nun
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2006
- Messages
- 4,872
As everyone should........
Time Mag: Why its time to retire the 401 (K)
- Thread starter clifp
- Start date
As everyone should........
Independent
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2006
- Messages
- 4,629
I think that "tax" is a serious misnomer in this case. A tax is money that the gov't takes away from you. A subsidy is money that the gov't gives you.
If the topic is incentives (which is what you are talking about in the "Political issues" post), then losing a subsidy could have the same impact on the incentive to work as an income tax. However, if the topic is "redistribution", people getting subsidies seem to be on the receiveing end of the transfer.
ziggy29
Moderator Emeritus
That's why I deliberately put the word "tax" in quotes. Technically it may not be a tax but in terms of taking more money out of your paycheck for each extra dollar you earn, it still quacks like a duck.
Independent
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2006
- Messages
- 4,629
I suppose I should use your phrase and say that it quacks like a duck, but it doesn't walk like a duck.
If you are interested in the incentive to work, than any needs-based subsidy has a phase-out range, and if you are in that range losing the subsidy is like a tax (it quacks like a duck).
However, if you are interested in "redistributing" income (the last sentence in your post #48), than any needs-based subsidy shifts income into the group that gets the subsidy. In this sense, it is the exact opposite of a tax (it doesn't walk like a duck).
For example, the median income for a family of 4 is about $70,000. At your age (44) this results in a subsidy of $2,268. Unless this family pays more than $2,268 in additional taxes due to the Baucus plan, they are money ahead. Income has been "redistributed toward them".
If you are interested in the incentive to work, than any needs-based subsidy has a phase-out range, and if you are in that range losing the subsidy is like a tax (it quacks like a duck).
However, if you are interested in "redistributing" income (the last sentence in your post #48), than any needs-based subsidy shifts income into the group that gets the subsidy. In this sense, it is the exact opposite of a tax (it doesn't walk like a duck).
For example, the median income for a family of 4 is about $70,000. At your age (44) this results in a subsidy of $2,268. Unless this family pays more than $2,268 in additional taxes due to the Baucus plan, they are money ahead. Income has been "redistributed toward them".
Even as individuals as we selfishly try to determine "what's in this for me", we'll have to keep our eyes on ALL costs and who they get shifted to. For example, many of the taxes associated with the Baucus plan are levied against medical device mfgrs and pharmaceutical companies. Of course, that money will ultimately come from consumers. And, I'm sure there are similarly shifted costs in the present system. Also there are bigger questions of US productivity that still affect us as individuals (and shareholders). Again, that could favor Baucus (or whatever thing emerges the present negotiation) or maybe not. So, just looking at who gets what in the direct taxation/subsidy game won't tell a person if he comes out ahead.
Aussie Trooper
Dryer sheet wannabe
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 11
There are problems in the article, but I personally think (and its only my opinion) that its in the right direction...... If it serves as a wake up call to start people questioning thier investment and retirement strategies its a really good article....
For too long the vast majority of people place rediculous trust in commisssion based sales people or poor corporate managment with thier entire lifes savings....to me that in its self is just crazy......No1 rule presrve capital.....No 2 rule ...be well informed what your putting your money into to mitigate or have knowledge of the risk........
401k and Superannuation/pensions do have huge potential downfalls.
1. Most underperform the market significantly and charge hefty fees for doing so...
2. Most decline significantly in market downturns and have massive reductions in dividends or distributions during downturns
3. Most are poorly diversified and at risk of scontroling parties not paying in, going broke etc
4. They have govt legislation risk where you can begin a path or strategy ten years ago, be 1 month from implementation and get your entire strategy wiped out by a change in govt legislation
I personally think they are a fantastic product for two groups of people. The really switched on cookies who know how to set them up rpoperly and design reciprical strategies in conjunction with them, and for the complete financially inept who as long as they are tucking some money wawy somewhere are doing OK.
