re: Are any of y'all anti- 401K or IRA

quote:

---

I'm not sure the precise limits of this though

---

There are no limits on how much the employer can match other than the annual limit on how much total tax-deferred money can go into an employee's account, which I think is approximately $22,500 for 2013.

Who ever said that your only retirement investments should be an IRA or a 401K? They are tools that are available. If you don't want part of your investment matched, then put your money somewhere else.

quote:

---

Unless you are talking about a defined benefit plan.

---

A 401(k) plan is a defined contribution plan and not a defined benefit plan so, yeah, it is different.

Employees do not have set amounts put into an account for them in defined benefit plans so the amount 'limit' is non-existent for DB plans.

quote:

---

However, replace the word "employer" with "government" and you're suddenly the Ghiracci chick.

---

Nah.....not even close.

Employers are privately owned and not a public entity. Besides, the "Ghiracci chick" as you put it, advocates government mandated employee contributions into accounts the government controls. An employer (401k) plan is VOLUNTARY and the employee can simply choose to NOT participate if he doesn't like the way his employer administers the plan.

I assume you can discern that difference.

quote:

---

As long as my company gives me free money for a 401k Im not sure I can understand how Im supposed to hate it.



Sums things up quite nicely.

---

Yes, it does.

I think quite a few people are finding out that, as retirement approaches, they will not be able to depend as much on ther 401k as they intially thought or were led to believe. In fact, in my own IRA, it's really done nothing over the past 10 years.

quote:

---

Those types of plans usually have such low average employee participation that the plan fails to meet the participation tests prohibiting plans from being designed primarily for the highly compensated employees. When that happens, the employer often just cancels the plan rather than pay administration costs for something few employees use.

---

that's what we have. small business so it doesn't match anything. most everyone participates in it, but i actually don't. was wanting to start it, but i've wanted to keep cash on me for now since i just got married and i've had success trading on my own.

just seeing what others thought.

quote:

---

that's what we have. small business so it doesn't match anything. most everyone participates in it, but i actually don't.

---

It sounds like you'd be better off using a traditional IRA and deducting the contributions.

quote:

---

And you've had 100% control over your money*, right?

With the stock market (S&P 500) almost doubling since January 2003, maybe you should reconsider your investment process?

*My point to CCC earlier in this thread.

---

Not to go WikiTiger here, but this assumes it's justifiable for someone to take control over an employee's account "for his own good." The only disagreement between you and Ghiracci is whether that "someone" is the employer or the government. You and she both have very good intentions.

And yes I get the distinction between the gov't mandated contribution and the voluntary contribution. But let's assume that the employee is smart enough to know he wants to contribute something to retirement. Once he has made that decision, the company should take over? Sometimes the line between statist bastard and corporatist bastard can be pretty thin.

quote:

---

Unless you are talking about a defined benefit plan. Which is an entirely different animal.

---

An animal that is no longer found in the wild and mainly seen in government-run zoos.