Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hudson on AIG's Lawsuit

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    On the Subject of Pension Looting . . .

    401(k) breaches undermining retirement security for millions


    By Michael A. Fletcher, Published: January 14 | Updated: Tuesday, January 15, 9:34 AM

    A large and growing share of American workers are tapping their retirement savings accounts for non-retirement needs, raising broad questions about the effectiveness of one of the most important savings vehicles for old age.

    More than one in four American workers with 401(k) and other retirement savings accounts use them to pay current expenses, new data show. The withdrawals, cash-outs and loans drain nearly a quarter of the $293 billion that workers and employers deposit into the accounts each year, undermining already shaky retirement security for millions of Americans.

    With federal policymakers eyeing cuts to Social Security benefits and Medicare to rein in soaring federal deficits, and traditional pensions in a long decline, retirement savings experts say the drain from the accounts has dire implications for future retirees.

    “We’re going from bad to worse,” said Diane Oakley, executive director of the National Institute on Retirement Security. “Already, fewer private-sector workers have access to stable pension plans. And the savings in individual retirement savings accounts like 401(k) plans — which already are severely underfunded — continue to leak out at a high rate.”

    A report due out this week from the financial advisory firm HelloWallet found that more than one in four workers dip into retirement funds to pay their mortgages, credit card debt or other bills. Those in their 40s have been the most likely culprits — one-third are turning to such accounts for relief.

    Fresh data from Vanguard, one of the nation’s largest 401(k) managers, show a 12 percent increase in the number of workers who took loans against their retirement accounts or withdrew money outright since 2008.

    The most common way Americans tap their retirement funds is through loans, which must be repaid with interest. Those who withdraw money face hefty penalties. In most cases, they not only incur a 10 percent federal tax penalty but also pay income taxes. The costs are financially harmful to families even as *money-management firms reap massive fees for handling retirement accounts that ultimately are not used for retirement.

    In addition, employers often are subsidizing the accounts with matching contributions on the assumption that the money is helping to secure their employees’ retirements.

    “What you have is 401(k) participants voting with their wallets saying they would much rather use this money for other purposes. I don’t think this can be ignored. Employers are dramatically overpaying for retirement, but it is not benefitting the employee,” said Matt Fellowes, a former Brookings Institution researcher who is chief executive of Hello*Wallet. “In many cases, the only one benefiting is the vendor.”

    Since 401(k)s were created by Congress in 1978, concern about the pervasive use of retirement funds for other expenses has grown as other means of retirement security have dwindled.

    In 1980, four out of five private-sector workers were covered by traditional pensions that paid them a fixed benefit based on their salary and length of service once they retired. Now, just one in five workers has a pension, leaving 401(k)s and similar retirement savings accounts as the primary vehicles for retirees to supplement their Social Security benefits.

    “Encouraging or enabling people to spend down retirement money in anything other than the most severe circumstances is a terrible mistake,” said David C. John, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation who studies retirement policy.

    But millions of Americans, caught between flat wages and high expenses for everything from sending children to college to making home repairs, feel as though they have little choice. The withdrawals have grown substantially in the wake of the financial crisis.

    In 2010, 28 percent of participants reported having an outstanding loan against their retirement accounts, an all-time high, according to a survey of 110 large employers by Aon Hewitt, a human resources consultancy. And nearly 7 percent of employees took hardship withdrawals that year — roughly a 40 percent increase since the recession, while 42 percent of workers cashed out their plans rather than rolling them over when they changed jobs.

    Charlotte Knox, 62, has worked as a housekeeper at Baltimore’s Hyatt Regency hotel since 1984. She earns $13 an hour, is struggling to recover from a hip replacement and is planning to retire next month. But partly because of past withdrawals, her 401(k) balance is only $60,000, which is all she has to supplement her Social Security.

    “I don’t have any money,” she said. “I’m just taking it a day at a time. That’s all I can do.”

    Overall, about a third of American households participate in 401(k)-type accounts, which hold a combined $3.5 trillion in assets. But a large portion of that money does not make it to retirement. A recent study by Boston College’s Center for Retirement Research found that the typical household approaching retirement age has an average of $120,000 in retirement savings, enough for roughly a $7,000-a-year annuity.

