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.
I'm sorry!! I think I did not make it clear what I was trying to explain. When a company contributes to a 401K for it's employees, it's a good thing....BUT it does increase the cost of doing business. It is an expense. If the company did not increase it prices of product/service, to offset the contribution, they would operate with less profit. There's no way that they would reduce salaries, or cut dividends to fund this 401 contribution. The funds must be generated at the point of sale. Therefore, all customers pay for your retirement plan.
Sooooo, depending on what the product/service is, the customer or client pays the additional cost of the 401K contributions. The 401K retirement is a good savings plan, but since Companies don't pull money out of thin air, it has to come from somewhere.
I disagree w/your conclusions. We sell products/services and provide a 401K to our employees. We did not increase the price of our products/services, reduce salaries, or cut dividends to do this. We do not generate 401K funds at the point of sale. Product price is dictated by cost of materials/shipping and competitive market conditions and not influenced by our retirement plan.
Some important things to note:
Business owners use 401K's as a vehicle to shelter and increase their own company profits. That is one of the main reasons owners set up 401K's.
Business owners use 401K's as an incentive to attract and retain higher-level employees thus resulting in higher sales/higher profits for the company and its shareholders. The 401K benefit is very important when interviewing top employee prospects.
Administering a 401K is very low cost. There is a small, tax-deductible initial set-up/yearly IRS revision fee.
to start with a 401k is volentary social security is forced
it is a ponzi scheme because the people at the bottom are paying for the people who got in first- except as people are finally realizing, what eventually happens is there isnt enough to pay for the new people at the top, so eventually people who bought into it will get exactly nothing
Actually, the problem with Social Security is two things: The government was supposed to set that money aside to fund the retirees. Instead, they used the money, and now the only thing keeping it going are the current contributions. Consider that retirees are more every day and current workers are less as time goes on, this will not work in the long run. Second, the program was set up for retirees (62-65). Now disabled workers (or those whose doctors say they are disabled) also collect. Some of these people are in their 30s and 40s, which means they also get benefits for any children they have, and they collect for 40-50 years. Social Security was meant to pay out for about 10 years for each individual.
I have no idea how this is all going to be solved, but it will obviously be a problem, and an expensive one.
Social Security could become an actual pension plan in addition to being minimal income insurance if we simply applied the tax to all income from all sources, possibly in a progressive manner by setting some minimum income exemption, and tapped into the executive compensation racket. I am quite pleased that my SS contributions have been kept away from the gamblers on Wall Street. Just look at what is going to happen to that casino over the next couple of years.
In a few years I will be living on my retirement, including reasonable health care, Social Security and what ever is left of my IRA. I barely trust government to provide for some of my retirement but I am certain that the private sector will eventually lose much anything I invest. My only recourse at this point id to leave the IRA alone and eventually use it for my funeral expenses.
youll be paying ss for 40ish years
15.2% a year will be taken by force and put into ss
i know the market is down, but there is no way you will have more after 40 years than you would investing it on your own
When you are almost of retiremnt age you would have to be a fool to have it all in stocks anyway
Give me my 15.2% and let me do with it what I choose
Actually, the problem with Social Security is two things: The government was supposed to set that money aside to fund the retirees. Instead, they used the money, and now the only thing keeping it going are the current contributions. Consider that retirees are more every day and current workers are less as time goes on, this will not work in the long run. Second, the program was set up for retirees (62-65). Now disabled workers (or those whose doctors say they are disabled) also collect. Some of these people are in their 30s and 40s, which means they also get benefits for any children they have, and they collect for 40-50 years. Social Security was meant to pay out for about 10 years for each individual.
I have no idea how this is all going to be solved, but it will obviously be a problem, and an expensive one.
there are way more than 2 problems with ss
it has been changed many times and made worse and worse
people are collecting it now who paid 1 or 2%
at first people collected it paid nothing
as you pointed out disability wasnt included at first
the bottom line is ont ever trust the govt and even if they were honest they should not have a right to take 15.2% of my money and invest it how THEY want
Actually, the problem with Social Security is two things: The government was supposed to set that money aside to fund the retirees. Instead, they used the money, and now the only thing keeping it going are the current contributions. Consider that retirees are more every day and current workers are less as time goes on, this will not work in the long run. Second, the program was set up for retirees (62-65). Now disabled workers (or those whose doctors say they are disabled) also collect. Some of these people are in their 30s and 40s, which means they also get benefits for any children they have, and they collect for 40-50 years. Social Security was meant to pay out for about 10 years for each individual.
I have no idea how this is all going to be solved, but it will obviously be a problem, and an expensive one.
and btw what you described is infact a ponzi scheme
I never wanted ANY of my retirement risked on Wall Street! They may be gamblers but I am not. Not with the pension anyway. I would have liked the government to take 20% of my salary for my 40 year working life and provide me with a 50% tax free pension at 65.
