Greased by lobbying and campaign cash, tax breaks for retirement savings are one thing Congress agrees on. But they also blow out the deficit and add to income inequality.
Five months before Congress faced a near-catastrophic standoff over the debt ceiling, with Republicans demanding restrictions to food and Medicaid programs to rein in spending, a bill that raised the cost of private retirement savings accounts to $282 billion per year was quietly signed into law.
In this era of deeply divided politics, the 2022 bill known as Secure 2.0 was hailed as a bipartisan success — a victory for average Americans. It had sailed through the House by a whopping 414-5 vote. It followed four other major bills passed between 1996 and 2019 that dramatically expanded taxpayer savings – all equally lauded as bipartisan victories.
But that rare issue that brought a divided Washington together also increased wealth disparities and the federal deficit. And the victory was most strongly applauded by the burgeoning financial services industry, for whom tax-advantaged retirement savings has transformed a $7 trillion retirement market in 1995 to a $38.4 trillion behemoth in 2023.
Multiple times, people here on Lemmy have assumed I have a 401(k), as if it’s something everyone has, and it always amuses me.
It probably is something you should have after a certain age. If not a work supplied 401k, then at least your own managed Roth IRA. And if you’re still on the younger side, it’s perfectly understandable not to have a 401k yet.
From where should I have gotten the money to invest in it?
If you work for a company that has a 401k then you need to sign up for it. If the company has a match percentage then that is the absolute minimum you should contribute. And when you are younger you should set it up as a Roth so you pay taxes on it now.
This isn’t a thing you should do at a certain age. The younger you start the better. The money just comes out of your paycheck, same as taxes.
I do not work for a company that offers such a thing. And I never have.
This is what I’m saying about assumptions.
You can sign up for a Roth IRA then, there’s no need for anything from your employer to get one. As far as I recall there’s no minimum amount of money you need to put in at start.
I don’t know why you’re being down voted. I swear, some people would rather complain than make the smallest effort to help themselves. It’s good advice.
Even very small contributions to a retirement account can make a big difference in old age.
This is really good advice. There’s no minimum, but there is an annual maximum of $7K.
If your employer doesn’t offer a 401k or similar plan, the IRA limits are actually higher.
With what money?
If you’re absolutely scraping by, where you can’t even spare a few bucks a week on something like this, then yeah, maybe you just can’t do it. But if you can spare even a tiny amount, then it’s wise to do that small amount starting as early in life as possible.
The money your earn for working.
You can put $5 a week into it if you want to. $38/ week ($2k/yr) will get you the full $1K savers credit if you don’t have access to a retirement account through work. So essentially you’re only contributing $1k and doubling it with the tax credit.
That doesn’t sound like enough to retire on.
Fine, then think of it as free money to supplement your income with when you’re 60+.
You would be wrong. Compounding is an absolute beast. It’s nearly a Million. Let’s say you are 25 and just starting out. You manage to put in $1000 a year and get the $1000 credit. Let’s say you do this exact same thing until you are 65. You invest it in the S&P500 Index which historically returns ~10% annually…
Balance at 65: $929,444
Total contributions: $80,000
Employee contributions: $80,000
Employer match: $0
Investment returns: $849,444
I’d be willing to bet that medical bills at the generally accepted “retirement age” will eat through most of that inside of 5-10 years. A retirement home even faster.
“Millionaire” doesn’t mean what it used to.
If only I had an extra $1000 a year.
Gotta give up the avocado toast.
/s in case it isn’t obv.
Well if you stopped buying frivolous items like GROCERIES you’d have plenty to invest. Then you could enjoy your retirement for a comfortable 3 years before going back to work
We were talking to my daughter about this just yesterday. It’s not even groceries. People think that if you spend $30 or $40 a month on things that make you and those you love happy, you’ll never save enough to make yourself marginally more comfortable in the last 10-20 years of your life (if you’re lucky) that will be uncomfortable no matter what.
So I suppose maybe if I denied myself and my child every pleasure in life, sure, I could put money in a 401(k). That is not something I would do and I certainly do not think it’s a good lesson to teach a child. I’m sure someone will call that some sort of “live for today” or YOLO attitude rather than not giving your child the most miserable childhood you can.
So I suppose maybe if I denied myself and my child every pleasure in life, sure, I could put money in a 401(k).
But that’s unproductive hyperbole. Not every pleasure in life costs money, and lots of things you spend money on can be optimized. And even after doing that, if you still feel too squeezed, it might be worth considering a career change and a plan for how to get there.
It might be unproductive hyperbole, but I’ve been told that exact same thing more than once right here on Lemmy.
