Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Teachers Pay High Fees for Retirement Funds

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 109 posts

Re: Teachers Pay High Fees for Retirement Funds

#41

Post by frockington1 »

Ididntdothis wrote: post #24
lotsofpulp wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am alluding to the 401k contribution limit being $20k+ versus the IRA contribution limit being $6k. There is absolutely no reason why one should differ from the other, other than one benefits those who have employers that offer 401k. In fact, couples where one spouse who works for an employer with a 401k and one who doesn't are actually punished by lowering the contribution limit for IRA to zero. Someone explain to…

It’s pretty crazy that employers have any power over things like health insurance or retirement savings and play by different rules. These should be completely disconnected from employment. The only thing employers should compete on is things like 401k matching.

My employer subsidizes my health insurance and contributes to my 401k and a pension. It's a nice perk and part of the reason why i work for them. It's a win-win

Re: Teachers Pay High Fees for Retirement Funds

#42

Post by mrep »

ralph84 wrote: post #26
Pfhreak wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is FUD. There are seniority based unions, and there are merit based unions. Nothing about a union means you can't negotiate, have merit based promotion, etc. Also, as someone in tech, I constantly hear people talking about downleveling when they change jobs, I hear people talking about unclear promotion criteria, etc.

This. Some of the highest paid individual contributors in the world are actors and professional athletes. They're represented by unions.

Aren't those industry wide unions whose main purpose is to set wage floors because there are so many people desperately trying to get into the industry that without them, employee conditions would be terrible for those just starting out? I don't think that is a problem for programmers and it is way different than a company specific union.

If you want to start an industry wide programmer union, by all means, start one and then try and get people to join it. I'd love to hear what benefits you think I would get by joining an industry wide programmer union.

Re: Teachers Pay High Fees for Retirement Funds

#43

Post by Ididntdothis »

harikb wrote: post #31
Ididntdothis wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand why 401k even exists. The money should go into an IRA controlled by the owner. The employer should have no say in this. The same should go for health insurance....

Edit: See jlmorton's correction below. Creation was indeed accidental. Leaving my comment unchanged. When 401k-s originally started, it was considered ground-breaking in that it was a way for employers to use their purchasing power (or choosing power) to get lower cost management of funds. It was envisioned as a great thing for employees and employers. But we all know that is now how new laws are created. A bunch of…

I agree about FSA. It’s stupid in every conceivable way. But don’t they roll over now? At least to some degree.

Re: Teachers Pay High Fees for Retirement Funds

#44

Post by Ididntdothis »

frockington1 wrote: post #41
Ididntdothis wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s pretty crazy that employers have any power over things like health insurance or retirement savings and play by different rules. These should be completely disconnected from employment. The only thing employers should compete on is things like 401k matching.

My employer subsidizes my health insurance and contributes to my 401k and a pension. It's a nice perk and part of the reason why i work for them. It's a win-win

They can subsidize as much as they want. But they receive tax benefits that are not available to people whose employer doesn’t do this. In addition they choose health insurance and 401k providers for you. I am pretty sure their incentives and yours aren’t aligned so you may actually get a bad deal. It simply makes no sense.

Re: Teachers Pay High Fees for Retirement Funds

#45

Post by kaonashi »

aphextron wrote: post #6

Unions are not perfect. But they are the only protection individual laborers have left against the unstoppable power of modern corporations. Don't ever fall for the endless slandering laid against them by capitalists.

Biggest problem with unions in the US is they lack seats at the board, which allows management to treat them in a very adversarial manner with no formal means for pushback.

Re: Teachers Pay High Fees for Retirement Funds

#46

Post by bpodgursky »

kazagistar wrote: post #22
bifrost wrote: post #2

Unions in CA are also why teachers can't get disability insurance. Have to go out for surgery? You get nothing.

If a union isn't democratically controlled by the workers it's not a proper union, and if it is, it is possible to make work for the majority of its employees, at the very least. So what's the full story you are missing here?

