|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:man i tell you what i sure am optimistic about the future of the US right now in 2020 whoo eee I know a bit was just debated , but I guess the question is how much international should be in a portfolio going forward ? I’ve lived my whole time investing having it right at 10%. So I am basically: 40% small cap 40% large cap 15% international 5% bonds I thought that was already aggressive international , but hell, I’ll certainly take opinions.
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 01:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 23:58 |
|
|
Ropes4u posted:Thank you all. I assume things will truck along as normal but I do worry about additional taxes on high income earners, and how an expansion of Obama care will affect the market. why do you think an expansion of obamacare would affect the market? it's a huge transfer to private insurance companies
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 02:30
|
|
|
tbp posted:i've only skimmed this b ut i think its not very good I need to keep reading because the thread consensus is that both the argument and the counter argument posts are bad. doingitwrong fucked around with this message at 02:52 on Sep 2, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 02:43
|
|
|
Duckman2008 posted:I know a bit was just debated , but I guess the question is how much international should be in a portfolio going forward ? Global market cap weights has US at a bit under 60%. So anything more than that has you US tilted. Here’s a Vanguard paper arguing you should go 40-50% foreign. https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/ISGGEB.pdf
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 02:51
|
|
|
The actual global weighing is ~55% US and ~45% ex-US, or 60/40 is pretty close, if slightly weighted towards US. From there, if you wanted to half-weight ex-US (which is what I did to give myself a heavier US tilt), then 20% seems right. If you really want international exposure in your retirement stuff, then anything below 20% just seems ineffectual* (*IMO). And I say that as a recent 100% VTSAX convert with a 40+ year horizon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 03:10
|
|
|
literally this big posted:The actual global weighing is ~55% US and ~45% ex-US, or 60/40 is pretty close, if slightly weighted towards US. From there, if you wanted to half-weight ex-US (which is what I did to give myself a heavier US tilt), then 20% seems right. If you really want international exposure in your retirement stuff, then anything below 20% just seems ineffectual* (*IMO). And I say that as a recent 100% VTSAX convert with a 40+ year horizon. My US weighting is literally this big
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 03:18
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:why do you think an expansion of obamacare would affect the market? it's a huge transfer to private insurance companies I should have said I have concerns about the move to Medicare for all. I don’t believe our government is smart enough to manage the move socialized healthcare.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 03:27
|
|
|
Duckman2008 posted:I know a bit was just debated , but I guess the question is how much international should be in a portfolio going forward ? youre underweight in international imo im guessing you're young? i have some concerns w/ small mid in the us rn too due to some experience w alot of those business and knowing ppl in that space too not that i suggest taking an active approach but if youre looking for any sort of reason to adjust your allocation a standard approach might be like 40 us large 10 small mid 45 international 5 bonds tbp fucked around with this message at 04:05 on Sep 2, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 04:03
|
|
|
Biden does want to overhaul the 401k system to help benefit lower income people https://www.rollcall.com/2020/08/24/biden-retirement-proposal-would-upend-traditional-401k-plans/ It's funny because I don't have a 401k at all so I can get hosed I guess
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 04:27
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:Biden does want to overhaul the 401k system to help benefit lower income people lmao impossible to overstate how little a refundable tax credit for saving for retirement helps the poor, who pay little or no tax anyway JUST GIVE POOR PEOPLE MONEY YOU SCHMUCKS
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 04:59
|
|
|
Not a Children posted:JUST GIVE POOR PEOPLE MONEY YOU SCHMUCKS ????? They* can’t possibly have spent their $1200 from six months ago already! *the folks that actually received it
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 07:39
|
|
|
Ropes4u posted:I should have said I have concerns about the move to Medicare for all. I don’t believe our government is smart enough to manage the move socialized healthcare. I don’t want to get in to a real debate about the merits of M4A, but first off it probably isn’t happening. If it did, would also have some significant benefits (reduce friction in labor markets, reduce barriers to starting new companies, reduce the loving absurd amount of time private companies spend managing healthcare benefits, reduce billing complexity, etc). If you’ve ever dealt with an insurance carrier, they’re populated by the most brain dead yokels of all time so I find it difficult to believe the government would do a significantly worse job.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 12:35
|
|
|
I have an HSA. Until recently I had an individual HDHP. When I went full time, I got a new HDHP with the same insurer. I needed to create a new HSA account (with the same bank). Getting the money from one HSA to the other has been a confusing ordeal involving a third party who administers the interface to the bank for some reason? And the seams between the three organizations are perfectly placed so that, whatever my question is, the customer service agent I’m talking to is the wrong one. Bring on M4A.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 12:44
