Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's pretty obvious that I was coming from a employee viewpoint, not employer, as was the OP, whom I was responding to (not you). This isn't a debate. You should change your handle to Nick Naylor.
It cracks me up when people think that all you have to do to "be right" is prove the other person wrong. Uh, no, both people can be wrong. Sometimes I'll tell someone "assume I'm wrong, now how are you right?" It cuts to the chase in an interesting way... if their position falls apart, it was pretty flimsy to begin with. Other times it leads to some pretty cool conversations, and I learn a lot from them.
As the report shows, retirement inequality not only mirrors income inequality, but the impact of 401(k)s exacerbates inequality.
Great, more covetous Penis Envy nonsense that has nothing to do with Economics or Investing.
Quote:
“We used to have a fairly egalitarian retirement system. We don’t anymore,” EPI economist Monique Morrissey said during a press call Thursday. Morrissey says that’s largely due to the rise of 401(k)s as primary retirement plans, which she says was never supposed to happen. Initially, 401(k)s were created to be a supplement to pensions.
That's a patently false statement as the legislative history of the 401(k) shows:
Quote:
The Revenue Act of 1978 included a provision that became Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Sec. 401(k) (for which the plans are named), under which employees are not taxed on the portion of income they elect to receive as deferred compensation rather than as direct cash payments. The Revenue Act of 1978 added permanent provisions to the IRC, sanctioning the use of salary reductions as a source of plan contributions. The law went into effect on Jan. 1, 1980. Regulations were issued in November of 1981.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lycanmaster
To me, it just seems like 401(k)s are just a big Ponzi scheme.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations
To me it would appear you have no idea what a ponzi scheme is.
No doubt.
03-06-2016, 08:41 PM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by wheelsup
Because it's better than a 3 year vesting period?
Good God you'd find a reason to argue the sky isn't blue.
Gotta side with the short (but non-zero) vesting period.
If it vests immediately, companies will simply cut what they contribute. That's going to hurt everyone who doesn't job hop and won't help the people who do.
Social security is certainly more like a ponzi scheme. But 401K, what wrong with them? You save, and manage your money and are provided disincentive to withdraw early. I think they are great.
Social security is certainly more like a ponzi scheme. But 401K, what wrong with them? You save, and manage your money and are provided disincentive to withdraw early. I think they are great.
It's easy to name what's wrong with them. They are capped at a ~$53k contribution limit per year.
Keep in mind there were originally "three legs" to the retirement stool. The 401k was never intended to be the significant contribution toward retirement. Pensions, SS and 401k were supposed to work in concert together.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
