this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2024
302 points (96.9% liked)

News

36966 readers
2435 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Greased by lobbying and campaign cash, tax breaks for retirement savings are one thing Congress agrees on. But they also blow out the deficit and add to income inequality.

Five months before Congress faced a near-catastrophic standoff over the debt ceiling, with Republicans demanding restrictions to food and Medicaid programs to rein in spending, a bill that raised the cost of private retirement savings accounts to $282 billion per year was quietly signed into law.

In this era of deeply divided politics, the 2022 bill known as Secure 2.0 was hailed as a bipartisan success — a victory for average Americans. It had sailed through the House by a whopping 414-5 vote. It followed four other major bills passed between 1996 and 2019 that dramatically expanded taxpayer savings – all equally lauded as bipartisan victories.

But that rare issue that brought a divided Washington together also increased wealth disparities and the federal deficit. And the victory was most strongly applauded by the burgeoning financial services industry, for whom tax-advantaged retirement savings has transformed a $7 trillion retirement market in 1995 to a $38.4 trillion behemoth in 2023.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 29 points 2 years ago (6 children)

Multiple times, people here on Lemmy have assumed I have a 401(k), as if it's something everyone has, and it always amuses me.

[–] newthrowaway20@lemmy.world 47 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It probably is something you should have after a certain age. If not a work supplied 401k, then at least your own managed Roth IRA. And if you're still on the younger side, it's perfectly understandable not to have a 401k yet.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago (12 children)

From where should I have gotten the money to invest in it?

[–] Xbeam@lemmy.world 32 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If you work for a company that has a 401k then you need to sign up for it. If the company has a match percentage then that is the absolute minimum you should contribute. And when you are younger you should set it up as a Roth so you pay taxes on it now.

This isn't a thing you should do at a certain age. The younger you start the better. The money just comes out of your paycheck, same as taxes.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I do not work for a company that offers such a thing. And I never have.

This is what I'm saying about assumptions.

[–] gorysubparbagel@lemmy.world 31 points 2 years ago (14 children)

You can sign up for a Roth IRA then, there's no need for anything from your employer to get one. As far as I recall there's no minimum amount of money you need to put in at start.

[–] bhmnscmm@lemmy.world 29 points 2 years ago

I don't know why you're being down voted. I swear, some people would rather complain than make the smallest effort to help themselves. It's good advice.

Even very small contributions to a retirement account can make a big difference in old age.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This is really good advice. There’s no minimum, but there is an annual maximum of $7K.

[–] yaaaaayPancakes@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

If your employer doesn't offer a 401k or similar plan, the IRA limits are actually higher.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Well if you stopped buying frivolous items like GROCERIES you'd have plenty to invest. Then you could enjoy your retirement for a comfortable 3 years before going back to work

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (4 children)

We were talking to my daughter about this just yesterday. It's not even groceries. People think that if you spend $30 or $40 a month on things that make you and those you love happy, you'll never save enough to make yourself marginally more comfortable in the last 10-20 years of your life (if you're lucky) that will be uncomfortable no matter what.

So I suppose maybe if I denied myself and my child every pleasure in life, sure, I could put money in a 401(k). That is not something I would do and I certainly do not think it's a good lesson to teach a child. I'm sure someone will call that some sort of "live for today" or YOLO attitude rather than not giving your child the most miserable childhood you can.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago (2 children)

So I suppose maybe if I denied myself and my child every pleasure in life, sure, I could put money in a 401(k).

But that's unproductive hyperbole. Not every pleasure in life costs money, and lots of things you spend money on can be optimized. And even after doing that, if you still feel too squeezed, it might be worth considering a career change and a plan for how to get there.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] protist@mander.xyz 15 points 2 years ago (13 children)

You were telling your daughter that you're spending $30/mo on her to make her happy instead of saving it for your old age? I don't know how you communicated that, but on the surface that does not sound like a healthy thing to tell a child.

If you're worried about providing your daughter a fulfilling childhood, maybe also consider prioritizing time with her? You spend a lot of time on Lemmy dude, is that time you could be spending with her? Or are you on your phone a lot when you're with her?

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] person420@lemmynsfw.com 11 points 2 years ago (16 children)

I promise you, if you put that $30/month into your own IRA, you'll make her a lot happier when she doesn't have to support you when she's grown up.

The problem isn't spending a little to make you or your family happy, it's spending for consumable things today, that's going to put you at a huge disadvantage later.

I get it, I have two kids, it's fucking expensive. But you know what's even more expensive? Taking care of old people.

[–] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 years ago

put that $30/month into your own IRA, you'll make her a lot happier when she doesn't have to support you when she's grown up.

Unfortunately, with all of the price-gouging that's been happening, $30/mo is nothing. It probably is now productive being spent. Even with compounding interest, that is going to result in enough funds to retire as an expat in a developing nation with an exceptional exchange rate and likely next to no end of life care, supposing that the investment firm that is profiting off of pensions being extinct does exceedingly well.

I also like to suggest saving anything that one can but noone is going to be able to realistically be able survive on that, unless there are significant socio-economic changes. It's a "pie in the sky when you die" situation.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

So I suppose maybe if I denied myself and my child every pleasure in life, sure, I could put money in a 401(k). That is not something I would do and I certainly do not think it’s a good lesson to teach a child.

I think that's an excellent lesson to teach a child.

Poverty sucks. Try to get out of it. Deny consumerism, save your money.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 years ago

The only reason I have one is because I can reasonably afford it, and I would be constantly harassed about not contributing to one if I didn't.

I am under no assumption it will even have any meaningful amount of money in it by the time I will be able to retire, assuming that will even be possible by the time I'm 65 (or whatever the retirement age is raised to in the meantime)

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 3 points 2 years ago

I would have.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] pearable@lemmy.ml 22 points 2 years ago (1 children)

When both parties agree on something it's almost always bad

[–] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

They must look out for themselves and their owners first.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 18 points 2 years ago

It is the same reason why a lot of Democrats fought to keep SALT deductions even though it mainly benefits the wealthy. It turns out that people who have 401(k)'s are more likely to vote.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

401k was originally supposed to be a simple thing. It was supposed to be a way to avoid taxes on bonuses for more highly paid execs in the banking industry, but also regular employee bonuses too. They sold it to regular workers who might have gotten a few hundred dollar bonus by the employer “matching” the contribution to the 401k.

There was supposed to be a “three legged stool” for retirement. Social security, company defined benefit (pension), and then the 401k. Companies have done everything they can to get rid of traditional pensions, social security is under constant attack and the age you get it is pushed back, and the 401k is being looked at for taxes, being restricted by companies to high fee funds, and loses cash when transferring employers.

Retiring in the country is difficult at best, impossible for most, and constantly under attack for those who have a shot at it.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ROAGO@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

I'd just like to say fuck VOYA 401ks for only allowing you to buy high expense ETFs and limiting self directed accounts to only half your account value in addition to a bullshit $100 yearly fee.

load more comments
view more: next ›