|
|
|
tbp posted:youre underweight in international imo im guessing you're young? I’m 34 , so this stuff isn’t getting touched for a while. Yeah, I might do some re balance to international from small cap, or more likely i May temporarily change my auto deposit to international to slowly balance it out. Thanks for the input.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 13:25
|
|
|
Not a Children posted:lmao impossible to overstate how little a refundable tax credit for saving for retirement helps the poor, who pay little or no tax anyway The point of a refundable tax credit is that it does give poor people money. If you get more credit than you have taxes, then the government cuts you a check. That's what makes it refundable. It's not perfect, because people who don't have a lot of money also have cash flow issues that make it hard to wait up to a year to get their credit money. But it's a whole lot better than the current system, where retirement savings get stronger tax advantages as you make more money. There are a whole lot of other changes we need to make in society, many of them involve "just give poor people money," and most of them are out of scope of this thread. But for the specific case of encouraging people to use some of what money they do have for retirement savings, this isn't a bad approach. doingitwrong posted:I have an HSA. Until recently I had an individual HDHP. When I went full time, I got a new HDHP with the same insurer. I needed to create a new HSA account (with the same bank). Getting the money from one HSA to the other has been a confusing ordeal involving a third party who administers the interface to the bank for some reason? And the seams between the three organizations are perfectly placed so that, whatever my question is, the customer service agent I’m talking to is the wrong one. I have a solid corporate job with a pretty good HDHP (including free money for my HSA every pay period). I'd pay extra and let the HSA evaporate if it meant I could go back on the Medicaid I had in college.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 14:43
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:The point of a refundable tax credit is that it does give poor people money. If you get more credit than you have taxes, then the government cuts you a check. That's what makes it refundable. You're right, policy critique is beyond the scope of this thread, but I think it's important to weigh in the relative proportionate material impact that deferring income has on poor people. For most poor people (and this includes quite a few people well above the poverty line), there is no money to spare. Predicating security on personal saving creates perverse incentives to lower one's already assumedly meager standard of living. Trying to revamp the system to give the rich a weaker advantage doesn't change that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 16:13
|
|
|
it would not be that hard to fix defined contribution plans in the US and i think it would probably even benefit the investment companies so it's kind of strange to me why it hasn't been done
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 16:16
|
|
|
Not a Children posted:You're right, policy critique is beyond the scope of this thread, but I think it's important to weigh in the relative proportionate material impact that deferring income has on poor people. For most poor people (and this includes quite a few people well above the poverty line), there is no money to spare. Predicating security on personal saving creates perverse incentives to lower one's already assumedly meager standard of living. Trying to revamp the system to give the rich a weaker advantage doesn't change that. Eh, this is normal. It's the same thing with student loan forgiveness. Yes, let's boost the advantages to people who have college degrees, versus the schmucks who are working blue collar jobs who didn't go. See if we can't widen that gap even further, by making the education that lets you make more money be free, so that everyone who doesn't have it has an even further separation of wealth. Our government loving sucks at helping actual poor people. Tax breaks for the rich, fine. Forgiving loans for people with the ability to go get higher education, great. Actually just helping out people who are down on their luck making $10.00 an hour? gently caress them, they should buy stocks and spend four years in higher education and own a home to get their capital gains treatment and mortgage deductions - they obviously don't want it badly enough. Needed to make money early to support a family or family member and couldn't go to university? Too bad, we're not subsidizing you for bagging groceries, only for getting a philosophy degree. The entire system is perverse. As someone who has worked 80+ hour weeks and been taxed out the rear end on those wages, it is ridiculous that I can sit on my rear end and make money and be taxed 15-20%. It's amazing, conservatives constantly clutch their pearls about incentivizing people to not work, but then have no problem putting in place tax schemes (capital gains) that actually benefit people who make their money by not working. What a surprise. I say this as someone who is in the long term investing thread and who actually benefits greatly from capital gains rates (and tax free accounts, etc.). I'm speaking against my own self-interest here. The system is just hosed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 16:48
|
|
|
SlyFrog posted:I'm speaking against my own self-interest here. The system is just hosed. 100%, and when I talk about this with more conservative friends/family/acquaintances the counterpoint from them is always "but you will make less money!" uhh yes and? I don't need a marginal $10K, I would much rather see a less lovely society in which I am confident we can all do better and I'll get significant non monetary benefits!
