the 401k scam.

Quote




Anonymous said:
While historically your CDs may be safe, they still are not insured by the F.D.I.C. and there is no guarantee you will get your money back or the rate of return promised. Therefore, you are gambling. Settling for a 2-3% interest rate today seems like the smart move with low inflation and volatile markets, but what happens when inflation spikes and interest rates go sky high and the bank has your money tied up in long term CDs at 2-3% interest? They make money and you lose the value of your principal. I'm not saying you are wrong, but don't take just one approach or you will surely lose. Use multiple approaches to minimize exposure to any one downturn. Diversify and earn!!
Click to expand...

Bank CDs are insured by the Feds, but rates suck and they are taxable out of an IRA, Keogh, etc.
 




Anonymous said:
Only a fool would think that earnings on a Roth IRA will remain untaxed in the future with the US debt load. You keep harping on 401k earnings being taxed. The Roth IRA tax advantages are only safe from congress to congress, just like mortgage interest deductions, 401k tax deferral, etc. the 100% match in the 401k on 1st 6% doubles your money. But you still did not answer the question, what rate of return are you getting in your IRA? You say you don't like the market, so what return are you getting? 20 yr CDs are about 3.4%, treasuries worse. People can do a Roth in addition to the 401k, and the 401k allows larger dollar amount. Youre an idiot.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you're the idiot and your post provides ample proof.

This is maybe the 3rd or 4th time I've ever posted on this website with my one sentence previous post being the 1st time in this thread yet you assume otherwise charging "you keep harping on 401k earings being taxed". Sorry, I'm not your guy.

You also respond "Only a fool would think that earnings on a Roth IRA will remain untaxed in the future...." I happen to agree that there is substantial liklihood that Roths may become subject to different taxation rules than under the current structure. So again, sorry, I'm not your guy.

You offer the rationale that "The Roth IRA tax advantages are only safe from congress to congress, just like mortgage interest deductions...." apparently as evidence that it is unwise to invest in Roths. Extending your logic to the full statement you make, it is also unwise to be a home owner as the deduction may disappear as well. Sorry, I'll continue be a homeowner choosing not to live in fear of what may happen but is outside my control.

The only point my previous post made was that Roths offer the opportunity for putting after tax money to work correcting your INACCURATE statement, and I quote "You can only put after tax dollars into a bank". The reason I posted the correction was solely to provide ACCURATE information in case there was someone unfamiliar with the facts who may benefit from knowing the facts.

As far as Roths, I regret I can't avail myself of the investment vehicle as I fall outside the income limitations. If I had eligibility to participate though, I would do so to the full extent allowed as I did during earlier years in my career. I still can and do fully participate in 401k as I've done each and every year.

As for you, I guess just keep up the name calling as a way to help people gain a better understanding of their options when they explore what is actually available and it doesn't square with what you've determined to be the right and true way.

Your bitter, name calling post wasn't directed at me when you asked " But you still did not answer the question, what rate of return are you getting in your IRA?" since I'd not previously posted in this thread so I don't know whether my answer to your question is of any interest but here goes. Over the last decade I've generated just under 8% annualized return despite a devastating late 2007. Not up to historical norms for the market but not too shabby nonetheless.
 




Anonymous said:
I'm afraid you're the idiot and your post provides ample proof.

This is maybe the 3rd or 4th time I've ever posted on this website with my one sentence previous post being the 1st time in this thread yet you assume otherwise charging "you keep harping on 401k earings being taxed". Sorry, I'm not your guy.

You also respond "Only a fool would think that earnings on a Roth IRA will remain untaxed in the future...." I happen to agree that there is substantial liklihood that Roths may become subject to different taxation rules than under the current structure. So again, sorry, I'm not your guy.

You offer the rationale that "The Roth IRA tax advantages are only safe from congress to congress, just like mortgage interest deductions...." apparently as evidence that it is unwise to invest in Roths. Extending your logic to the full statement you make, it is also unwise to be a home owner as the deduction may disappear as well. Sorry, I'll continue be a homeowner choosing not to live in fear of what may happen but is outside my control.

The only point my previous post made was that Roths offer the opportunity for putting after tax money to work correcting your INACCURATE statement, and I quote "You can only put after tax dollars into a bank". The reason I posted the correction was solely to provide ACCURATE information in case there was someone unfamiliar with the facts who may benefit from knowing the facts.

As far as Roths, I regret I can't avail myself of the investment vehicle as I fall outside the income limitations. If I had eligibility to participate though, I would do so to the full extent allowed as I did during earlier years in my career. I still can and do fully participate in 401k as I've done each and every year.

As for you, I guess just keep up the name calling as a way to help people gain a better understanding of their options when they explore what is actually available and it doesn't square with what you've determined to be the right and true way.

Your bitter, name calling post wasn't directed at me when you asked " But you still did not answer the question, what rate of return are you getting in your IRA?" since I'd not previously posted in this thread so I don't know whether my answer to your question is of any interest but here goes. Over the last decade I've generated just under 8% annualized return despite a devastating late 2007. Not up to historical norms for the market but not too shabby nonetheless.
Click to expand...

Yes you are morally and intellectually superior, yet I remain dismayed at your seeming agreement with the kook who keeps telling everyone to avoid the 401k. Just is I stay in character for your benefit - fuck you.
 




Anonymous said:
Yes you are morally and intellectually superior, yet I remain dismayed at your seeming agreement with the kook who keeps telling everyone to avoid the 401k. Just is I stay in character for your benefit - fuck you.
Click to expand...