Personally high dividend fundamentally sound shares are hard to beat....You can choose when, and what to buy, you can trade in and out at will.
You can diversify, they keep paying very well during downturns or changes of sentiment inthe market....
Im not at all saying 401K's are dead or dying , and they have there time and place.... but most people would find it more profitable and more flexible to invest directly into the shares bonds or other investments...... and it is worth the time to learn....
Assuming everyone in this forum is in here because they are on the way to retiring early or want to , I cant see how any single on of you could entrust your entire investment protfolio to a 401K......one wrong move, one bit of fraud, and your on the way to belated retirement and 20 more years working for a dollar.
Even if you disagree entirely with the article, its worth considering the risk a 100% 401K retirement strategy places you in....
For too long the vast majority of people place rediculous trust in commisssion based sales people or poor corporate managment with thier entire lifes savings....to me that in its self is just crazy......No1 rule presrve capital.....No 2 rule ...be well informed what your putting your money into to mitigate or have knowledge of the risk........
401k and Superannuation/pensions do have huge potential downfalls.
1. Most underperform the market significantly and charge hefty fees for doing so...
2. Most decline significantly in market downturns and have massive reductions in dividends or distributions during downturns
3. Most are poorly diversified and at risk of scontroling parties not paying in, going broke etc
4. They have govt legislation risk where you can begin a path or strategy ten years ago, be 1 month from implementation and get your entire strategy wiped out by a change in govt legislation
I personally think they are a fantastic product for two groups of people. The really switched on cookies who know how to set them up rpoperly and design reciprical strategies in conjunction with them, and for the complete financially inept who as long as they are tucking some money wawy somewhere are doing OK.
Personally high dividend fundamentally sound shares are hard to beat....You can choose when, and what to buy, you can trade in and out at will.
You can diversify, they keep paying very well during downturns or changes of sentiment inthe market....
Im not at all saying 401K's are dead or dying , and they have there time and place.... but most people would find it more profitable and more flexible to invest directly into the shares bonds or other investments...... and it is worth the time to learn....
Assuming everyone in this forum is in here because they are on the way to retiring early or want to , I cant see how any single on of you could entrust your entire investment protfolio to a 401K......one wrong move, one bit of fraud, and your on the way to belated retirement and 20 more years working for a dollar.
Even if you disagree entirely with the article, its worth considering the risk a 100% 401K retirement strategy places you in....
Bimmerbill
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2006
- Messages
- 1,645
I really like my 401K plan, the TSP. I'm sure it's more secure than non gov't 401K plans tho. At least I'd like to think so...
stephenandrew
Recycles dryer sheets
- Joined
- May 5, 2007
- Messages
- 148
My own observations
I have basically come to the conclusion that there are two types of people in the world when it comes to saving/investing/planning. The first is the sort of folks who visit and post here. I am pretty much of the conclusion that no matter what retirment savings vehicles that were out there, no matter what the rules, no matter what the tax incentives, the folks here would do what is ever necessary, (curb current consumption, put money in the "bank", etc.) and end up reasonably well off in retirement. I think the LBYM mentality and the realization that you need to dealy gratifcation now is far more important and significant than the retirement plan vehicles or options.
The second group of folks are basically about 80-90% of the people who I deal with every day on an personal and professional basis. Most are nice decent people, but they just don't really understand the consequences of their financioal decisions. These are the folks who when they go to buy a new automobile, don't care about the price--they just make a deal that allows them to keep the same monthly payment htey have had for years; these are the same people who put no money down on a home purchase and get an interest only mortgage, and are not upside down on their house; these are the folks who make the minimum monthly payments on their creidt cards and end up paying (with interest) $400 for a $50 toaster. Obviously I could go on--you all know the same people I do.
