- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Are any of y'all anti- 401K or IRA
Posted on 5/3/13 at 10:45 am to donRANDOMnumbers
Posted on 5/3/13 at 10:45 am to donRANDOMnumbers
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.
what are yall's thoughts on 401K if NOTHING is matched?
When that happens, the employer often just cancels the plan rather than pay administration costs for something few employees use.
Posted on 5/3/13 at 10:48 am to Cold Cous Cous
quote: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.
I'm not sure the precise limits of this though
Posted on 5/3/13 at 10:50 am to LSURussian
Unless you are talking about a defined benefit plan. Which is an entirely different animal.
Posted on 5/3/13 at 10:51 am to TheWiz
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.
Posted on 5/3/13 at 10:52 am to LSURussian
quote:
The downside is the employee withdraws the money, pays the taxes and 10% penalty (if he's under 59 1/2) and then has zero left for retirement or a rainy day. I realize no one should be protected from their own stupidity, but in the real world some employers actually do want their employees to have some money put away for when they retire.
I understand this. However, replace the word "employer" with "government" and you're suddenly the Ghiracci chick.
ETA: I'm not attacking the concept of 401(k) or employer matches or anything. I'm just curious as to why you get irate at the idea that the gov't controls the employee's account, but think it's cool for the employer to also do so. I assume you think the employer is inherently more trustworthy/capable than the government, but we both know that may or may not be true, depending on the employer.
This post was edited on 5/3/13 at 10:55 am
Posted on 5/3/13 at 10:54 am to Broke
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.
Posted on 5/3/13 at 10:57 am to TheWiz
As long as my company gives me free money for a 401k Im not sure I can understand how Im supposed to hate it.
Posted on 5/3/13 at 11:02 am to Cold Cous Cous
quote:Nah.....not even close.
However, replace the word "employer" with "government" and you're suddenly the Ghiracci chick.
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.
Posted on 5/3/13 at 11:03 am to Catman88
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.
Posted on 5/3/13 at 11:10 am to ZereauxSum
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.
Posted on 5/3/13 at 11:14 am to ZereauxSum
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.
Posted on 5/3/13 at 11:24 am to RunningBlake
quote:And you've had 100% control over your money*, right?
In fact, in my own IRA, it's really done nothing over the past 10 years.
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.
Posted on 5/3/13 at 11:26 am to LSURussian
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.
Posted on 5/3/13 at 11:28 am to RunningBlake
quote:
In fact, in my own IRA, it's really done nothing over the past 10 years
What are you invested in?
Posted on 5/3/13 at 11:41 am to donRANDOMnumbers
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.
Posted on 5/3/13 at 11:42 am to dewster
My big loser is Windstream.
The others have done ok - VOD, AGNC, NLY, and SFNC. All are dividend paying. I have 100% control over my money.
eta: this is a roth ira.
The others have done ok - VOD, AGNC, NLY, and SFNC. All are dividend paying. I have 100% control over my money.
eta: this is a roth ira.
This post was edited on 5/3/13 at 11:45 am
Posted on 5/3/13 at 11:42 am to LSURussian
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.
Posted on 5/3/13 at 11:50 am to Cold Cous Cous
quote:No, not at all. He can open his own IRA (Roth or traditional) and do whatever he wants to do with his retirement money and not participate in his employer's plan. (I assume you know employers have to PAY for a 401k plan to be set up and administered, right? They are not free.)
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?
That seems simple enough.
quote:So is the line between someone being an imbecile and an idiot......
Sometimes the line between statist bastard and corporatist bastard can be pretty thin.
Posted on 5/3/13 at 11:52 am to Broke
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.
Posted on 5/3/13 at 11:54 am to Cold Cous Cous
quote:
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?
No, because when a person makes that decision, he still doesn't have to use the 401K. He can invest in an IRA, open a brokerage account, trade FX or buy bitcoins and dinars.
If this Ghiracci broad has her way, you will have to contribute to the gov plan, regardless of whatever else you want to do. She wants a mandate.
Now, if the government wants to offer a voluntary alternative then that's sort of OK, ignoring the fact that they are using tax dollars to administer a new program that will likely end up being a SS-like cluster.
But that's not what they will do.
ETA: Russian types faster than I do
This post was edited on 5/3/13 at 11:55 am
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News