4 ms·
With a 491k I own my retirement savings and they can't be taken from me. I control what investments can be made and my risk tolerances. 401k replaced pensions?
by kobeya 10y ago
With a 491k I own my retirement savings and they can't be taken from me. I control what investments can be made and my risk tolerances. 401k replaced pensions? Good riddance!
The only crime here is 401ks being tied to employment and contribution limits.
- ceejayoz 10y ago> With a 491k I own my retirement savings and they can't be taken from me. Sure it can. Congress just has to pass a new tax (or increase the existing brackets) on your distributions.
- koolba 10y agoYep. Either that or when they decide to "more fairly redistribute" 401k savings between the haves and have-nots. I seriously doubt that would happen but it's not outside the realm of possibility.
- smallnamespace 10y agoI doubt that would ever happen -- people take property rights very seriously here, and 401k money is very clearly the fruit of the owner's labor. The easier way to move money from savers to debtors is to cause inflation, but good luck getting that to happen in today's environment.
- koolba 10y agoYou could say the same thing about social security too though I don't think I'll get back >= 100% of what I put in. Between "means testing" (which is stupid because it disincentives saving) and raising the retirement age for non-boomers, it's not looking probable so don't consider your 401k untouchable either.
- smallnamespace 10y agoDifference is that SS doesn't have a number that says 'this amount is your exact share of the pot', while your 401(k) does. How a thing is originally presented matters, especially when it comes to what is politically possible.
- crdoconnor 10y ago>You could say the same thing about social security too though I don't think I'll get back >= 100% of what I put in. You rarely get back your insurance premiums either. It's called social security for a reason.
- koolba 10y agoWhen I started paying into social security they promised me retirement at 65. If an insurance company changed the terms of my payout after collecting years of premiums, they'd have a fun lawsuit to defend.
- dragonwriter 10y ago> If an insurance company changed the terms of my payout after collecting years of premiums, they'd have a fun lawsuit to defend. Unless there was a bankruptcy involved. Which, you know, happens to insurance companies.
- smallnamespace 10y agoInsurance company policies are backstopped by state and federal government guarantees (with amount limits).
- dragonwriter 10y agoFor the most part, they are backstopped by state-mandated-private guarantors (who in principle also have a bankruptcy risk), but not federal guarantees, and with fairly low limits (and sometimes at less than full value even before the limit, e.g., life insurance products on CA are at 80% up to either a $100K, $250K, or $300K limit, depending on the type of product.)
- Beltiras 10y agoSomething like that just got passed through Icelandic Parliament under the guise of "normalizing retirement benefits". I'm assuming it will be litigated for years.
- kgwgk 10y agoThat argument applies as well to any other form of savings. Maybe the only rational choice is to spend everything and not to own anything?
- micahbright 10y agoThat's not irrational. Also, try building things for yourself, and trading rather than living a life of consumerism. It's the only way to opt out of having your personally created wealth redistributed.
- kobeya 10y agoWay to respond to something totally different.
- acedinlowball 10y agoYou should learn to be more grateful when someone points out that you're wrong.