I am big proponent of individual freedom, but over the years, I have come to the conclusion that some folks are not able to handle this freedom. It may be becaue they lack an education, self control/discipline, whatever, but I do think that the most people are not capable of independently handling their finances on a day to day basis, much less are capable for planning for retirement (probably the "single" biggest expense they will have to cover). I don't know the precise answer, but I do think the 401-k focus has been a failure for most people (again-this is not the fault of the approach, but a failing of the people). I think that most folks want a more paternalistic approach to the thier lives and to society (look who is in the White House and who is in Congress--they are not a bunch of libertarians), and want someone (the government, their employer, etc.) to "take care of them".
I think in the end, that while much of the time article contains many inaccuracies or less than a complete reporting of the facts, it does reflect the reality of most people in this country. Left to their own devices, they will not save what is necessary to ensure their future financial security. One way or another, those who have saved enough to be finanically independent, the taxpayers, or those who are still working, are going to pay for the behvaior for the poor financial management of the majority of the people in this country.
I have basically come to the conclusion that there are two types of people in the world when it comes to saving/investing/planning. The first is the sort of folks who visit and post here. I am pretty much of the conclusion that no matter what retirment savings vehicles that were out there, no matter what the rules, no matter what the tax incentives, the folks here would do what is ever necessary, (curb current consumption, put money in the "bank", etc.) and end up reasonably well off in retirement. I think the LBYM mentality and the realization that you need to dealy gratifcation now is far more important and significant than the retirement plan vehicles or options.
The second group of folks are basically about 80-90% of the people who I deal with every day on an personal and professional basis. Most are nice decent people, but they just don't really understand the consequences of their financioal decisions. These are the folks who when they go to buy a new automobile, don't care about the price--they just make a deal that allows them to keep the same monthly payment htey have had for years; these are the same people who put no money down on a home purchase and get an interest only mortgage, and are not upside down on their house; these are the folks who make the minimum monthly payments on their creidt cards and end up paying (with interest) $400 for a $50 toaster. Obviously I could go on--you all know the same people I do.
I am big proponent of individual freedom, but over the years, I have come to the conclusion that some folks are not able to handle this freedom. It may be becaue they lack an education, self control/discipline, whatever, but I do think that the most people are not capable of independently handling their finances on a day to day basis, much less are capable for planning for retirement (probably the "single" biggest expense they will have to cover). I don't know the precise answer, but I do think the 401-k focus has been a failure for most people (again-this is not the fault of the approach, but a failing of the people). I think that most folks want a more paternalistic approach to the thier lives and to society (look who is in the White House and who is in Congress--they are not a bunch of libertarians), and want someone (the government, their employer, etc.) to "take care of them".
I think in the end, that while much of the time article contains many inaccuracies or less than a complete reporting of the facts, it does reflect the reality of most people in this country. Left to their own devices, they will not save what is necessary to ensure their future financial security. One way or another, those who have saved enough to be finanically independent, the taxpayers, or those who are still working, are going to pay for the behvaior for the poor financial management of the majority of the people in this country.
Independent
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2006
- Messages
- 4,629
I'm not quite as pessimistic as stephenandrew. Maybe because I worked with a bunch of analytical types and that skewed my sample. But here's a Gallup poll with some numbers:
I think our current postion on retirement is pretty good - everybody has to participate in SS, lots of people have some payroll-deduct saving option, after that, you're on your own. SS provides a safety net for people who can't or won't save. If you want a better lifestyle, you have to save for it yourself. So I'm not looking for more gov't mandates. In particular, I don't like add-on mandatory savings plans like Ghilarducci's.
Nearly One-Third of Credit-Card Owners Hold High Balances
I think our current postion on retirement is pretty good - everybody has to participate in SS, lots of people have some payroll-deduct saving option, after that, you're on your own. SS provides a safety net for people who can't or won't save. If you want a better lifestyle, you have to save for it yourself. So I'm not looking for more gov't mandates. In particular, I don't like add-on mandatory savings plans like Ghilarducci's.
Yes. A low-level safety net to keep older folks fed and off the streets who could not or would not save for retirement.
