3 ms·

They don't need to be government backed, just not tied to an employer/job. Much like current retirement plans are not tied to a specific company.

brewdad 7y ago
401k is government backed. The name itself refers to the law that brought them into existence. Just as Roth IRAs are named for the Senator who proposed them. Without the backing of the government, your retirement plan would solely consist of what you save and you'd be taxed on it all along the way.
- kyleperik 7y ago
  I'm not sure that's what was meant by government backed. The government doesn't pay for your retirement fund, a Roth IRA just doesn't charge tax on withdrawals.
  - mjevans 7y ago
    My intent was the entire benefits provisioning package outsourced to the government. This way irrespective of if heath coverage (it's not really insurance, which is a separate debate), paid time off of all kinds, and all other pre-tax line items are an entirely separate income stream and go over to the government managed pool of resources. The compensation rate for all such items might thus become far more standardized, and all of the bureaucratic conformance for such items would be there as well. This would be an exceedingly small business friendly move as suddenly a lot of the headaches of employing someone would just be paid for with a simple 'tax'. It would also be very worker friendly as all of those things and seniority/etc would similarly be paid for with that 'tax'. This does assume that there's a uniform allocation of resources per employee (I know there isn't today), or that there's a standard appreciation track for employees (there isn't today)... or that there might be multiple standard ranks of benefits (which would need to be more clearly advertised in job descriptions)... However everything really would be easier for everyone if we actually had this system; the only entities that would benefit from the status quo in a meaningful way are large corporations with enough employees to justify full time HR and legal staff.
- eikenberry 7y ago
  401k's are only government backed in a weird circular way. If there were no government, they would work fine as a retirement savings plan. The government backs them only by protecting them from the government taking more of the money in taxes. And as the other response mentions, this was more in about the idea of the government funding and controlling it.

brewdad 7y ago

401k is government backed. The name itself refers to the law that brought them into existence. Just as Roth IRAs are named for the Senator who proposed them. Without the backing of the government, your retirement plan would solely consist of what you save and you'd be taxed on it all along the way.

kyleperik 7y ago
I'm not sure that's what was meant by government backed. The government doesn't pay for your retirement fund, a Roth IRA just doesn't charge tax on withdrawals.
- mjevans 7y ago
  My intent was the entire benefits provisioning package outsourced to the government. This way irrespective of if heath coverage (it's not really insurance, which is a separate debate), paid time off of all kinds, and all other pre-tax line items are an entirely separate income stream and go over to the government managed pool of resources. The compensation rate for all such items might thus become far more standardized, and all of the bureaucratic conformance for such items would be there as well. This would be an exceedingly small business friendly move as suddenly a lot of the headaches of employing someone would just be paid for with a simple 'tax'. It would also be very worker friendly as all of those things and seniority/etc would similarly be paid for with that 'tax'. This does assume that there's a uniform allocation of resources per employee (I know there isn't today), or that there's a standard appreciation track for employees (there isn't today)... or that there might be multiple standard ranks of benefits (which would need to be more clearly advertised in job descriptions)... However everything really would be easier for everyone if we actually had this system; the only entities that would benefit from the status quo in a meaningful way are large corporations with enough employees to justify full time HR and legal staff.
eikenberry 7y ago
401k's are only government backed in a weird circular way. If there were no government, they would work fine as a retirement savings plan. The government backs them only by protecting them from the government taking more of the money in taxes. And as the other response mentions, this was more in about the idea of the government funding and controlling it.