People are cashing out their retirement accounts to pay for "emergencies"

At least they will have to work longer to support the social programs :)
 
This just supports my hunch that 401k's are a disaster waiting to happen. Most people don't have the financial knowledge (nor the inclination) to understand even the basics of saving for retirement; let alone be able to leave their savings alone in times of crisis. It's going to be interesting to see what happens in 15 to 20 years when those who started with 401ks reach retirement age.

Corporations got a pretty sweet deal when these were invented, allowing them to shift all of the retirement burden onto the employee. I realize some people (like myself) prefer it that way, but for other people, it's an enormous mistake.
 
Corporations got a pretty sweet deal when these were invented, allowing them to shift all of the retirement burden onto the employee.

The deal was between the employer and the employee, right? I mean, government doesn't require employers to provide a retirement plan, so 401Ks and other defined contribution plans just provided another tax-advantaged way for employers to compensate employees.

I agree that things will likely not end well for many. If the nation has the guts to see it through without instituting huge new social programs to shift wealth to these people, then there may be a silver lining. Just as a generation of people learned thrift from living as children during the great depression, perhaps the next generation will see mom and dad scraping by and decide that their future is in theor own hands and start thinking ahead. But, doubt it.
 
At least they will have to work longer to support the social programs :)


Good point, may be the upcoming doom and gloom over the Boomer generation leaving the work force and being supported by fewer and fewer workers will be mitigated somewhat by many boomers having to work much longer than anticipated.

I do believe that the average Joe (and Joesephine) can't manage anything as "complex" as a 401(k)
 
We know someone who has done this. Stupid fool is doing so because he refuses to face up to his responsbilities. Is in his mid 50s, wants to retire but has no money because has never learnt to live within his means. However, like the petulant brat he is, he recently quit his job which provided a healthy income, so he could take time off. Only problem is despite his age he never bothered to save anything so only had enough money to survive for 2 months, hence the raiding of his 401k. I dread to think what his retirement will be like.
 
We know someone who has done this. Stupid fool is doing so because he refuses to face up to his responsbilities. Is in his mid 50s, wants to retire but has no money because has never learnt to live within his means. However, like the petulant brat he is, he recently quit his job which provided a healthy income, so he could take time off. Only problem is despite his age he never bothered to save anything so only had enough money to survive for 2 months, hence the raiding of his 401k. I dread to think what his retirement will be like.

So you know my FIL? ;)
 
This just supports my hunch that 401k's are a disaster waiting to happen. Most people don't have the financial knowledge (nor the inclination) to understand even the basics of saving for retirement; let alone be able to leave their savings alone in times of crisis. It's going to be interesting to see what happens in 15 to 20 years when those who started with 401ks reach retirement age.

I retired a bit over a year ago, from a company that I was with for almost 30 years. Starting out with a "promise of a pension" when I started there, it "evolved" into the 401k and cash balance pension plan that I had when I left. As you say, mananagement of these funds was "mine" when I retired.

Over the last year, ten people have retired from our department (company has 80k employees world wide, so that's not many). As many folk do, we discussed what we should do with our $$$ as retirement approached. Of the ten, eight gave the "management" of their retirement resources to a "professional financial guy" that one of the group knew. Can't say if that was a good/bad thing, since I don't keep in contact with any of them.

Only one other (and myself) took the time to "learn" about mananging our own retirement financial resources.

What this tells me that in the future, a lot of folks will take the route of giving managment of their retirement portfolio to a "professional" indivudial/organization (next investment opportunity :cool: ?)

At least those 8 can blame someone else for and downturn in their retirement finances :bat: (of course, they are paying for that opportunity).

- Ron
 
The deal was between the employer and the employee, right? I mean, government doesn't require employers to provide a retirement plan, so 401Ks and other defined contribution plans just provided another tax-advantaged way for employers to compensate employees.

I saw it more as a way for employers to get out of the pension business. 401Ks relieve the employers of a lot of responsibilities. For many, the employees (who don't know how to properly "manage" their 401Ks) are the losers.
 
