• Dadifer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    If someone could explain how this doesn’t benefit the working class as everyone with a full-time job should have a 401k?

    • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      9 months ago

      Because it’s overcomplicated, the barrier to entry is significant, and we blame its problems on the consumer as “financial literacy”. Just over half of workers actually have one, and most of them are mismanaged by third parties lobbying for more complexity.

    • fishpen0@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      I’m a software engineer and have had multiple startup employers not provide a 401k. It’s actually much more common than you think to not have one at all. Only 56% of employers have a 401k.

      It’s even more common to have no matching. Of the 56% that have a 401k only 50% have any matching at all. This leaves less than 25% of employers with matching.

      Of my 3 employers who did not have a 401k they all compensated me in mostly equity. Only a single employer had their equity eventually pay out in some form and it’s not eligible to be put in retirement funds outside of the standard IRA which maxes out significantly less than that 401k

    • shitescalates@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      Its just this attitude that allows the 401k middlemen to exploit the market and influence our government. People think it benefits them, but it really benefits other people more.

    • jeffw@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Because you can hide hundreds of thousands annually in there. No working class individual makes that much. That money should be taxed

      Edit: since people seem confused by the lack of clarity, copying my reply from below:

      In a 401k? Yes. But if you read the article:

      Today, wealthy taxpayers can protect up to $452,500 per year in tax-advantaged accounts in a single year, saving up to $203,600 on their taxes. And they can keep their money in tax-advantaged accounts far longer.

      There are many types of tax-advantaged accounts.

      https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tax-advantaged.asp

      • die444die@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        23k is the max annual contribution. The money is taxed upon withdrawal. It’s not “hidden”.

        • jeffw@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          In a 401k? Yes. But if you read the article:

          Today, wealthy taxpayers can protect up to $452,500 per year in tax-advantaged accounts in a single year, saving up to $203,600 on their taxes. And they can keep their money in tax-advantaged accounts far longer.

          There are many types of tax-advantaged accounts.

          https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tax-advantaged.asp

        • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          23k is the max annual contribution

          If you’re over 50, you can put $30,500 in your 401k, the extra $7500 per year is called a ‘catch-up contribution’