Union bosses have control over raises, promotions, and hours granted to members. They also have built-in powers of communication and messaging control (both publicly and within the union)

In corrupt unions, the bosses absolutely will use that power to punish employees seen as challenging their authority or a leadership change.

Saying "oh, they can vote them out" sounds great from the outside, but if you have a family, you're not going to start an insurrection if it means losing your job, healthcare, and getting blacklisted from being employed in other (union) shops.

Re: Teachers Pay High Fees for Retirement Funds

#47

Post by darawk »

jlmorton wrote: post #34
Ididntdothis wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand why 401k even exists. The money should go into an IRA controlled by the owner. The employer should have no say in this. The same should go for health insurance....

It exists as a historic accident. It was not originally intended as a retirement savings program, but simply a way to help a small number of rich people avoid tax on deferred income invested in the stock market. Though the program has become widely popular, it's still very clearly a giveaway to the rich. Not only are the wealthy capable of saving a larger amount, we also allow their employers to contribute up to $56,…

This is a very strange interpretation. Lost revenue relative to what? Not having it? Is the government losing revenue by not taxing the bottom 50% of income earners, too?

The tax code is structured this way to incentivize saving for retirement. Social security exists for the same reason. The government allows you to defer taxation in these structured vehicles so that you are better able to care for yourself in your old age, so that the government doesn't end up footing the bill.

These accounts are no more a "give away" to the rich than the progressive income tax schedule is a "give away" to the poor.

Re: Teachers Pay High Fees for Retirement Funds

#48

Post by thatfrenchguy »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #3

I don't see any reason an employer or union wouldn't offer Vanguard/Fidelity/Schwab for 401k/HSA with access to the I assume they're probably getting some kickback or something from the arrangement of restricting the 401k/HSA member's funds to high fee investments. Edit: At least for an HSA, one can transfer the funds out into a Fidelity HSA account immediately. With a 401k, you have to wait until you leave your empl…

Can we just stop the 401k nonsense and have IRA have the same rules as 401k ?

Re: Teachers Pay High Fees for Retirement Funds

#49

Post by lotsofpulp »

darawk wrote: post #47
jlmorton wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It exists as a historic accident. It was not originally intended as a retirement savings program, but simply a way to help a small number of rich people avoid tax on deferred income invested in the stock market. Though the program has become widely popular, it's still very clearly a giveaway to the rich. Not only are the wealthy capable of saving a larger amount, we also allow their employers to contribute up to $56,…

This is a very strange interpretation. Lost revenue relative to what? Not having it? Is the government losing revenue by not taxing the bottom 50% of income earners, too? The tax code is structured this way to incentivize saving for retirement. Social security exists for the same reason. The government allows you to defer taxation in these structured vehicles so that you are better able to care for yourself in your o…

>These accounts are no more a "give away" to the rich than the progressive income tax schedule is a "give away" to the poor.

Since only the rich are employed by employers who offer the benefits of these accounts, it is effectively a give away to the rich. If it wasn't a give away restricted to a certain populace, then it would be de-linked from employment and available for everyone.

Re: Teachers Pay High Fees for Retirement Funds

#50

Post by pnutjam »

harikb wrote: post #31
Ididntdothis wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand why 401k even exists. The money should go into an IRA controlled by the owner. The employer should have no say in this. The same should go for health insurance....

Edit: See jlmorton's correction below. Creation was indeed accidental. Leaving my comment unchanged. When 401k-s originally started, it was considered ground-breaking in that it was a way for employers to use their purchasing power (or choosing power) to get lower cost management of funds. It was envisioned as a great thing for employees and employers. But we all know that is now how new laws are created. A bunch of…

FSA is great if you plan to change employers, there is no clawback if you empty the account in January and change employers in February. I'm not sure why this was never considered, but it's one of the few places an employee can benefit.
Post reply on HN