I've decided this is a good thing to do. These people will have to work forever, pay income taxes and pay into SS while they're doing it. Hopefully, they will also all buy variable and SPIA annuities since financials are a big part of my index funds. I'll get the perfect tax support of my medicaire and SS with more profitable companies in my funds.

I think we should dedicate this forum to encouraging others to work forever and buy annuities! :D
 
We know someone who has done this. Stupid fool is doing so because he refuses to face up to his responsbilities. Is in his mid 50s, wants to retire but has no money because has never learnt to live within his means. However, like the petulant brat he is, he recently quit his job which provided a healthy income, so he could take time off. Only problem is despite his age he never bothered to save anything so only had enough money to survive for 2 months, hence the raiding of his 401k. I dread to think what his retirement will be like.
A friend of mine is like that only worse. Mid 50s, always had the best toys, $5000 hunting trips to Alaska, whenever he had any extra money he would find something to buy. Now his peers are starting to retire and he has nothing saved. Being self employed he has no 401K, no pension, his construction business is worth nothing, he does have a little equity in his home and he is really getting worried about never being able to retire. He always gave me a hard time about being a little tight with my money. I feel sorry for him now or I would tell him I told you so.
 
This just supports my hunch that 401k's are a disaster waiting to happen. Most people don't have the financial knowledge (nor the inclination) to understand even the basics of saving for retirement; let alone be able to leave their savings alone in times of crisis...

...or even in other times. I've done taxes at H&R Block for the past seven years--I often have young and middle-aged clients come in with a 1099-R showing money distributed to them from a retirement plan. When questioned about it, it usually reflects a check they received when they left a job. Of the dozens of clients in this situation, exactly ONE answered positively when I asked if they rolled the money over to an IRA.

They answer instead
- "No, I bought a car"
- "No, I spent it"
- "No, I needed it to live on"

They just have no idea how hard it's going to be to replace that retirement kitty, if indeed it ever gets replaced.
 
I think we should dedicate this forum to encouraging others to work forever and buy annuities! :D

Since I'm retired (and I don't believe U R), I fully agree and support your statement :rolleyes: ...

- Ron
 
The downside is that they could significantly reduce borrowers' savings at retirement and create an expensive tax bill if they aren't repaid on time. Those who fail to pay back the loan and are younger than 59½ are subject to regular income tax and an Internal Revenue Service penalty tax of 10% on early withdrawal. Even if the loan is repaid on time, the borrower is repaying the loan with after-tax dollars and will have to pay taxes a second time when the money is withdrawn at retirement, advisers say.

These articles always bug me with their implication that you get double taxed when you take and repay a loan from a 401K.

If you are younger than 59 1/2 and don't repay the loan you get hit with taxes and penalty. If you repay the loan you do so with after tax money, that takes care of the loan money you owe taxes on. When you cash out your 401k later in life you pay taxes on everything that comes out. There is no double taxation as implied.

If you have $100K in the 401K and borrow $50K and pay it back, that is a total of $150K that will get taxed. $50K gets taxed when when you repay the loan and the other $100K gets taxed when you withdraw it.

No double taxation and no free lunch.
 
...or even in other times. I've done taxes at H&R Block for the past seven years--I often have young and middle-aged clients come in with a 1099-R showing money distributed to them from a retirement plan. When questioned about it, it usually reflects a check they received when they left a job. Of the dozens of clients in this situation, exactly ONE answered positively when I asked if they rolled the money over to an IRA.

They answer instead
- "No, I bought a car"
- "No, I spent it"
- "No, I needed it to live on"


That's why I could not to do taxes because I'd have the constant urge to yell "Are you stupid " !
 
At least they will have to work longer to support the social programs :)

Don't count on it. My dad and my aunt fall ino that group and they both say they'll retire at 62 no matter what. Neither of them are anywhere near being able to retire at 62 unless they're dead before 70. Looks like i'll be supporting my parents and maybe my aunt.
 
