You sure she started the account or does your company automatically enroll employees? The Feds will put 1% of salary into a 401k even if you contribute nothing, but you must elect that.
From what she told me, the company started it for the profit sharing. She said she did not know about it until I told her, so I donât see how she could have started it herself.
This is a slippery slope. If they only have to offer a plan and not a good plan then it might not help you out. 20 years ago, I audited some 401K plans. I would sample some participants and recalc and audit their transactions. I recall this one company where on of my participants was incurring fees greater than her contributions. Each month she was going backwards. She was in a high fee plan and on top of that the employer did not pay for the fees and each participant had to pay the fees. It was ugly. This woman was only contributing like $10 per paycheck because that was probably all she had left over and her fees were more than her contributions. She rolled a balance over from prior employment and then was bleeding dry based on the fees. She would have been better off to cash out her 401K (she was in LOW tax bracket) and save in a traditional savings account.
That works for me. I do think that it should be at least a 8/2 or ideally a 5-5 split split on a 401k. There also should be a $1,000/mo healthcare reimbursement so that expense doesnât fall on the taxpayer
Democrats are excellent at having inflation make their minimum wages be meaningless
The matches are to encourage savings and not have the ENTIRE burden on the employee
Yes, but again, if we require those that offer plans to give matches, but donât require employers to offer plans at all, the incentive will be to not offer them.
Yes we should mandate both the 401k plan and the matching contribution and have employees opt out
I donât see a problem with auto enrollment in a 401k, but employees should be able to opt out and I donât think employers should have to offer a match. Itâs a nice benefit if they do but people should invest in their own future either way.
1 Like
Says the man with a pension and a company match 401K that he takes full advantage of.
Youâd be surprised at how many dopes I work with that arenât in the 401k.
1 Like
Just pointing out that itâs yet ANOTHER thing you take advantage of that you feel shouldnât be the onus of the employer to provide. So YOU will have a comfortable retirement, but for people coming in behind you, itâs only THEIR money and none of tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars the company gave you over the course of your employment in the form of a 401K match.
Nobody is forcing people to work at companies that donât offer a match.
You think âemployerâ means âowner.â Thatâs fitting because the Democrats seem to favor slavery in just about every nook & cranny of policy.
Put me in the camp of less requirements on employers. If a company wants to attract talent, theyâll provide benefits including good health insurance and 401k, other benefits. Otherwise theyâll get a brain drain to their competitor.
1 Like
The employer offers it as a benefit just like Starbucks offers their employees free coffee and Delta offers their employees discount air travel. Yes I take advantage of it, many people I work with donât. My kid doesnât have a 401k or pension but he opened a Roth a few years ago because he understands as an adult heâs responsible for his own life and retirement.
One of the reasons I took the job Iâm at is the benefits, location and I like the job. If they didnât offer a retirement plan Iâd either find a different job or fund it myself. Being an adult isnât as complicated as lefties make it out to be.
1 Like
+1
My sonâs buddy works in finance and quit a higher paying job for working remotely and more free time to enjoy life. Adults should find the job that best suits them in pay, benefits and quality of life.
True but itâs a burden on taxpayers so I do support a mandatory match and increased IRA contributions aka triple them so a 401k is not needed
A national sales tax gets around the tax free nature of Roth accounts. UBI is perfect with a sales tax and eliminating the federal income tax
How? We have social security so irresponsible seniors who chose not to save for retirement have enough to not die in the streets.
1 Like
Welfare, social services, and Medicaid
If people have $2M in retirement in 2050 or $475,000 in NPV, itâll release the burden and reduce moochers
A UBI is to a sales tax as a standard deduction is to an income tax and makes a sales tax not regressive