Senator Rubio unveils proposal to reform retirement policy

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by whell

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.

Most investment professionals my ass. Because you say it's most investment professionals? And for that matter, most investment professionals, are snakes not to be trusted with anybody's money. They're out there to make as much money as they can...and the only place it can come from is from money the investor should be making.

That said...nobody's arguing with the basics of your "long standing guidance" although who TF you might suggest oughta be providing this "long standing guidance" is subject to debate. We've been maximizing our pre-tax investing for years without the alleged benefit of a 401K program. And...if you actually read my earlier post...your suggestion that a $17.5K pre-tax investment offered by 401K programs is some sort of holy grail number you can't get anywhere but in a 401K program, you're flat out wrong. If we were not semi-retired and were bringing in the income we had 5 years ago, we would have the option of a pre-tax investment of over $50K.

Just because the cherry picking you're invested in suggests that such "long standing guidance" automatically includes a preference for 401K programs, doesn't mean it's anything but an opinion. And a shit opinion at that.

And in my opinion and the opinion of plenty of investment people who provide "long standing guidance", a 401K is not always, or perhaps even usually all that good a choice. The majority of Joe Lazy-Ass 401K investors aren't taking any responsibility for their portfolio, thus the majority of them aren't aware of, or doing anything about the losses they're incurring due to getting soaked for fees and expenses in their fabulous 401K.

, indeed.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Most investment professionals my ass.

And in my opinion....

And that's all it is. Your opinion.

Investment guidance is never a "one-size-fits-all" proposition, and I never indicated that it was. However, for most folks who have access to a 401(k) plan, it will make sense for them to leverage that plan as part of their investment strategy. 'Nuf said.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by whell

And that's all it is. Your opinion.

I think you mean "our" opinions, since that's what I suggested in my prior post...you have yours, I have mine. And even more so since the real fact is:

"Nothing exists except atoms and empty space, everything else is opinion." - Democritus

Originally Posted by whell

Investment guidance is never a "one-size-fits-all" proposition, and I never indicated that it was. However, for most folks who have access to a 401(k) plan, it will make sense for them to leverage that plan as part of their investment strategy. 'Nuf said.

Nuf said, because you said nuf said? Take a hike.

I never indicated it was a "one-size-fits-all" proposition.

If a 401K makes sense for somebody, that's fine. What makes sense to me is not forking over money to bloodsucking vampire banksters because I'm too lazy to do a couple of hours of work a year (that I oughta be doing even if I have a 401K anyway, to make sure I'm not being ripped off). You're the one who started acting like a fucking expert when I suggested that 401K's are not always what they're cracked up to be.

And it's so interesting that you just can't acknowledge that your $17,500 pre-tax max was wrong. Reckon the percentage of 401K investors who actually have enough income to get anywhere near the pre-tax 401K max? Reckon you can clue me in?

[whell]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Nuf said, because you said nuf said? Take a hike.

Thanks. I enjoy hiking. And biking, and jogging, etc.

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

And it's so interesting that you just can't acknowledge that your $17,500 pre-tax max was wrong. Reckon the percentage of 401K investors who actually have enough income to get anywhere near the pre-tax 401K max? Reckon you can clue me in?

If its wrong, then please take it up with the IRS.

http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/...ibution-Limits

Deferral limits for 401(k) plans

The limit on employee elective deferrals (for traditional and safe harbor plans) is:

$17,500 (in 2013 and 2014)

The $17,500 amount may be increased in future years for cost-of-living adjustments

Of course, that doesn't include CUP contributions for those that might be eligible.

[mpholland]

As I mentioned before, i think the 401K is one of the worst investment options out there. The only thing that makes it worth having is if an employer matches funds, and if they do, I wouldn't contribute any more than what it takes to get the most out of their match. There are just too many better options out there to contribute any more.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by mpholland

As I mentioned before, i think the 401K is one of the worst investment options out there. The only thing that makes it worth having is if an employer matches funds, and if they do, I wouldn't contribute any more than what it takes to get the most out of their match. There are just too many better options out there to contribute any more.

Right. I am fortunate enough to have two, that are pretty good. But, I've seen some that are hardly worth the bother. And, anyone that is barely making enough money (or not) to get by, now, really is wasting their time with a 401k. They simply can't put enough in to accrue any useful retirement funds.

Dave

[Oerets]

Or any who think putting any SS funds into the market will be a good thing, Need look no further then back to 2007-2008.

The majority of people I know either have taken out cash before 59.5 years old or started saving seriously in their forties. Very few left the account alone. The best thing to have is a home paid for.







Barney