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 17:09
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:100%, and when I talk about this with more conservative friends/family/acquaintances the counterpoint from them is always "but you will make less money!" uhh yes and? I don't need a marginal $10K, I would much rather see a less lovely society in which I am confident we can all do better and I'll get significant non monetary benefits! The flipside to "Bernie owns TWO houses, yet calls himself a socialist, checkmate" is that he's clearly not speaking from self-interest since he stands to lose (an ultimately unimportant amount of) money from his policies And yeah I've had similar conversations and people really don't seem to realize how bad it sounds when they act shocked that I want to have less money so that other people will be better off. Granted I already knew these people were selfish pricks, but man you really don't take a listen to what you're saying and realize how hosed up it is?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 17:19
|
|
|
Step 1: get rid of the differences between 401ks and IRAs (and other retirement investment vehicles). It is absolutely bonkers that you get so much more tax advantaged space through an employer sponsored plan. Start by combining the IRA/401k contribution limits so you don't need an employee sponsored plan to maximize your contributions, and so those with lovely high-fee fund 401ks aren't stuck and can switch to an IRA if they want (ideally I'd say nix 401ks, but some are actually good, and a new way to handle employer matching would need to be developed). Now at least everyone is on a more level playing field in terms of how much they can contribute and everyone has more freedom in choosing where/how to invest their money. Once that is in place, then start tweaking tax/credit structure and income based rules to make things more fair across income levels (now at least this legislation can be more universal, not just limited in scope to those with 401ks). People too poor to save any money are still boned/ignored, but hey, this is America.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 18:10
|
|
|
Rich people who put $20k into a 401k each year have a greater tax savings than the non-existent poor people who put $20k into a 401k each year We must normalize the tax savings across these two groups, so that Actual poor people continue to get hosed, and so that more taxes will be collected to get Police departments the aircraft carriers they deserve Also lol https://twitter.com/RepJoeKennedy/status/1258900004623835136?s=20
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 18:20
|
|
|
kennedy fuckin sucks an entire bushel basket of dicks at the same time, god drat, what a chodeSplinter posted:Step 1: get rid of the differences between 401ks and IRAs (and other retirement investment vehicles). It is absolutely bonkers that you get so much more tax advantaged space through an employer sponsored plan. Start by combining the IRA/401k contribution limits so you don't need an employee sponsored plan to maximize your contributions, and so those with lovely high-fee fund 401ks aren't stuck and can switch to an IRA if they want (ideally I'd say nix 401ks, but some are actually good, and a new way to handle employer matching would need to be developed). Now at least everyone is on a more level playing field in terms of how much they can contribute and everyone has more freedom in choosing where/how to invest their money. Once that is in place, then start tweaking tax/credit structure and income based rules to make things more fair across income levels (now at least this legislation can be more universal, not just limited in scope to those with 401ks). People too poor to save any money are still boned/ignored, but hey, this is America. just allow employers to match but the money goes straight to your IRA2. not difficult. that way you still allow employers to use "we match retirement contributions" as a recruiting and retention benefit by offering better/worse matching, but you limit the scope so that it's match only and not plan fees, fund offerings, etc so that it's much easier to compare between offerings if you are in such a fortunate position. if your company doesn't want to offer a plan or matching they don't have to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 18:55
|
|
|
When I explained the backdoor Roth to my girlfriend the very first thing she immediately googled was “why is the backdoor roth legal.”
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 19:07
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:just allow employers to match but the money goes straight to your IRA2. not difficult. that way you still allow employers to use "we match retirement contributions" as a recruiting and retention benefit by offering better/worse matching, but you limit the scope so that it's match only and not plan fees, fund offerings, etc so that it's much easier to compare between offerings if you are in such a fortunate position. if your company doesn't want to offer a plan or matching they don't have to. For a moment, I thought this was what Biden's recently announced plan was. But that'd be way too simple and straightforward. It'd just be so drat sensical to combine all the current types of retirement accounts into one big IRA limit, giving individuals control and choice, while still allowing employer's to match funds as a "direct deposit". But I'm sure that cuts out all sorts of middlemen and lovely providers that leech off the existing complicated system. It'd be so much simpler if it was just "the 2021 IRA contribution limit is $25k, with no income restrictions".