Don't count on it. My dad and my aunt fall ino that group and they both say they'll retire at 62 no matter what. Neither of them are anywhere near being able to retire at 62 unless they're dead before 70. Looks like i'll be supporting my parents and maybe my aunt.

On a related note, what happens if my parents die and they have a negative net worth? Do I get stuck with the bill. What about my aunt? My brother and I are the sole heirs.
 
On a related note, what happens if my parents die and they have a negative net worth? Do I get stuck with the bill. What about my aunt? My brother and I are the sole heirs.

IANAL, but I think debts aren't inherited (unless you co-signed).
 
Neither of them are anywhere near being able to retire at 62 unless they're dead before 70. Looks like i'll be supporting my parents and maybe my aunt.

I don't want to hyjack this thread, but you commented on something I don't understand. I have no idea of the financial conditions of any of my relatives (other than my DW :bat: ) and could not say if they could or could not "afford" retirement.

Even if I did know their "financial map", I don't have any legal (nor moral) responsibility to bail them out.

Just wondering...

- Ron
 
I don't want to hyjack this thread, but you commented on something I don't understand. I have no idea of the financial conditions of any of my relatives (other than my DW :bat: ) and could not say if they could or could not "afford" retirement.

Even if I did know their "financial map", I don't have any legal (nor moral) responsibility to bail them out.

Just wondering...

- Ron

My parents struggled a lot to provide for me and my brother when we were growing up so I would feel some moral responsibility to support them to a point if needed. They sacrificed a lot for me, I would feel like I owed them.
 
In my DW's country (she is not a US citizen), you DO inherit your parents' debts. That's why we had to disown anything from her father's estate when he passed. He had about US$4million in debt, about half from the loan shark variety of lender. He had his own business, and had my WSIL (worthless sister-in-law) working for him doing the accounts. Between the two of them, they ran the company into the ground deeper than a smart missile can go into a bunker. Neither of them understood that when you get a loan, you have to pay it back. Mind you, interest rates for loans here were in the 1-2% range from banks at the time. They went to loan sharks after a while, who were charging somewhere on the order of 50% a month! Talk about STUPID! I remember very clearly the first time they asked for money (not a loan, more like "I need $5000 so I can pay the employees, you need to send it now"). The day before, my FIL had gone golfing with his buddies, paid for them all, at about $1500. I could not believe that he had the gall to make this demand after spending so much on golf the day before (his normal golf tab was over $3000 a month at the time). I was furious, but helped them out anyway. After somewhere on the order of $30k or so (yes we stupidly helped, but we were trying to preserve the family), we told them that we would not let them go hungry, but we could not support their business.

As far as I am aware though, inheritance of debt does not apply in the US. IIRC, the loans are paid from cash on hand if there is enough. If there is not enough to pay off the debts, the bank forecloses and gets what it can. As to credit card debt, any remaining property is sold to pay the balance or the credit card company writes it off. If there is anything left after the bills are paid, the provisions of the will of the deceased are applied and any remainder is distributed as specified. That's my understanding, anyway.

R
 
Where's Martha when we need her? This is an easy US law question - again I'm not a lawyer. Debts are not inherited in the US. You can get other people's debts if you cosigned for them. This is almost always a guarantee you will get their debt at some point because the credit company wouldn't have made them get a cosigner if they had any hope of paying the bills.

Another issue is that parents (in desperation?) have been known to take out credit in their children's names. After all, don't you have your kids SS number somewhere in an old tax return? When that happens, you have the option of paying off the debt (and letting them do it again) or have mom and dad sent up the river. I vote for the river. :bat:
 
On a related note, what happens if my parents die and they have a negative net worth? Do I get stuck with the bill. What about my aunt? My brother and I are the sole heirs.

No, we are not responsible for others debts (unless you either volunteer to be or let the people they owed brow-beat you into paying).
 
Back
Top Bottom