Obviously reading comprehension is not a strength for you since you claim to be "dismayed" at my "seeming agreement with the kook who keeps telling everyone to avoid the 401k". This despite the fact I unambiguosly stated "I still can and do fully participate in 401k as I've done each and every year." and would advise anyone who cares to listen to do the same. I would also say that anyone who provides advice to people to avoid 401k investing borders on being a kook. On that point we can agree.

You were just factually wrong in your initial statement "You can only put after tax dollars into a bank" and got called on it by someone who knew the facts.

By the way, I don't view myself as "morally and intellectually superior" as you charge because "fuck you" is also in my vocabulary. I just don't choose to use it as my rebuttal when I'm wrong like you have here. I simply acknowledge I made an error, it seems to work a lot better.
 








Original poster here,

Sorry, I have been away on vacation for a while. Didn't have online access. I don't need all these huge sums of money many on these boards talk about. I can live comfortably with my spouse on 45k a year. Social security, even if they cut benefits by 25% would provide about half of this amount. For those of you out there who say SS will be gone for most workers under 35 today-does not even make sense. Most, probably 80% of retirees depend on SS and the government is not going to shut down the program and leave 300 million people in the streets.

As for the other half of the 45k-with the right choices can save that amount without a 401k plan.
 




Anonymous said:
Original poster here,

Sorry, I have been away on vacation for a while. Didn't have online access. I don't need all these huge sums of money many on these boards talk about. I can live comfortably with my spouse on 45k a year. Social security, even if they cut benefits by 25% would provide about half of this amount. For those of you out there who say SS will be gone for most workers under 35 today-does not even make sense. Most, probably 80% of retirees depend on SS and the government is not going to shut down the program and leave 300 million people in the streets.

As for the other half of the 45k-with the right choices can save that amount without a 401k plan.
Click to expand...

What you need and what others need is each individual's prerogative. You have a plan. That's more than many have. However, I disagree with your plan and choose to use all investment options available to me on my level to build my future. Each investment option has risk. CDs are F.D.I.C. insured up to $250,000.00. I stand corrected on my previous post. $250,000.00 isn't enough to retire on, so you had better spread it around. As far as social security is concerned, I wouldn't depend solely or partially on it as it exists today. It must change to survive. Your guess is good as mine as to what it will look like, but it will change. The 401k savings plan is not a scam though, and without pension plans anymore the only recourse may be through personal annuity plans. Check it out to see if it is right for you. I still stand by my "un" original thought. Diversify and earn.
 








Anonymous said:
Original poster here,

Sorry, I have been away on vacation for a while. Didn't have online access. I don't need all these huge sums of money many on these boards talk about. I can live comfortably with my spouse on 45k a year. Social security, even if they cut benefits by 25% would provide about half of this amount. For those of you out there who say SS will be gone for most workers under 35 today-does not even make sense. Most, probably 80% of retirees depend on SS and the government is not going to shut down the program and leave 300 million people in the streets.

As for the other half of the 45k-with the right choices can save that amount without a 401k plan.
Click to expand...

Anyone depending on Social Security as a major part of their retirement is not only a poor planner but a fucking idiot. When you say they wouldn't "shut down the program and leave 300 million people in the streets" you talk like a liberal where the government should take care of everyone from cradle to grave. Remember the Bristol-Myers pension plan?

We are 15 Trillion in debt and Social Security is a costly program where more is paid out on average than paid in by employees.
 








Anonymous said:
Actually, The bigger government problem is how much they pay in healthcare. Maybe they should eliminate that as well.
Click to expand...

They should never have been involved at all!! Name your government service program, and I'll detail how government dollars ran up the overall cost for every private sector outlet and user. Too many potential dollars chasing a finite situation. The government should never have been involved in ANY insurance plan that pays out a long term, continuing benefit. Their role is catastrophic help only and short term in nature. The alternative is what is bleeding us dry now.
 




Anonymous said:
They should never have been involved at all!! Name your government service program, and I'll detail how government dollars ran up the overall cost for every private sector outlet and user. Too many potential dollars chasing a finite situation. The government should never have been involved in ANY insurance plan that pays out a long term, continuing benefit. Their role is catastrophic help only and short term in nature. The alternative is what is bleeding us dry now.
Click to expand...

Build a bomb shelter, stock it with food, buy gold and guns and dig in for the apocalypse.
 








SS was created because of the great depression. The stock market crashed-went from about 350 down to 45 or so on the dow index and FDR said we need to help people-so SS was created. 401k's were created in 1980 and since then all the money going into 401k's has been fueling the grossly unsustainable rise in the market. Another repeat of 2008 is on the way, probably within a few years.
 




















Anonymous said:
SS was created because of the great depression. The stock market crashed-went from about 350 down to 45 or so on the dow index and FDR said we need to help people-so SS was created. 401k's were created in 1980 and since then all the money going into 401k's has been fueling the grossly unsustainable rise in the market. Another repeat of 2008 is on the way, probably within a few years.
Click to expand...

This is new territory, but you have it wrong. The reason 401ks, the Dow, housing, etc. took off in price simultaneously was the largest percentage of the population was going through the same experience at the same time. Like it or not baby boomers still dictate the numbers. My parents were depression era, only children. They had 8 kids themselves. That increase in reproduction was not unusual. Safety and stability will be the coming rage now that the boomers are facing retirement. There is not enough of a population coming up behind us to support us with Social Security.
 




Top Bottom
Back
Quote