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 19:08
|
|
|
it seems to appeal to both the nominal right position of "it's your money you figure out how you want to invest it on your own" "the tax code should be simple" and a nominally left position of "you should be less beholden to your specific employer to provide for your retirement" "taxes should be less regressive" and since it appears to be such an obvious win win while being good for the individual investor it will of course never happen
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 19:13
|
|
|
I'll take any
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 19:13
|
|
|
raminasi posted:When I explained the backdoor Roth to my girlfriend the very first thing she immediately googled was “why is the backdoor roth legal.” I agree that having phase-out income levels and then a method to bypass all that anyway seems like an odd way to design a system.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 19:14
|
|
|
I need to do something besides sit on cash, but I cannot overcome the mental hurdle that Now seems like such a crazy and dangerous time to invest my savings in the stock market (I have enough to have an emergency fund, my Roth IRA is currently in money market). If i had a regular income I would feel less trepidation. But it seems like cash is also not a great place to be?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 19:14
|
|
|
thalweg posted:I need to do something besides sit on cash, but I cannot overcome the mental hurdle that Now seems like such a crazy and dangerous time to invest my savings in the market. If i had a regular income I would feel less trepidation. But it seems like cash is also not a great place to be? Give as much info as you can here. Age, expenses, source of this money and regular income, when you will need large sums of money in the future, where you live, etc
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 19:16
|
|
|
when you say you don't have a regular income what do you mean exactly
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 19:17
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:it seems to appeal to both the nominal right position of "it's your money you figure out how you want to invest it on your own" "the tax code should be simple" and a nominally left position of "you should be less beholden to your specific employer to provide for your retirement" "taxes should be less regressive" and since it appears to be such an obvious win win while being good for the individual investor it will of course never happen If 401ks didn't exist, and we just had IRAs that employers could contribute to, there would be a large number of people who just wouldn't ever get around to setting it up because they "don't know anything about all that investment stuff." Ten years ago, I was one of those people. I knew I should contribute to a 401k, because my employer had paperwork for me to fill out and they had a rep from the provider come and give us updates once or twice a year, but I didn't know personal IRAs existed. The average person is not well-educated enough in retirement options for this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 19:23
|
|
|
i'm gonna be honest, it's hard for me to gin up a lot of giving a gently caress about that specific issue when you can fix a bunch of the actual problems with the system by removing the employer from the equation
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 19:38
|
|
|
Super Dan posted:If 401ks didn't exist, and we just had IRAs that employers could contribute to, there would be a large number of people who just wouldn't ever get around to setting it up because they "don't know anything about all that investment stuff." Ten years ago, I was one of those people. I knew I should contribute to a 401k, because my employer had paperwork for me to fill out and they had a rep from the provider come and give us updates once or twice a year, but I didn't know personal IRAs existed. The average person is not well-educated enough in retirement options for this. I mean this happens all the time with 401ks as-is. Employees don't set it up or don't want to set it up. Setting up an IRA these days is dead easy, in some cases arguably easier than setting up your 401k in some cases because you don't need to deal with HR and the financial institution. If you get to the "I want to start up my retirement account" thought, I'm not sure having to open an IRA is going to stop anyone (especially in a world where people know IRAs are the new 401ks, because 401ks no longer exist).
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 19:42
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:Biden does want to overhaul the 401k system to help benefit lower income people So if you're tax rate is high (say 40%) but you get, say, a 25% credit, doesn't that mean you're potentially get double-taxed on a portion of your IRA? Also, I'd have to wonder if all the states would follow along (i.e., implement a credit as well)? Otherwise you could potentially either get double-taxed at the state level, or you have to do 8606-style carry forwards every year for each state. Seems annoying. (And I know your pain, I spent most of my working years so far at a small company that couldn't be bothered to even setup a SIMPLE IRA, and I even offered to do the legwork.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 20:29
|
|
|
They passed a new bill a year or so ago that gives companies tax incentives to automatically enroll employees into 401ks so now in most cases it takes almost no work to enroll at all on the employees side. They just set up your contributions and throw everything in a generic target date fund.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 20:33
|
|
|
thalweg posted:I need to do something besides sit on cash, but I cannot overcome the mental hurdle that Now seems like such a crazy and dangerous time to invest my savings in the stock market (I have enough to have an emergency fund, my Roth IRA is currently in money market). If i had a regular income I would feel less trepidation. But it seems like cash is also not a great place to be? go through a thought experiment. if you're not using that money and will not be using it for some set, predefined period of time (because you've already carved out the portion you will need for emergencies) and you accept the premise that it will, over that period of time, go up (this is just going to have to be some god given assumed ROR for the market) then why do you care about what happens in the interim? granted, yes, you'd RATHER have gotten in after this near term future drop, but throwing away the assumption you can actually time that, why do you care about the various points inbetween, if the beginning investment and the ending point of the investment are fixed, in your specific case?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 20:57
|
|
|
i kinda missed the part of no regular income cuz you do want that but yeah my advice is more general... why are you investing without a job?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 21:12
|
|
|
People should be forced to save through payroll deductions, how and where is beyond me. But as a formerly poor person telling someone to save more money when they can’t pay their bills isn’t super helpful.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 21:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 23:58 |
|
|
Ropes4u posted:People should be forced to save through payroll deductions, how and where is beyond me. congrats u have invented social security
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 22:24
|
|