    “401(k)s are not being used for retirement by a large and growing share of workers because they are misaligned with the very basic financial problems most workers face and must address,” said Fellowes of HelloWallet, which provides benefits advice to companies.

    Federal policymakers and employer retirement managers have focused little on the threat to retirement security posed by premature withdrawals from savings plans and instead have worked to devise ways to get workers to put more money into the accounts at an earlier age.

    In 2006, employers were given broader latitude to enroll employees in 401(k)-type plans unless workers asked not to participate. Just this year, the annual limit for 401(k)-type contributions increased from $17,000 to $17,500 for workers under age 50 and from $22,500 to $23,000 for those who are older. Meanwhile, the Saver’s Tax Credit provides up to $1,000 to help low-income workers build retirement savings.

    Many employers have embraced 401(k) and other defined-contribution accounts as a way of helping workers save for retirement while relieving themselves of the financial risks that come with managing a traditional pension plan. In theory, 401(k) accounts are better suited to an economy in which workers are changing jobs more frequently than ever because the accounts can be rolled over from previous employers.

    But their success depends on workers consistently contributing to them and allowing the money to stay in place throughout their careers, allowing their investment returns to compound. Many workers — particularly some earning higher salaries — do just that. But many others, who have precious little savings elsewhere, tap their retirement money as a sort of “rainy day” fund, eroding its power for the future.

    Generally, workers are allowed to tap their retirement accounts for loans up to $50,000, or half their account’s value, whichever is smaller. They also can “cash out” the money when they change jobs or they can take “hardship” withdrawals, which often go to pay for housing, overdue bills or educational expenses. The cash-outs and hardship withdrawals subject account holders to taxes on the money they put into the accounts, any investment gains, and if they are under 591 / 2 years old, a 10 percent tax penalty.

    Experts warn that when workers draw on their retirement accounts to pay current bills, they put themselves at greater risk of descending into poverty upon retirement, which would leave them dependent on government programs such as subsidized housing or food stamps. Nearly 6 million senior citizens were living in or near poverty in 2010, according to a Senate committee, a number expected to increase sharply over the coming decade after a long period of decline.

    HelloWallet’s report found that lower-income people, who are the most frequent users of payday loans, pawnshops and other high-cost credit outlets, were found to be those most likely to cash out their retirement plans when they changed jobs.

    Using data from the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances and the Survey of Income and Program Participation, conducted by the Census Bureau, the report said 30 percent of households earning less than $50,000 a year had cashed out a retirement plan for non-retirement purposes. Only 12 percent of households earning between $100,000 and $150,000 a year and 8 percent of those earning more than $150,000 a year have cashed out a retirement account, the report said.

    The widespread breaching of retirement accounts has led some advocates to conclude that policy*makers and employers should expand their vision when thinking about their workers’ retirement needs.

    Fellowes said workers would be better served by establishing emergency savings accounts that steered clear of the potential tax penalties, investment fees, and other risks and costs associated with having money in retirement accounts. Only after establishing an emergency savings fund, he said, should workers plow their money into retirement savings.

    “The investment advice out there needs to recognize that a large share of participants is not going to use the money for retirement, so they should not be exposed to risky investments,” Fellowes said. “There is no investment adviser in the country who would put workers in the stock market if they were told the money being invested was for short-term needs.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...y.html?hpid=z1

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: On the Subject of Pension Looting . . .

      there are many complications in borrowing against a 401k, most beyond sheeple range . . .


      1. If you lose your job or if you decide to leave your employer, you will be required to pay off the loan in a lump sum. If you don’t, you face the potential of the loan defaulting, which will result in a taxable event.
      2. As you pass-up the tax-free compounding of the money you withdraw, you could end up with a significantly smaller fund on your retirement.
      3. Interest payments from a 401(k) loan are not tax deductible.
      4. You will also pay taxes twice on the amount you took out for a loan. Your 401k loan payments are deducted after taxes have been taken out of your paycheck. However, since pre-tax money is usually used to fund a loan, the payments are put back into your 401(k) as pre-tax funds. This means that when you take the money out later, you will have to pay taxes on it again.
      5. There is no flexibility with the terms of repayment and your loan repayment is done automatically through payroll deductions, which will reduce your take-home pay.


      Everything You Need To Know About Borrowing Against Your 401k


      http://www.401kcalculator.org/everyt...nst-your-401k/

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: On the Subject of Pension Looting . . .

