https://open.spotify.com/episode/6FsJlL ... K2Q3UQ5ymQ
My basic takeaways... everything hinges on their moral argument that retirement is a right, not a privilege. They claim the 401k was a mistake and point to it's origins as a way for execs to receive bonuses with some tax shielding. They claim that it's continued to be a vehicle that exacerbates inequality -- only certain folks even have access to plans, and only those with enough income and knowledge can make the most of them.
The proposed solution is basically a 401k that the government runs and possibly matches contributions on. I admit that this is an interesting solution. When I was younger, I was interested in saving and opened a Roth IRA, but I did not have access to a 401k until I was about 30 years old. Now that I make more, I'm maxing out mega backdoor contributions as well and probably save as much in my 401k each year as some of my friends make in total.
At the end of the day, even before I figured out that I needed to go back to school and improve my life, I already knew that I needed to start figuring out how to save and be in control of my finances.
Thinking back, I would've liked to have access to a 401k, so I like the idea of giving more people access. I think moving the matching to the government is an interesting thought. But I dislike the way they seem to paint everything as a moralistic failure -- some people are inclined to study, earn, and save... some people can't be bothered and will spend $30 door-dashing a sandwich while crying about their student loans that they have no intention of paying off... but it's society's fault that those people aren't tended to?
Sorry -- just ranting this morning![:)]( "Smile")
My basic takeaways... everything hinges on their moral argument that retirement is a right, not a privilege. They claim the 401k was a mistake and point to it's origins as a way for execs to receive bonuses with some tax shielding. They claim that it's continued to be a vehicle that exacerbates inequality -- only certain folks even have access to plans, and only those with enough income and knowledge can make the most of them.
The proposed solution is basically a 401k that the government runs and possibly matches contributions on. I admit that this is an interesting solution. When I was younger, I was interested in saving and opened a Roth IRA, but I did not have access to a 401k until I was about 30 years old. Now that I make more, I'm maxing out mega backdoor contributions as well and probably save as much in my 401k each year as some of my friends make in total.
At the end of the day, even before I figured out that I needed to go back to school and improve my life, I already knew that I needed to start figuring out how to save and be in control of my finances.
Thinking back, I would've liked to have access to a 401k, so I like the idea of giving more people access. I think moving the matching to the government is an interesting thought. But I dislike the way they seem to paint everything as a moralistic failure -- some people are inclined to study, earn, and save... some people can't be bothered and will spend $30 door-dashing a sandwich while crying about their student loans that they have no intention of paying off... but it's society's fault that those people aren't tended to?
Sorry -- just ranting this morning
Statistics: Posted by gohawks206 — Mon May 20, 2024 1:54 pm — Replies 16 — Views 746