401k pre-tax contributions no more?!?
- Thread starter hova22
- Start date
FUEGO
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2007
- Messages
- 7,746
Typical Money magazine quality stuff.
I like this quote:
"the government will contribute $600 a year". Isn't that nice. Wonder who will fund this mandate? Oh wait, we get to pay more taxes to give back to ourselves? Why can't we just cut out the middle man and save more on our own. If your goal is to redistribute wealth robinhood-style, just raise taxes on the rich and bump up the earned income credit income limits and payout amounts.
Maybe that $50 billion in tax breaks for 401k contributors, once it is eliminated, can be used to pay the $600/yr into public "guaranteed retirement accounts".
I'm having a hard time seeing how this proposal is a lot different than Social Security or revised SS as proposed by the Bush administration with private investment accounts that are earmarked in your name specifically.
Why not just bump the SS payroll tax up another 2.5%, charge employers another 2.5%, and then increase SS payouts for all retirees? Why create a duplicate system to do essentially the same thing as SS does right now?
I like this quote:
"the government will contribute $600 a year". Isn't that nice. Wonder who will fund this mandate? Oh wait, we get to pay more taxes to give back to ourselves? Why can't we just cut out the middle man and save more on our own. If your goal is to redistribute wealth robinhood-style, just raise taxes on the rich and bump up the earned income credit income limits and payout amounts.
Maybe that $50 billion in tax breaks for 401k contributors, once it is eliminated, can be used to pay the $600/yr into public "guaranteed retirement accounts".
I'm having a hard time seeing how this proposal is a lot different than Social Security or revised SS as proposed by the Bush administration with private investment accounts that are earmarked in your name specifically.
Why not just bump the SS payroll tax up another 2.5%, charge employers another 2.5%, and then increase SS payouts for all retirees? Why create a duplicate system to do essentially the same thing as SS does right now?
FUEGO
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2007
- Messages
- 7,746
Teresa Ghilarducci // University of Notre Dame
There is the proponent's website at Notre Dame.
There's a little blurb on that site about specifics of funding/investments in these new "guaranteed retirement accounts". The government would pay a guaranteed rate of return of 3% above inflation on these accounts. Like 3% real yield tips or I-bonds (seen any of those issued lately?).
There is the proponent's website at Notre Dame.
There's a little blurb on that site about specifics of funding/investments in these new "guaranteed retirement accounts". The government would pay a guaranteed rate of return of 3% above inflation on these accounts. Like 3% real yield tips or I-bonds (seen any of those issued lately?).
The idea of having the government withhold more mandatory money from my paycheck with the promise of giving it back later doesn't sit well with me.
They don't seem to be doing so well as it is, why should we give them more.
The SS statment I got this week is all the evidence I need "Without changes, by 2041 the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted and there will be enough money to pay only about 75 cents for each dollar of schedule benefits"
What do you know, 2041 happens to be the very year that I become fully eligible for SS! How about taxing us less and letting us save more on our own. Now there is a novel thought.
They don't seem to be doing so well as it is, why should we give them more.
The SS statment I got this week is all the evidence I need "Without changes, by 2041 the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted and there will be enough money to pay only about 75 cents for each dollar of schedule benefits"
What do you know, 2041 happens to be the very year that I become fully eligible for SS! How about taxing us less and letting us save more on our own. Now there is a novel thought.
I agree to charge employers but only above a certain number of employees ( i am self employed so why should i pay more if there are no employees
)). Also i think they need to get rid of SSN and basically say .. save for urself and dont make others save for u. This concept of government help doesnt appeal to me.