        Overall, about a third of American households participate in 401(k)-type accounts, which hold a combined $3.5 trillion in assets. But a large portion of that money does not make it to retirement. A recent study by Boston College’s Center for Retirement Research found that the typical household approaching retirement age has an average of $120,000 in retirement savings, enough for roughly a $7,000-a-year annuity.
        Note that they're assuming 6% return.

        They're not mentioning that another big hurdle retirees and potential retirees face is the miniscule rates of return on safe investments, which means that, to earn 40k/year (certainly not extravagant) you need about one million dollars in savings at current rates. That's the ongoing theft done in the open, right in front of our noses, thanks to the federal reserve holding down interest rates.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: On the Subject of Pension Looting . . .

          Originally posted by RebbePete View Post
          Note that they're assuming 6% return.

          They're not mentioning that another big hurdle retirees and potential retirees face is the miniscule rates of return on safe investments, which means that, to earn 40k/year (certainly not extravagant) you need about one million dollars in savings at current rates. That's the ongoing theft done in the open, right in front of our noses, thanks to the federal reserve holding down interest rates.
          Also omitted from the piece are the 401k fees. Always a shock to the 'retiree'.

          Does 6% sound closer to the cost of what money should be? That is, capital creation through savings.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: On the Subject of Pension Looting . . .

            Originally posted by don View Post
            Also omitted from the piece are the 401k fees. Always a shock to the 'retiree'.

            Does 6% sound closer to the cost of what money should be? That is, capital creation through savings.
            Therein lies the problem; in the past, best income was always from dividends paid on industrial stock held by the saver themselves, (with no FIRE intermediary), usually in the region of 8%. Today, there are so many distortions and others standing in line to take a slice of ANY transaction of related payment; most savers never even know what they are missing.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Hudson on AIG's Lawsuit

              Originally posted by raja View Post
              I once considered Michael Hudson to be a heroic figure, railing against the Financial Elite and standing up for the People. However, I recently had an email exchange with him that made me realize his approach is hypocritical and fanatic.

              My email was prompted by an article in which he said, ". . . economics was turned into a propaganda exercise for financiers, landlords, monopolists, insiders, fraudsters and other rent-seeking predators whom classical economists sought to tax and regulate out of existence."

              As a landlord, I did not like being referred to as a "predator", and emailed the following to Hudson:

              I am in my sixties, and my wife and I have taken my savings and put it into five very low-priced rental properties. With that income we hope to be able to provide ourselves with food, shelter and other modest necessities . . . and some amount of care when we reach the point that we can no longer take care of ourselves.

              We are Landlords . . . whom you describe as "rent-seeking predators".


              I don't know if you think we really are "predators", or if your description is meant to apply only to some types of Landlords . . . but I think there are many, many people in the US who have similar situations as we do.

              Gone are the days when some of the children stayed down home on the farm and took care of their aging parents. That's not the way it works anymore. Is it wrong for us to save our whole lives, and invest our savings in a way that will provide income upon which we can live, and also provide shelter for those unable to buy their own property?

              Certainly, there are financial predators who are ruining this country, but I don't think that includes my wife and me, or the probably hundreds of thousand of small-time Landlords who are in our situation. If you see a difference between the predators and us, is there a way that you could be more precise in your writings when you finger the villains.



              Hudson's response:
              I see your logic. It’s the SYSTEM that’s a predator.
              MH


              My response:
              I assume that professors such as yourself have good retirement packages . . . thanks to the SYSTEM . . . and that the income you will receive in your retirement years will be much greater than ours.
              So, Michael, who is the predator?



              Hudson never responded.
              As a result of this exchange, I no longer read Hudson . . . .
              That is ridiculous. I am a stock investor but carry no illusions about the some of its exploitive nature. I also own a home with a ground rent. but that's the point. To even eek out a meager existence you have to rely on rentier income because of a system we designed. He is hero. Heroes subject themselves to risk and fight violence with violence. I have no problem with rentiers who attack the same systems that rewards them. Its the only source of wealth capable of doing so. What you want apparently is a martyr. Try being one yourself and see why its often the road not taken.

