|
Spazzle posted:Look, it just happens my savy $5000 roth investment into an opaque financial vehicle has ballooned into a 5 million dollar windfall. You have to make under a certain amount to be allowed to use a Roth and it has a yearly investment limit. Also investing in a traditional IRA or 401k is jus a bad idea. You'll pay whatever tax rate exists when you take out the money. Which could be a lot more than today especially if your in a lower income bracket and republicans end up raising taxes on the poors and cutting everyone else's. It also will affect how much your Social Security is taxed. It's better to use a Roth or another investment vehicle that is taxed now - future taxes on retirement income are a big "what if."
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:17 |
|
|
It isn't that simple at all and it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Each persons situation is different and should be looked at individually
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:Yeah, a $10 lunch is a significant luxury for me. Yeah. When you make between seven and ten dollars an hour, and you're lucky if you hit forty a week, blowing an hour of labor on a lunch is an indulgence. I usually don't eat lunch at all, or I have something small like a yogurt or a candy bar. A buck. There aren't a lot of healthy/cheap options, not unless you want to cook lunch and bring it to work every day. I can't remember the last time I had fast food anyways. It's all terrible for you, or expensive, or both. Usually doesn't taste like anything but salt and fat. If there were more options that weren't awful for you and your wallet, I'd probably get it more than once every three months or so.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
JailTrump posted:You have to make under a certain amount to be allowed to use a Roth and it has a yearly investment limit. Ever hear of the time value of money? Saving money pretax and then letting it grow for decades is simply good advice. Tax rates would have to be significantly higher than they are today to nullify the advantage that investing more today (because you paid less in taxes and have more to invest) offers. What's sweet is you can build up a Roth IRA as well and use the combination of the two to help set up distributions that offer a favorable tax advantage. You're also not taking into account thst employers generally match 401(k) contributions but not Roth IRA ones. And for the former it is by taxed whereas the latter would have to be taxed to be allowed in. Tldr you just dished out some seriously bad advice for the vast majority of people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 06:55
|
|
|
Lol having spare money to save Lol2 believing it will still be there after the boomers burn everything down to live an extra few years Lol3 wanting to live past the age of like 60-70 anyway. You know what my 90 year old grandma does all day? Nothing, because her hip's failing and she lives in a retirement village Whats the galaxy brain next step?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 08:06
|
|
|
got any sevens posted:Lol having spare money to save lol if you don't think we will be hooked into VR retirement homes with legal weed at 90 years young
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
I still can't stop laughing at how Americans were conned into butchering pensions and then sold IRAs as a replacement. One is an actual retirement, the other is a gamble. GG America
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:I still can't stop laughing at how Americans were conned into butchering pensions and then sold IRAs as a replacement. One is an actual retirement, the other is a gamble. GG America It's not like there was one big vote to decide this, it was a decades long phasing out implemented by companies that the public has no say over. I'm sure when the 401k account idea was being created, no one thought it was going to be the first step to wiping out pensions. Now if unions were still strong, maybe there could have been some pushback, but welp!
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:I still can't stop laughing at how Americans were conned into butchering pensions and then sold IRAs as a replacement. One is an actual retirement, the other is a gamble. GG America Pensions are a gamble too. Take a look at the cluster gently caress surrounding the "Central States Pension". I'll take a 401(k) over the screwing my dad got on that any day. The only person who can gently caress up my 401(k) is me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
Xae posted:Pensions are a gamble too. To quote my 401k quote:All investments are subject to risk, including the possible loss of the money you invest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
A lot of pensions were also straight trash from the start. We tend to view them through very rose colored glasses, but part of the reason Social Security was invented and expanded was that people who were on pensions even in the 30s were simply not getting enough to get by, or their pension terms meant they might stop getting payments only 10 or 20 years after retirement. Similarly bad pensions kept being done well into the 80s.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
Xae posted:The only person who can gently caress up my 401(k) is me. ...Because 401(k)'s aren't administered by the same group of opportunistic shitbirds that almost deep sixed the entire world financial system due to unregulated bespoke tranching of garbage derivatives.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
TyroneGoldstein posted:...Because 401(k)'s aren't administered by the same group of opportunistic shitbirds that almost deep sixed the entire world financial system due to unregulated bespoke tranching of garbage derivatives. generally if 401ks all die then capitalism itself dies so keep yelling at clouds I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:generally if 401ks all die then capitalism itself dies so keep yelling at clouds I guess. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Crash_of_1929 E: VVV I'm not engaging you about a technically correct point, I know better. Surely you can understand the humorous leap I'm making here. WampaLord fucked around with this message at 15:10 on Jul 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
What about it? Stocks recovered over time, and many of the biggest busts in individual stocks were not ones a similar instrument would have been invested in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:Ever hear of the time value of money? Saving money pretax and then letting it grow for decades is simply good advice. Tax rates would have to be significantly higher than they are today to nullify the advantage that investing more today (because you paid less in taxes and have more to invest) offers. What's sweet is you can build up a Roth IRA as well and use the combination of the two to help set up distributions that offer a favorable tax advantage. You can convert a traditional 401k to a Roth and you are still able to invest Roth money and grow it. So Idk what the issue is beyond employers not matching Roth IRA Contributions (Which they really should). The only big issue would be the investment limits on a Roth IRA but unless you're rich you're not going to hit that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
JailTrump posted:You can convert a traditional 401k to a Roth and you are still able to invest Roth money and grow it. So Idk what the issue is beyond employers not matching Roth IRA Contributions (Which they really should). It's only $5500, you don't have to be rich to save that amount each year!
