General Discussion

SoCalDem

(103,856 posts)

21. Not that big of a deal really..

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 04:27 PM

Nov 2012

401-ks were never really a "retirement" vehicle for the masses..

Most "ordinary folks" have less than $50K in them at retirement anyway..

It's better than nothing, but not much..

It was just a clever way for bosses to get extra deductions and to weasel out of funding REAL retirement plans..

and an extra-juicy way for Wall Street Wizards to have weekly gambling money for decades before anyone really paid much attention to it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

45 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Uh, messing with 401Ks and IRAs? [View all] B2G Nov 2012 OP

You know, you try to do everything right, and someone wants to screw you OKNancy Nov 2012 #1

And that part of the aricle is total BS B2G Nov 2012 #2

It's only tax free until you start drawing on it auburngrad82 Nov 2012 #6

And you are required to start drawing on it in the year JDPriestly Nov 2012 #8

That's hardly the point B2G Nov 2012 #10

This is a non starter auburngrad82 Nov 2012 #19

They only lost it.. sendero Nov 2012 #31

they had money in the company stock because a lot of companies required it back then hollysmom Nov 2012 #34

The company MATCH was required to be in Enron stock, and they weren't allowed to sell shares Common Sense Party Nov 2012 #38

That was Enron B2G Nov 2012 #39

no, I was talking about Color Tile. hollysmom Nov 2012 #42

Sorry, I was referring to the Enron comment above. Common Sense Party Nov 2012 #45

I was not aware... sendero Nov 2012 #44

There are ways to withdraw before 59 1/2 without the penalty. Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Nov 2012 #37

Americans have an average of about $60000 in retirement accounts liberal_at_heart Nov 2012 #14

That is BS B2G Nov 2012 #15

I have a 401(k) as well liberal_at_heart Nov 2012 #18

The money will be taxed when it is distributed. dawg Nov 2012 #17

You did not read the article B2G Nov 2012 #20

No. I was replying to the other poster who wanted to tax the accounts now. dawg Nov 2012 #26

"The rich" don't park their money in IRAs mainer Nov 2012 #29

The article said that, not me OKNancy Nov 2012 #41

??? 1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #32

yes, the contributions were already taxed when they were paid as wages OKNancy Nov 2012 #40

No one with any authority is talking about this. dawg Nov 2012 #3

Then Obama needs to state it's off the table. Has he? n/t B2G Nov 2012 #4

No. Because it is a ridiculous idea that is not even being considered in the first place. dawg Nov 2012 #5

Given the amount of media coverage this is receiving, B2G Nov 2012 #7

How much media coverage was given to the President's birth certificate? dawg Nov 2012 #9

Good, I hope you're right B2G Nov 2012 #12

There's no reason Social Security can't be there, too. dawg Nov 2012 #16

+1 n/t 1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #33

I'd love to see some Republican congressmen suggest it gollygee Nov 2012 #11

This message was self-deleted by its author B2G Nov 2012 #13

Not that big of a deal really.. SoCalDem Nov 2012 #21

Wrong B2G Nov 2012 #22

with health care costs and inflation people should have way, way, way more liberal_at_heart Nov 2012 #23

What the hell does that have to do with taxing 401Ks? B2G Nov 2012 #24

I have already suggesting putting protections in for people who have less than 2 to 3 million liberal_at_heart Nov 2012 #25

No, I don't B2G Nov 2012 #27

The solution to the whole thing is to revert to the Clinton-era tax rates. dawg Nov 2012 #30

I am ot sure how accurate this is hollysmom Nov 2012 #35

Of course, you will probably find plenty of people on this board who would be willing to do this. dawg Nov 2012 #28

Leave these the fuck alone Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Nov 2012 #36

could this be misleading and just be about hollysmom Nov 2012 #43