              But then I am very much a believer in natural selection. Those who refrain from rentier income will become the welfare class by natural selection while those who do collect rentier income will become wealthy. You cannot deal with natural selection without dealing with the environment because it will select against individuals who take the moral stand. The Michael Hudson you want may never even have the funds to become a professor.

              And if you are both rentiers, he is the one who has spoken out against it.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Hudson on AIG's Lawsuit

                Originally posted by aaron View Post
                Hudson probably feels justified in his pension as he is doing God's work, no? It is only fair that he get paid for his contribution to liberal economics. He is a good socialist in a battle against Wall Street evil. The problem with this war is that it ends in death and misery, regardless of who wins.

                Personally, I would like to have some FIRE socialism and some redistribution and I would like real work to be rewarded more.

                That was the case when Americans typically made all three forms of income which was indistinguishable. Rent is free wealth. It does not mean no one should get free wealth.
                We just want it to be more distributed. Its not a good thing to have all value through labor either since that tends to leave no reward of retirement at the end. Why work hard when you will be discarded as useless in the end? Small rentierism does have its uses. Small land owners often offset their free gain by good stewardship, meaning they compensate for their rentier income with well maintained property as one does of something their own. Its the large absentee land owners who could not even develop it efficiently if they wanted. So we we are talking about is when one's sense of ownership becomes diluted to the point where another would more properly maintain it. After all one large land owner means that there will not be many small ones. So if land ownership is good then by the numbers, fewer owners is bad.

                So when it comes to real estate taxes do lower taxes promote land ownerships by the numbers? I think not because it means there must be fewer of them. Yet another economic paradox.

                I just think the tax base is the land. It is after all the creation of the sovereign .

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Hudson on AIG's Lawsuit

                  Originally posted by don View Post
                  Not making excuses but we all have to make a living in a system we may not approve of. Hudson is hardly a FIRE magnate. His landlord predator remark, albeit hyperbolic, hardly places Mom & Pop landlords as policy deciders in a finance dominated economy.
                  Its difficult to articulate the position. Paradoxically his model promotes more land ownership. What Hudson is attacking is large estates which by definition is fewer land owners. So his model is for Mom and Pop ownership. Perhaps the disappointment should be that he did not articulate it properly? Finance is definitely an absentee owner which is really the main problem.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Hudson on AIG's Lawsuit

                    Originally posted by gwynedd1 View Post
                    Its difficult to articulate the position. Paradoxically his model promotes more land ownership. What Hudson is attacking is large estates which by definition is fewer land owners. So his model is for Mom and Pop ownership. Perhaps the disappointment should be that he did not articulate it properly? Finance is definitely an absentee owner which is really the main problem.
                    I believe what he's talking about is a Rentier Economy, the essence of FIRE. Non-productive wealth extraction. He's not talking about Mom & Pop landlords. When a reference is made to Monopoly Capitalism it doesn't mean everything in the economy is a monopoly. Small businesses can and do exist in one. It's the 800 pound monopoly gorrila that rules. FIRE characterizes (and rules) the Rentier Economy.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Hudson on AIG's Lawsuit

                      Originally posted by raja
                      He's merely a hypocritical pundit who spouts sloppy and vicious ideological tirades that falsely portray large numbers of innocent people as "financial predators" . . . at the same time as being a predator himself (if what you say is correct about his past dealings).
                      So I guess you're right, we should put him in the "good guy" column.

                      I mean, seriously Milton . . . .

                      In reality, he's the kind of guy who would support a communist demogogue if one should come to power. As one of the Great Leader's ideological minions, he'd happily send you and me sent off to the gulags for our "crimes against the People" . . . he's that far gone.
                      You're not just wrong, you're extremely wrong.

                      If you actually read and remember his work, you'd have noticed that he's never, ever promoted communism or even socialism.

                      Consistently his solutions involve carrying through existing regulations or adding/re-instituting regulations to rein in free market excesses. He furthermore consistently attacks 'free rent' - which again you've failed for whatever reason to understand.

                      Yes, if you're a rentier, baby rentier, or rentier wannabe, then he is persona non grata.

                      For everyone else, he has identified what he considers to be the problem, continues to educate and point on ongoing aspects of said problem, and continues to push for what he considers a solution.

                      It isn't a solution everyone agrees with, but nonetheless it is a free market solution.

                      It just is not a laissez faire free market one.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: On the Subject of Pension Looting . . .