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:It's only $5500, you don't have to be rich to save that amount each year! Is this Irony?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:It's not like there was one big vote to decide this, it was a decades long phasing out implemented by companies that the public has no say over. I'm sure when the 401k account idea was being created, no one thought it was going to be the first step to wiping out pensions. I like the idea of pensions, but they always seem to be mismanaged by companies or governments, and then either the retirees get screwed over or current employees/taxpayers are. I'd be supportive of federal regulation to mandate realistic investment return projections, "lockboxing" (no dipping into pension funds to fund other things), and transparent, automatic fallbacks if investment returns fall short.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
Cicero posted:The 401k wasn't intentionally created, it was initially a tax loophole. I think if you had those regulations companies wouldn't provide a pension because the unknown liability is too big. The advantage of 401(k) for companies is that their total liability is limited to whatever they paid out in matching every month. They got out of the pension game because they kept having to add more money because they screwed up the projections. Adding more liability to the equation isn't going to get them back in the pension game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
Yeah probably. At least there would be fewer people screwed over and governments facing bankruptcy then. I think it would be neat if instead of individual companies and state/local governments running pensions, you (or your employer) could just choose to put in extra money to a social security bonus fund or something that was basically just a federal level pension that everyone is allowed to contribute to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
A lot of the boomer generation in Europe who worked government jobs retired on Defined Benefit pensions. Both of my parents only worked for 30 years, and will receive 27 years of half their final year (ie top) salary if they live to the current average age of death - more if they live longer or life expectancy continues to increase. And probably longer than that too because they're middle class, and never did manual labour, have good health standards etc. And the yearly money paid increases with inflation. The terrible maths of this (from a government perspective) boggle of my mind. I'd love to know how much each retired worker will end up costing the government, far in excess of their contributions. Our generation is really getting screwed in comparison to sweet deals like that. No more DB pensions on offer anywhere, just Defined Contribution.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
Blut posted:
Really both generations are getting screwed, because those pensions were often carved out under the assumption of a world with expanding governments bringing on new people who could/would pay the way for retirees. Instead, almost no new people are being brought on, or there's a "2-4 out, 1 in" situation where retirees aren't replaced. It's a structural situation that's slowly strangling most governments since without new employee contributions offsetting retiree benefits, governments are having to fund more of those retirees out of their operating budgets. This in turn makes them less able to provide services, hire new people, etc and that drives public backlash which cuts budgets even further.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
Cicero posted:The 401k wasn't intentionally created, it was initially a tax loophole. It's not a "tax loophole". It was an intentionally created method to allow deferred income of certain types to get a tax break. It was clearly created to accommodate plans people already had in mind, and the formal planning of payments through an employer as a benefit was well covered by the terms of the subsection of the law.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
El Mero Mero posted:Really both generations are getting screwed, because those pensions were often carved out under the assumption of a world with expanding governments bringing on new people who could/would pay the way for retirees. Instead, almost no new people are being brought on, or there's a "2-4 out, 1 in" situation where retirees aren't replaced. The strangulation of services as a structural problem is going to hit too slowly to actually hit boomers properly. My parents are both 15 years into their leisurely retirement, after retiring in their 50s... They and most of their age cohort will be dead before the system properly breaks. I don't think the boomers are anywhere near as screwed as millenials/Xers, who will almost certainly be working until age 70. And who'll also suffer the structural problems long before then on top of that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
Re: McDonalds talk, the best way to ensure that company remains solvent in perpetuity is to reclaim Mac Tonight from the Twitter Cultural Meme War and also to bring back the Dick Tracy Crimestoppers scratch off game. God bless.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
Bring back the Arch Deluxe, I wasn't ready for it in my youth
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 03:27
|
|
|
Oh man, the Dick Tracy promotion was awesome! I forgot all about that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 05:11
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Yeah probably. At least there would be fewer people screwed over and governments facing bankruptcy then. This would be my preferred system as well. 401k's have several problems which make them terrible for retirement. The first is that they're individually managed and people are terrible at investment. Second there are loopholes for removing money for houses and a couple other scenarios which too many people turn to. Third they don't factor in mortality. You need to simply guess how long you're going to live and save a worst case pile of money. If you die early you shortchanged yourself and if you live too long you're screwed. Excess is inheritable, but that's a dumb, costly and unnecessary feature of a retirement plan. Meanwhile pensions can set your benefits based on the averages and you're fine if you love longer. The above is caveated by the flexibility of 401ks where you could invest in a fixed benefit anuity within it but that's not common at all (though something I want to study more for the reasons above).
