The point isn't which is more likely. The point is how futile it is to forgo such a tremendous benefit for some murky future that most likely would not occur in such a way that would make your contributions to a 401k effectively pointless.

I don't have time to be scared about such eventualities.

quote:
anything over $3million in 401K accounts will be taxed now to help offset the Social Security shortage".

And I suggest that even if they started taxing it, the benefit even post whatever tax would still probably be in favor of contributing, and the cost of not contributing thinking this may happen is too high if it doesn't occur.

While the government is greedy, they don't want to tax out the incentive to contribute, as they won't be able to go back to the well.

This post was edited on 8/24/14 at 2:59 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by SirWinston

PNW

Member since Jul 2014

83159 posts

Posted on 8/24/14 at 3:03 pm to Teddy Ruxpin

Well I'm not ending my contributions, I'm just scaling them back from 12% to 7% to help facilitate my diversification plan and asking other people's thoughts on that.

I agree with you that my conjecture is highly hypothetical. I was just curious if anybody else agrees that politically this might be one of the first benefits that goes.

I mean, government employees were promised pensions and those are raided or scaled back for political reasons. I feel like 401k's are the private sector's version of the pension in some respects. It doesn't have the political protection that other investments (real estate, gold, livestock) would have.

This post was edited on 8/24/14 at 3:05 pm

2 ...

Report Post

Money Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board