                        Originally posted by don View Post
                        there are many complications in borrowing against a 401k, most beyond sheeple range . . .

                        1. If you lose your job or if you decide to leave your employer, you will be required to pay off the loan in a lump sum. If you don’t, you face the potential of the loan defaulting, which will result in a taxable event.
                        2. As you pass-up the tax-free compounding of the money you withdraw, you could end up with a significantly smaller fund on your retirement.
                        3. Interest payments from a 401(k) loan are not tax deductible.
                        4. You will also pay taxes twice on the amount you took out for a loan. Your 401k loan payments are deducted after taxes have been taken out of your paycheck. However, since pre-tax money is usually used to fund a loan, the payments are put back into your 401(k) as pre-tax funds. This means that when you take the money out later, you will have to pay taxes on it again.
                        5. There is no flexibility with the terms of repayment and your loan repayment is done automatically through payroll deductions, which will reduce your take-home pay.

                        Everything You Need To Know About Borrowing Against Your 401k


                        http://www.401kcalculator.org/everyt...nst-your-401k/
                        If you have faith that your 401K will be there, with real value, then perhaps the sheeple are wrong.

                        Personally, I started funding my 401K last year . I have no illusions that it will be there for me in 30 years. My company matches it at 50%. I figure income tax, plus 10%, still gets me out ahead if I need the money. Moreover, I consider it "insurance" for the next 30 years. : My 401K is insurance against the unlikely event that we will discover a new source of energy, FIRE will be extinguished, and politics will get better. Plus, the 401K keeps me hidden among the masses.

                        Gold is my insurance against the more likely event of status quo/worsening of the policital economy.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Hudson on AIG's Lawsuit

                          Originally posted by Milton Kuo View Post
                          raja,

                          I agree with dcarrigg's opinion that Dr. Hudson was serious when he replied that it's the system that's predatory and that he was not being sarcastic. With that reading of Hudson's response, your response to him was unequivocally rude and it's not surprising that he did not bother replying.

                          In a system that so heavily rewards rent-seeking behavior and punishes productive labor, people are practically forced to become rent seekers themselves or risk becoming rentier fodder. I think Hudson realizes this and that was the gist of his reply to you.
                          Milton,

                          You posted, "I agree with dcarrigg's opinion that Dr. Hudson was serious when he replied that it's the system that's predatory and that he was not being sarcastic."

                          When I received Hudson's email, I carefully considered what Hudson meant by his response . . . .

                          Hudson wrote, "I see your logic. It’s the SYSTEM that’s a predator."
                          But I never said that . . . I never made a case that the system was the predator. In fact, I wrote just the opposite, "Certainly, there are financial predators who are ruining this country, but I don't think that includes my wife and me."

                          So, why did Hudson falsely state my position?
                          Because he was attacking me.
                          He was saying to me, "In your mind (in your "logic"), you are blaming the SYSTEM for your predatory behavior as Landlords. But in my mind, you ARE predators."
                          He never said, "I think that the system is the predator. You and your wife are not guilty because you are living in a predatory system."

                          If you are going to defend Hudson, and accuse me of being "unequivocally rude", you need to answer the question of why he would falsely state my "logic".

                          I stand by everything I said about Hudson in my previous posts . . . .
                          raja
                          Boycott Big Banks • Vote Out Incumbents

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Hudson on AIG's Lawsuit

                            Originally posted by raja View Post
                            Milton,

                            You posted, "I agree with dcarrigg's opinion that Dr. Hudson was serious when he replied that it's the system that's predatory and that he was not being sarcastic."

                            When I received Hudson's email, I carefully considered what Hudson meant by his response . . . .

                            Hudson wrote, "I see your logic. It’s the SYSTEM that’s a predator."
                            But I never said that . . . I never made a case that the system was the predator. In fact, I wrote just the opposite, "Certainly, there are financial predators who are ruining this country, but I don't think that includes my wife and me."

                            So, why did Hudson falsely state my position?
                            Because he was attacking me.
                            He was saying to me, "In your mind (in your "logic"), you are blaming the SYSTEM for your predatory behavior as Landlords. But in my mind, you ARE predators."
                            He never said, "I think that the system is the predator. You and your wife are not guilty because you are living in a predatory system."

                            If you are going to defend Hudson, and accuse me of being "unequivocally rude", you need to answer the question of why he would falsely state my "logic".