Sounds like you have an axe to grind. Sorry life has been hard for you friend. Hope it gets better. Hang in there.
You were telling your daughter that you’re spending $30/mo on her to make her happy instead of saving it for your old age? I don’t know how you communicated that, but on the surface that does not sound like a healthy thing to tell a child.
If you’re worried about providing your daughter a fulfilling childhood, maybe also consider prioritizing time with her? You spend a lot of time on Lemmy dude, is that time you could be spending with her? Or are you on your phone a lot when you’re with her?
Do you think that maybe you don’t pay attention to what actual times of day I’m on Lemmy vs. when I’m not on Lemmy and think that maybe I spend those times with my family?
I’m here a lot because I’m currently very sick (I recently got back from the Mayo Clinic). I suppose that’s my fault?
No, I’ve never paid attention to when you’re online, I just see you average 100 comments and posts per day. I still think telling your daughter that you’re spending $30/month on her instead of saving for retirement is not healthy.
So I suppose maybe if I denied myself and my child every pleasure in life, sure, I could put money in a 401(k). That is not something I would do and I certainly do not think it’s a good lesson to teach a child.
I think that’s an excellent lesson to teach a child.
Poverty sucks. Try to get out of it. Deny consumerism, save your money.
If you don’t have access to one through work you qualify for a deduction and a credit if you contribute to an IRA.
Regular IRAs are riskier in the long run though. The extra cash from the tax breaks is nice, but they’ll more than likely get taxed to hell when you finally are able to withdraw from it. ROTHs are more resilient to changes because the rich use them to avoid taxes, so it has protections from changes by the government.
It doesn’t make sense not to put at least $2k in for the savers credit.
The only reason I have one is because I can reasonably afford it, and I would be constantly harassed about not contributing to one if I didn’t.
I am under no assumption it will even have any meaningful amount of money in it by the time I will be able to retire, assuming that will even be possible by the time I’m 65 (or whatever the retirement age is raised to in the meantime)
I would have.
Are you American?
Yes, that’s why I’m poor.
When both parties agree on something it’s almost always bad
It is the same reason why a lot of Democrats fought to keep SALT deductions even though it mainly benefits the wealthy. It turns out that people who have 401(k)'s are more likely to vote.
401k was originally supposed to be a simple thing. It was supposed to be a way to avoid taxes on bonuses for more highly paid execs in the banking industry, but also regular employee bonuses too. They sold it to regular workers who might have gotten a few hundred dollar bonus by the employer “matching” the contribution to the 401k.
There was supposed to be a “three legged stool” for retirement. Social security, company defined benefit (pension), and then the 401k. Companies have done everything they can to get rid of traditional pensions, social security is under constant attack and the age you get it is pushed back, and the 401k is being looked at for taxes, being restricted by companies to high fee funds, and loses cash when transferring employers.
Retiring in the country is difficult at best, impossible for most, and constantly under attack for those who have a shot at it.
We’ve learned that a good chunk of leaders don’t care for three legged stools. They know the best way to destroy them is to knock out one of the legs.
Look at the individual mandate in the ACA as a perfect example (the other two being pre-existing condition coverage and plan subsidies).
I do have to wonder if the absence of company defined pensions are a big part of the reason people job hop so much. A good pension was a good reason to lay down roots at a company. My current employer has a really good 403b match but the only thing really keeping me around is waiting to get fully vested.
Nah, people job hop because they’ve realized employers will never give them a raise that keeps up with inflation, so they leave for a higher paying job that let’s them, y’know, make rent and pay bills.
Yes, that’s a factor…for some reason employers think that paying more for new talent is better than paying the same amount for people that already have institutional knowledge.
But anywhere you go is going to be giving the same raises year over year.
Which really makes me wonder why salaries haven’t spiraled out of control or how this ever became an issue. You’d think the “new employee” rate would grow faster than the “current employee” rate. If the “current employee” rate climbs by 2% each year, and the “new employee” rate increases by 4%, it wouldn’t take long for a very wide gap to appear.
But that doesn’t happen. Somehow we manage to be perpetually able to find a new job with a higher salary every few years.
I think the “quitting for a raise” is overblown. Whats happening is quitting for a promotion, and that leads to another problem of title inflation and disparity between employers.
I could search for my title at my current employer and find jobs I’m nowhere near qualified for, paying about the same. And I could search for my original title and find jobs paying 1/2 as much as what I was hired at a few years ago. Shit makes no sense.
I’d just like to say fuck VOYA 401ks for only allowing you to buy high expense ETFs and limiting self directed accounts to only half your account value in addition to a bullshit $100 yearly fee.