I did not have that choice and now much of my savings has disappeared. I am not a happy camper.
youll be paying ss for 40ish years
15.2% a year will be taken by force and put into ss
i know the market is down, but there is no way you will have more after 40 years than you would investing it on your own
When you are almost of retiremnt age you would have to be a fool to have it all in stocks anyway
Give me my 15.2% and let me do with it what I choose
There is something seriously wrong if you're getting a paycheck and paying 15.2 percent. Your employer should pay half of that. That is why the GOP wanted to privatize SS, so corporations wouldn't have to pay that. They also wanted to hand over SS to Wall Street so they could have a lot of play money.
As far as SS being a Ponzi scheme, tell that to one of my co-workers who wanted to retire this year. Her 401k recently lost over $65,000 in one day in the Stock Market. SS was meant to be a minimum security net, not a retirement system. I can't even imagine the mess we'd have if GWB had been allowed to privatize SS.
Wouldn't it be a delightful world if we all got to do what we wanted! I don't enjoy paying taxes to engage in nation building abroad or to enable Wall Street CEO's recklessness, but I am forced to pay the taxes. So, as far as I'm concerned, you are just gonna have to suck it up and grin and bear and pay like the rest of us do.
There is something seriously wrong if you're getting a paycheck and paying 15.2 percent. Your employer should pay half of that. That is why the GOP wanted to privatize SS, so corporations wouldn't have to pay that. They also wanted to hand over SS to Wall Street so they could have a lot of play money.
As far as SS being a Ponzi scheme, tell that to one of my co-workers who wanted to retire this year. Her 401k recently lost over $65,000 in one day in the Stock Market. SS was meant to be a minimum security net, not a retirement system. I can't even imagine the mess we'd have if GWB had been allowed to privatize SS.
Wouldn't it be a delightful world if we all got to do what we wanted! I don't enjoy paying taxes to engage in nation building abroad or to enable Wall Street CEO's recklessness, but I am forced to pay the taxes. So, as far as I'm concerned, you are just gonna have to suck it up and grin and bear and pay like the rest of us do.
I never wanted ANY of my retirement risked on Wall Street! They may be gamblers but I am not. Not with the pension anyway. I would have liked the government to take 20% of my salary for my 40 year working life and provide me with a 50% tax free pension at 65.
I did not have that choice and now much of my savings has disappeared. I am not a happy camper.
the point is you did have a choice with your 401k and have no such choice with ss
we disagree on how we would want to save for retirement-which is fine-but the govt should not force me to choose your way
There is something seriously wrong if you're getting a paycheck and paying 15.2 percent. Your employer should pay half of that. That is why the GOP wanted to privatize SS, so corporations wouldn't have to pay that. They also wanted to hand over SS to Wall Street so they could have a lot of play money.
As far as SS being a Ponzi scheme, tell that to one of my co-workers who wanted to retire this year. Her 401k recently lost over $65,000 in one day in the Stock Market. SS was meant to be a minimum security net, not a retirement system. I can't even imagine the mess we'd have if GWB had been allowed to privatize SS.
Wouldn't it be a delightful world if we all got to do what we wanted! I don't enjoy paying taxes to engage in nation building abroad or to enable Wall Street CEO's recklessness, but I am forced to pay the taxes. So, as far as I'm concerned, you are just gonna have to suck it up and grin and bear and pay like the rest of us do.
1) I file as self employed and pay 15.2% myself
even if you are employed the 7.6% your employer pays is your money
2)Dont blame the govt because of your poor choices
I am 26 years old and my 401k is down about 40k this year
If i was 55 I would not have my money in these risky investments I would have them all in bonds
I have time on my side and Im not worried
If your friend lost 65k in one day Ill guess she had around 650k that day
Take all the money she invested over the years that is now 585k
It would still be way less if the govt had put it into t he ss system instead all of these years and that is after a horrenous crash
I should not be forced to put my money into a ponzi scheme just like you should not have to invest your money in stocks if you dont want to
You should not have to save anything for retirement if that is your choice-it is your money
The govt wastes so much money in burocracy and using money intended for ss elsewhere it is truly disgusting
I paid over 20k in ss tax last year and I wont ever see a nickel of it again
Even if the govt wasnt riddled with corruption and bueracracy it is far to big to efficiently take my money along with everyone elses and get a higher return than I or other people could on our own
All i ask is you let me and people who want to to opt out of SS
Let me take my 20k from last year and save it how I choose
Dont force me to be lumped in with others who are too stupid to plan for their future
If someone likes the ss system fine let them stay in
And if I opt out and in 40 years I am **** broke let me live in the street
About the only thing Bush has gotten right has been privatizing social security
Your friend who is bitching now at the recent drops has so much more money than she woul have if the govt was handling her money all of these years- but she wants it both ways
When the market tanks the govt should have jumped in and saved her
When it goes up and shes making more than she would if the gvt controlled it then she is happy as a clam
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.