                            I stand by everything I said about Hudson in my previous posts . . . .
                            Here is how I understood the conversation between you and Dr. Hudson. I will replace the exact words used by both of you with my own words to illustrate how I saw the conversation.

                            Hudson: [Publishes an article that likely says something about rentier predators in the FIRE economy who only lend against existing assets, etc. Perhaps he specifically calls out particularly bad FIRE predators such as Sam Zell. Note: I do not know what article caused raja to write to Hudson so this is entirely a guess on my part.]

                            raja: Hey! I have rental property to provide a retirement stream of income for me and, by Dr. Hudson's logic, I'm a predator. That's not right. I'm going to write him and tell him of my position and ask if he believes that I'm a predator.

                            Hudson: Hmmm.... I see your point. I would not consider you a predator. It is the system that is predatory. This predatory system is such that people or corporate entities that have privileged access to capital can take rentierism to an entirely new level by suborning regulation and the political process, thereby destroying an economy.

                            raja: I assume that professors such as yourself have good retirement packages . . . thanks to the SYSTEM . . . and that the income you will receive in your retirement years will be much greater than ours.
                            So, Michael, who is the predator? [I leave this verbatim as you originally wrote it. The tone of voice as I read it is that of a verbal challenge.]

                            Perhaps I have poor reading comprehension and didn't see the snideness in Dr. Hudson's reply. However, I don't think I'm the only person who didn't see anything wrong with Dr. Hudson's response.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Hudson on AIG's Lawsuit

                              Originally posted by Milton Kuo View Post
                              Here is how I understood the conversation between you and Dr. Hudson. I will replace the exact words used by both of you with my own words to illustrate how I saw the conversation.
                              .
                              .
                              .

                              Perhaps I have poor reading comprehension and didn't see the snideness in Dr. Hudson's reply. However, I don't think I'm the only person who didn't see anything wrong with Dr. Hudson's response.
                              OK. "I see your logic" . . .
                              You and dcarrigg may be right -- it is possible that I misjudged Hudson's intent.
                              Thank you for taking the time to spell out your viewpoint for me . . . .

                              However, it's really impossible to know for sure from his very brief response, and I could see it either way.
                              I guess we'll find out if Hudson really did "see my logic", if in the future articles he will point the finger at the "predatory" system rather than the "predatory" landlords. Somehow, I doubt it . . . but we shall see.

                              Here's one example of Hudson's reference toward landlords as "rent-seeking predators":
                              Toward this end they provide a wealth of references tracing how economics was turned into a propaganda exercise for financiers, landlords, monopolists, insiders, fraudsters and other rent-seeking predators whom classical economists sought to tax and regulate out of existence. http://michael-hudson.com/2012/12/reality-economics/



                              Here is where I get the communist vibe . . . .
                              What is wrong with being a landlord? I work, I save up money for many years, I buy a property, and I let someone live there by paying a rent determined in the free market.
                              What is wrong with rent-seeking per se? How is investing money in a property and collecting rent different than investing money into machinery that is used to make profits from the goods that the machinery produces?

                              Now, if Hudson were to point the finger at the system and say that the system is "predatory" in that it gives unfair subsidies to landlords, I would be OK with that. But in the past he consistently lumps landlords in with fraudsters, insiders, monopolists, etc. In the words of Tricky Dick, "I am not a crook!"
                              Last edited by raja; January 17, 2013, 01:47 AM.
                              raja
                              Boycott Big Banks • Vote Out Incumbents

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: On the Subject of Pension Looting . . .

                                Originally posted by aaron View Post
                                If you have faith that your 401K will be there, with real value, then perhaps the sheeple are wrong.

                                Personally, I started funding my 401K last year . I have no illusions that it will be there for me in 30 years. My company matches it at 50%. I figure income tax, plus 10%, still gets me out ahead if I need the money. Moreover, I consider it "insurance" for the next 30 years. : My 401K is insurance against the unlikely event that we will discover a new source of energy, FIRE will be extinguished, and politics will get better. Plus, the 401K keeps me hidden among the masses.

                                Gold is my insurance against the more likely event of status quo/worsening of the policital economy.
                                You, or anybody else on the 'tulip, is not a sheeple. That's where the rubber meets the road on 401k . . .

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X