to take it from you. The fact is you pay ~16% of your paycheck into social security and medicare, it is designed to be like a pension. It is not an entitlement, it's your money.
Social Security is a theft of my money by government. The smugness of government to decide what to invest for MY retirement itself is an insult to me.
I can do zilch. Voting against SS would mean labeling yourself some kind of moron who is not paying his "fair share" senile libertarian.
I think the only practical way is to think of this as some kind of ransom money we are paying to mafia not get into jail at this moment. The SS when I get old would mean nothing.
Re: Americans Are Putting Billions More Than Usual in Their 401(k)s
#375Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "I'm not planning on Social Security being around by the time I'm old enough to tap into it" You need to change that attitude or your complacency will allow politicians to take it from you. The fact is you pay ~16% of your paycheck into social security and medicare, it is designed to be like a pension. It is not an entitlement, it's your money.
It is not your money, it is a tax on income like any other. The Supreme Court established in 1960 (Flemming v Nestor) that contributions to Social Security are not your property and the government has no obligation to ever pay you benefits regardless of contribution. People have had this entitlement revoked in practice, though the targeting tends to be selective for out-groups and not a substantial fraction of the po…
ALL tax money is your money. We cant avoid taxes but that does not change the fact government's right to take our money away from us to do something as personal as retirement planning does not make sense and is morally extremely wrong.
If I wanted government to plan my life I would have lived in Cuba not in USA.
Re: Americans Are Putting Billions More Than Usual in Their 401(k)s
#376Am I the only one that is scared of 401ks? It sounds nice: put your money into an account tax-free, let it grow tax free over 30-40 years. When you retire, you have this nice large fund to pull money from. My biggest fear is that in 30-40 years the US government and/or 401k funds are so poorly run that they tax 50/60/70% of the income (withdrawals) out of the 401k to sustain theirselves. Lots of people tell me "that…
You don't quite understand 401ks. You can choose either contribute tax free (traditional) or have tax-free growth (Roth). You can't do both in the same account. This doesn't change the fact that the rules may be changed at some point, but given the ridiculously low limits on 401k contributions anyway you might as well put some money in one. Worst case scenario is you wind up paying taxes on t anyway, but then again y…
I'm not confusing them. My concern is the tax that is paid when withdrawing at eligible retirement.
I'm not interested in Roth for arguments sake.
Re: Americans Are Putting Billions More Than Usual in Their 401(k)s
#377Am I the only one that is scared of 401ks? It sounds nice: put your money into an account tax-free, let it grow tax free over 30-40 years. When you retire, you have this nice large fund to pull money from. My biggest fear is that in 30-40 years the US government and/or 401k funds are so poorly run that they tax 50/60/70% of the income (withdrawals) out of the 401k to sustain theirselves. Lots of people tell me "that…
If you are scared of the tax rate rising (which is reasonable, since tax rate in the US is at like an all time low historically speaking), consider Roth type stuff that is taxed now, not later. Or do both, as a hedge.
Because of arbitrary rules that do not take cost of living into account, I cannot contribute to a Roth :/
I also have this bad feeling Roth's will face some type of tax / fee in the future :/
Re: Americans Are Putting Billions More Than Usual in Their 401(k)s
#378I'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 36 and in ~17 years of being a developer professionally, I've yet to find employment at a single company that offers any kind of retirement plan at all.
I max out my IRA each year, but my retirement plan is to basically work until I can't, then hop on an iceberg.
IMHO, between Americans being drastically underprepared for retirement and mass job automation, the country is on the cusp of a devastatingly colossal social disaster.
Re: Americans Are Putting Billions More Than Usual in Their 401(k)s
#379Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you are scared of the tax rate rising (which is reasonable, since tax rate in the US is at like an all time low historically speaking), consider Roth type stuff that is taxed now, not later. Or do both, as a hedge.
Honestly asking: do you know if there are any protections in place to prevent Roths from becoming taxed on withdrawal in the future?
History says everything eventually gets taxed if things go bad. Roth's would be an easy one.
Re: Americans Are Putting Billions More Than Usual in Their 401(k)s
#380Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The fact is you pay ~16% of your paycheck into social security and medicare, it is designed to be like a pension. It is not an entitlement, it's your money. Except the facts don't match up with this. It is not designed to be like a pension. It is the workers of today paying for the retirees of today, on the assumption that when you retire there will be workers to pay for you. There is no guarantee, and there is no…
> It is the workers of today paying for the retirees of today, on the assumption that when you retire there will be workers to pay for you. Isn't that how pensions have traditionally worked too?
No- pensions take money from you while you work, put it into savings (investments) and then use that money to pay you when you retire. A properly ran pension fund is not dependent on current workers to pay current retirees, and if there were no current workers, there would still be money to pay retirees.