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 12:54
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I think it would be neat if instead of individual companies and state/local governments running pensions, you (or your employer) could just choose to put in extra money to a social security bonus fund or something that was basically just a federal level pension that everyone is allowed to contribute to. But the Federal government has been borrowing from the Social Security for decades (because the alternative is a non-starter) and the reason why its brought up in terms of raising the retirement age or other such bullshit in budgetary talks is to delay or reduce the payments the government needs to pay back into the fund. The ability to add more to that would just accelerate the abuse currently being inflicted upon it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
Cheesus posted:If it were immune to shenanigans, sure. That's not why the fund is going to run out. It's because there will be too many people pulling out and not enough people paying in. The federal government might borrow from the fund, meaning they also pay it back.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
Cheesus posted:If it were immune to shenanigans, sure. I remember Bill O'Riley pitching the same crap a few years ago when Bush II wanted to privatize social security. It isn't like grandma's going to open her social security envelope one day and instead of a check gets a note saying "sorry, we ran out of cash because Trump felt the need to bomb Syria. Best wishes!" Social Security investments as of May 2017 stand at a little over $2.8 TRILLION dollars. This is an unfathomably huge amount of money to deal with. Pretend you were in charge of the fund - what would you do with it? Remember, your goals are to 1) not lose money EVER regardless of economic conditions and 2) make some money to help extend the solvency of the fund. We could park it in gigantic bank accounts that earn virtually no interest, leaving billions of dollars in unearned interest on the table. Plus, banks can go under and are ultimately backed by the FDIC anyways. You could create a giant warehouse and park thousands of pallets of $100 bills there, except there's only $1.2 trillion in US paper and coin currency in the world. We could take a page from what HW wanted and invest that money in the stock market. Of course, you don't just invest in "the stock market" you invest in specific companies or in funds (that invest in specific companies) by either purchasing shares or corporate bonds. But which companies does the federal government invest their social security dollars in? What happens to the fund when stocks go down? What should the government do when a company they invested $100B in SS funds is about to go under? Let it fail? I guess you could buy gold or other precious metals or real estate, except with $2.8T to invest you're basically going to become the market for whatever you want to buy. Instead, social security invests in special issue US treasury bills that not only earn interest but can be redeemed at face value at any time. These T bills are an obligation of the federal government to pay just like any other government bond and are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Social Security invests in bonds because it's really loving important that they meet their obligations to people who put into Social Security every month so they need something that earns a bit of interest, will never depreciate in value, and can be converted into cash at any time. And given the amount of money at stake that's something only US government bonds can provide. Should the federal government ever fail to honor these bonds, then for whatever reason it's stopped paying its debts. At that point the nation is facing a crisis so severe that Social Security checks will be the least of our problems. In short, Social Security is solvent for the foreseeable future. And when we start hitting deficits in the fund, it won't be because that nasty government just left it with a bunch of IOUs. GamingHyena fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Jul 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
America's oldest Wedding Dress retailer is filing for bankruptcy, closing all of its retail stores, and no longer selling to other retailers. It was driven out of business by bridal rental companies and discount/mass produced wedding dresses being offered at major retailers and economy bridal stores like David's Bridal. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/business/alfred-angelo-closes-wedding-dress.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:America's oldest Wedding Dress retailer is filing for bankruptcy, closing all of its retail stores, and no longer selling to other retailers. Good, fancy weddings are a huge ridiculous waste of money.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:America's oldest Wedding Dress retailer is filing for bankruptcy, closing all of its retail stores, and no longer selling to other retailers. How the gently caress do you only have 50k on hand with 50 million in liabilities and not do anything to prevent this?  got any sevens posted:Good, fancy weddings are a huge ridiculous waste of money. What fancy? their prices range from $200-$1000.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
JailTrump posted:How the gently caress do you only have 50k on hand with 50 million in liabilities and not do anything to prevent this? They go higher. The article says that many people are worried about not getting their dresses in time for their wedding and spending 1.5k to 5k on their dresses. In the context of wedding dresses, "discount" means "less than $1,000."
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
My wife used to work for them, and apparently the company management - as with all other retail companies - was infused with incompetence, and it was a horrible place to work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
It's scary how much of the unhealthiness of global bond markets can be traced back to huge accumulations of capital which either aren't or can't be productively used anywhere. This more of a economic crisis thread topic though so I'll refrain from getting into it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
While I agree the over priced wedding needs to gently caress right off, it'd still be lovely if the already paid for dresses aren't delivered on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:17 |
|
|
If we lifted the cap and made people making ~100k+ pay FICA on all their income like the rest of us plebs, Social Security would be solvent for basically ever and we could even lower retirement age to free up better jobs for younger workers. We will never do this, we will let the program dissolve before we do this, because this country is hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 22:33
|
|