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

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

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 479 posts

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

#301

Post by uiri »

omouse wrote: post #275
chrisabrams wrote: post #269

Am 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 should be scared, in Canada the government pushed the retirement age from 65 to 67 so that's 2 years more of working and 2 more years before you have access to your own cash.

That is for CPP/OAS which is the equivalent of US Social Security. You don't get access to your own cash - that goes to current retirees. You pay to current retirees for longer and start getting access to current workers' cash later.

Canada's RRSPs are actually a much better system. They are straight up tax deferral. You can put money into your RRSP at any age up to 70 so long as you have contribution room (ie: you're employed). Later, if you wind up unemployed and therefore in a lower tax bracket than when you put money in, you can take the money out.

If the Canadian government instituted some sort of tax on RRSPs, they wouldn't be able to act fast enough to prevent people from massively draining their RRSPs before new rules took effect.

In the US, you have to wait until you are 59.5, or you begin collecting periodic payments (ie: as if it were a pension), or you pay a 10% penalty.

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

#302

Post by jimmyk »

mywittyname wrote: post #299
jimmyk wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is going to be paying the taxes needed to pay off those bonds?

No one need pay taxes to pay off the bonds. The Fed can buy the bonds and hold them in perpetuity.

>The Fed can buy the bonds and hold them in perpetuity.

And what cash will they give to the SSA in exchange for those bonds? Where will that come from?

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

#304

Post by ryandrake »

lukejduncan wrote: post #296
ryandrake wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are still pretty high limits, well above the median tech salary even in the Bay Area. If you're in "income phase out" territory you're probably not worried about your retirement. The thing I don't like about Roth is that you're contributing with post-tax money during your prime working years--the time when your taxes are probably as high as they will ever be. Especially true as a tech worker where your salary p…

Just curious, what are the median Bay Area salaries? I'd think most married couples in bay area tech are above the contribution limit.

According to PayScale[1] and Glassdoor[2], average/median salary for software engineer in the Bay Area is around $110K. Caveat: Self-reported data and base salary only.

1: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Software_Engineer/Sa...

2: https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/san-francisco-software-en...

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

#305

Post by legodt »

serge2k wrote: post #292
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being eager to label (and therefore dismiss) half the country does make you as bad as them. In particular, it makes you a bigot. (Where "you" = thesimpsons1022, not legodt.) No, I am not an apologist for bigotry. That's why I'm against it when it's done by liberals, just the same as I'm against it when it's done by conservatives. The only difference is that liberals don't do it based on race. I'm not sure that makes…

> Being eager to label (and therefore dismiss) half the country does make you as bad as them. They argue that Trump "Won the popular vote outside of NY and California". That's dismissing millions of voters. They call people liberal elitists. They love the "real americans" idea. I do think calling people bigots based on voting for Trump is ridiculous though.

Those voters saw a bigot and didn't let that stop them for voting for him despite what their other reasons may be. That is enough.

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

#306

Post by mywittyname »

jimmyk wrote: post #163
wang_li wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from as it assumes that the US won't be paying back its debts. Do you also consider that money you deposit into your checking and savings accounts as having disappeared into a black hole?

The point is that in order for government to pay back its debts, it has to tax people (or fire up the printing press).

There's nothing wrong with "firing up the printing press."

The US government will be in debt for the rest of its existence and the balance of that debt will likely increase every year. The Federal Reserve openly targets a 3% inflation rate and that inflation is going to come from ye olde printing press.

IMHO, better this inflation come in the form of SS payments than payouts to military contractors.

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

#307

Post by soundwave106 »

cloakandswagger wrote: post #186
Frondo wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social security is not a Ponzi scheme. http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2014/sep/24/car...

> "A Ponzi scheme is unsustainable because the number of potential investors is eventually exhausted." Which is exactly what is happening now with the lopsided ratio of retirees and new incoming workers. They seem to have marked the assertion as "False" based off of really semantic technicalities

If there wasn't a fertility decline in the Western world, there wouldn't be a lopsided ratio of retirees to new incoming workers.

That future probably wasn't terribly obvious to the politicians who created them (given that most public pension plans were created roughly between World War I and a bit after World War II).

In fact, based on some of the literature of the time (eg The Population Bomb -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb -- etc.) I'd say it's more like people were fearing the reverse.

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

#308

Post by djrogers »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #254
Kadin wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would eliminate even the thin handkerchief of SS being a sort of mandatory government-run savings program, and not a bald faced tax-and-redistribute system. Which, as you can see from comments upthread, is -- even though I personally don't think it's true -- one of the arguments that people regularly make in favor of SS when they feel it's under threat ("it's your money", "you paid into it and you should get you…

>That would eliminate even the thin handkerchief of SS being a sort of mandatory government-run savings program, and not a bald faced tax-and-redistribute system. So bloody what? I've got no problem taking from the rich to fund a basic income to keep the elderly off cat-food. I've got parents and a grandmother left who need Social Security. >When it becomes a straightforward tax, then it'll be attacked like every oth…

> Both Clinton and Bush 2 tried to privatize Social Security.

That shows a grave misunderstanding of both proposed solutions to the SA insolvency problem.

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

#309

Post by pcardh0 »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #251
toomuchtodo wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The same weight is one human, one vote. Period. You are entitled to your opinion! That's not how the system is currently designed. > You keep implying that the rest of us aren't Americans and don't deserve an equal voice, and don't be surprised if we start trying to secede or revolt violently against the tyrants ruling over America's urban majority against our will. Good luck with that. You want to bleed out in the…

>Good luck with that. You want to bleed out in the street, go for it. Plenty of other first world countries for me to move my family to. Very few others with low taxes, no universal health-care, no universal pension, and a general fetish for empowering the rural bourgeoisie at everyone else's expense. Personally, I've got three countries on my short list to apply to, maybe four. But I'm still going to start taking se…

How are MS-13, Bloods, Crips and other various street gangs enabled by Trump's election? I am confused.

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

#310

Post by greedo »

mywittyname wrote: post #291
rebootthesystem wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. I wish more people understood this. The other one nobody seems to want to talk about or understand is Medicaid. People think they are getting health insurance (or whatever they want to call it) when, in reality, they are accumulating debt with the government and a debt most states are required, by law, to collect. This is one of the huge problems (outside of costs and lies) I have with Obamacare. The claim is th…

I'm not sure why you're saying that using Medicaid is equivalent to accumulating debt with the Federal government. Medicaid is health insurance. It's true that Medicaid will seek reimbursement for procedures that should not have been covered, but that's not different much different than what happens when a private insurance company refuses to pay a benefit. The hospital is free to pursue the person directly for the b…

If you use Medicaid, you're expected to first deplete almost all of your financial resources to pay. It's not unusual to even have your home become an asset that will be eventually taken by the government.
Post reply on HN