Senator Rubio unveils proposal to reform retirement policy

[mpholland]

I always wondered about that. I worked a union job once at American Steel. I didn't last long. Having to wait for a half hour because I couldn't get on the forklift and get my own stuff took a toll that was exacerbated when I got in trouble for cleaning up around my area while I was waiting because that job belonged to someone else. When I asked what I should do while I was waiting I was told to get used to bringing a book. That was before smart phones. Not my kind of work ethic.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Technically, it isn't the members' money - at least in the building trades. The employers make an hourly contribution to the pension fund on behalf of each member. Some unions negotiate both a fixed benefit pension plan and an employer contribution to a 401(k). The trusts that govern the funds are composed of equal numbers of members of management and labor representatives.

Regards,

D-Ray

It's a pension plan. Since when are pension plans "so************************m"? For that matter...when is anything "so************************m?" So************************ts can tell you what they want and what they think it is. But most Americans? Wouldn't know so************************m if it bit them on the ass. So anytime anything smacks of a little collectivism in the culture, a little good for somebody generated by the group as opposed to our twisted cultural investment in individualism, the spewers start spewing "so************************m."

PS - this ci@lis thing is a pain in the ass. What's the problem with ci@lis??? I've never seen anybody here abusing the term ci@lis. Was it some sort of sophomoric joke at some point?

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

It's a pension plan. Since when are pension plans "so************************m"? For that matter...when is anything "so************************m?" So************************ts can tell you what they want and what they think it is. But most Americans? Wouldn't know so************************m if it bit them on the ass. So anytime anything smacks of a little collectivism in the culture, a little good for somebody generated by the group as opposed to our twisted cultural investment in individualism, the spewers start spewing "so************************m."

PS - this ci@lis thing is a pain in the ass.

Right both times.

(I like HK's answer to the second problem--spell sozialism with a z.)

[d-ray657]

The so************************m thing probably isn't necessary any more, because we are now able to identify most spammers when they register. I'll ask Grumpy about it.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Right both times.

(I like HK's answer to the second problem--spell sozialism with a z.)

Or soci@lism, eh?

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Actually...yes. The pre-tax retirement fund contribution for last year on our 1040 was just short of $10,000. If we had generated the income, it could have been 17,500. If we had generated the income, it could have been over $50,000.

It's an advantage for some folks. Is it an advantage for most folks? I can't say...and until you show me some proof that it's an advantage for most folks, neither can you. The fact remains that at some point one has to pay income tax on everything at some point. The higher one's income is at the time the tax comes due the more income tax you pay. There's also a significant disadvantage for the heirs of people who pump huge amounts of money into retirement accounts to cut their federal income taxes at the time the money is earned. Whatever is left on the date of death is subject to all the income tax...right then, in one lump sum...and all the accrued capital gains tax...right then, in one lump sum. After all that is paid, there are many, if not most heirs who are left with next to nothing. That's huge. Estate planning is part of this as well. And for some folks, if not most folks it might be a significant disadvantage



Look whell, some Americans, and here's where I'll use the term most Amercans are intellectually lazy-ass couch potato joe six-packs, for whom it's too much trouble to invest a couple of hours a year (because that's all it takes) in being responsible for their own money. Isn't that quite so typical. So in their latter years they can depend on the government for their medical coverage as I do, and for supplemental SS retirement income as I do as well. And they can pay through the nose in management fees and high expense ratios, and get lousy returns because of the shit investment choices in their 401K program (which is making other people more rich than the investor) in their earlier years, and in the end come out worse because it's too much trouble to be responsible for the management of their own money. Good...fine with me...be a chump.

All I'm saying is...it's not a good deal for everybody, and IMHO it may not even be that good a deal for most folks.

And...the silence was deafening. Go ahead whell...let's have your typical trollish reply when you've had your ass handed to you on a plate...y'know...

Originally Posted by whell

You have no clue what you're talking about.

[donquixote99]

Even socaili$m works, and is cute in an ironic way....

[Pio1980]

To assume that a typical citizen should know how to competently deal with folks who's profession is separating them from their resources by craft is IMO arrogance. The fact that caveat emptor blame-the-victim practices are legal in this country speaks volumes about our native business ethic. Screw grandma if she was too stupid to know better, are you serious?

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[Ike Bana]

Whell remains quiet as a dormouse.

Most Investors Don't Bother To Manage Their 401K.

Don't Bother With That High Cost 401K.

Suppose your account with a balance of $20,000 earns 7% a year, with fees equal to 0.5% a year. Over 20 years, the balance would be worth about $70,000, according to a report from Congressional Research Service. Were the fees 1.5% a year — near the industry median, according to the Investment Company Institute, or ICI — the balance would amount to $58,000, or 17% less.

Are Fees Draining Your 401K?

The average fund expense ratio in our portfolio is .06%, not .6, .06. The only fees we have is a 7 buck charge per sales transaction. Our average sale is $10,000, the sales fee accounts for another .0007% of cost.

I'm gonna make a bold statement. If the point of all this is to maximize what we will have available for our retirement, a 401K may not be the best program for most folks.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Whell remains quiet as a dormouse.

Pardon me for not being fully attentive to your ramblings.

You can cherry pick articles all day long. The long standing guidance from most investment professionals for the average Joe is to max out the pre-tax investment options first. Then with any left over funds available for investing, can them be directed to post tax investing options. Or, if you have the discipline and comfort level to diversify, contribute up to your employer's match, and then pursue post tax options. The level at which you might start considering post tax retirement options is also a function of your tax bracket: the higher your bracket, the more you'd want to leverage your 401(k).

For example:

http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/...a_vs_401k.html

"If your employer doesn't offer a retirement plan, you can always start by putting money in a traditional IRA or Roth IRA. But if you have access to a 401(k) or other employer plan, and your 401(k) offers a matching contribution, that's usually the best place to start.

For example, let's say you make $115,000 per year. Your employer matches your 401(k) contributions dollar-for-dollar up to 6% of your salary. In this case, the first $6,900 of savings should go into your 401(k) plan. Why give up free money?

After you fund your tax-advantaged options to the fullest (as shown in the table below), move on to other ways to save for retirement if you're able to. Should you put the rest of your savings into your 401(k)? Or should you consider a traditional IRA or Roth IRA? "

OR

http://www.aarp.org/money/budgeting-...-the-401k.html

"So what can you really rely on?

In part, your 401(k), experts say. Don't abandon it. But even Ted Benna, who is widely acknowledged as having invented the first 401(k) in 1981, has said that the new kind of account was never meant to be the sole vehicle for retirement saving.

The best route, many financial advisers now say, is to feed your 401(k) with whatever amount it takes to get your employer's full match."