5 ms·

This is a very strange interpretation. Lost revenue relative to what? Not having it? Is the government losing revenue by not taxing the bottom 50% of income ear

by darawk 7y ago

This is a very strange interpretation. Lost revenue relative to what? Not having it? Is the government losing revenue by not taxing the bottom 50% of income earners, too? The tax code is structured this way to incentivize saving for retirement. Social security exists for the same reason. The government allows you to defer taxation in these structured vehicles so that you are better able to care for yourself in your old age, so that the government doesn't end up footing the bill. These accounts are no more a "give away" to the rich than the progressive income tax schedule is a "give away" to the poor.

lotsofpulp 7y ago
>These accounts are no more a "give away" to the rich than the progressive income tax schedule is a "give away" to the poor. Since only the rich are employed by employers who offer the benefits of these accounts, it is effectively a give away to the rich. If it wasn't a give away restricted to a certain populace, then it would be de-linked from employment and available for everyone.
- grimjack00 7y ago
  > Since only the rich are employed by employers who offer the benefits of these accounts So, being an employee of a company that offers a 401k is the new definition of "rich"?
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    I was referring to the concept of employers being able to contribution $56k to an employee's 401k (which only happens if employee is already highly compensated), as opposed to IRAs being capped at $6k.
- darawk 7y ago
  Lots of employers offer these. Only if your definition of "the rich" is extremely broad is it restricted to "the rich", first of all. Certainly many people making 60-80k have access to these accounts, and quite often some level of employer matching. I guess you could call that "rich" relative to some people, but it's not what I think of when I hear "the rich". Secondly, nobody (well, maybe some people, but mostly nobody) describes the progressive tax schedule as a "give away" to the poor, despite it representing a much larger wealth transfer than these retirement accounts.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    jlmorton was referring to the employer contribution limits of $56k, which are utilized, obviously, by rich companies.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  >Since only the rich are employed by employers who offer the benefits of these accounts Everyone and their brother has a 401k today. Even many entry level blue collar jobs have 401k plans.

by darawk 7y ago

lotsofpulp 7y ago

>These accounts are no more a "give away" to the rich than the progressive income tax schedule is a "give away" to the poor. Since only the rich are employed by employers who offer the benefits of these accounts, it is effectively a give away to the rich. If it wasn't a give away restricted to a certain populace, then it would be de-linked from employment and available for everyone.

grimjack00 7y ago
> Since only the rich are employed by employers who offer the benefits of these accounts So, being an employee of a company that offers a 401k is the new definition of "rich"?
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  I was referring to the concept of employers being able to contribution $56k to an employee's 401k (which only happens if employee is already highly compensated), as opposed to IRAs being capped at $6k.
darawk 7y ago
Lots of employers offer these. Only if your definition of "the rich" is extremely broad is it restricted to "the rich", first of all. Certainly many people making 60-80k have access to these accounts, and quite often some level of employer matching. I guess you could call that "rich" relative to some people, but it's not what I think of when I hear "the rich". Secondly, nobody (well, maybe some people, but mostly nobody) describes the progressive tax schedule as a "give away" to the poor, despite it representing a much larger wealth transfer than these retirement accounts.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  jlmorton was referring to the employer contribution limits of $56k, which are utilized, obviously, by rich companies.
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>Since only the rich are employed by employers who offer the benefits of these accounts Everyone and their brother has a 401k today. Even many entry level blue collar jobs have 401k plans.