Mandatory Savings?

#2
#2
I don't see how such a thing would ever pass here in the US of A.

On a related note, I'm aggravated by the way our 401k system is structured that really hurts small businesses. Plans where the total amount of vested savings are low relative to a larger business pay a higher load than others because of the managers. Seems to me we ought to be encouraging the exact opposite.

My firm, for example, we can't get access to simple ETFs or index funds because the fund managers' take is too low on those. Naturally, if you track the available funds over time they all fall short of the market index as a whole, and its truly whacked when you then take out the management fees.

I get that investing the dollars pre-tax and then taking them out at hopefully a lower rate than when making a fill income offsets that. But as is, it sure seems to me like the fund managers are the real winners in the 401k scheme, whereas the small businesses are the losers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4
#4
How does S.S. compare to the Government age pension system in Australia?

Is he comparing apples to apples?
 
#5
#5
So basically we should have a government mandated savings plan because the government couldn't save for us through an outdated ponzi scheme.

Hey, here's an idea: get rid of SS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#6
#6
He advocates defined benefit pensions ignoring how both in the public and private sector these programs have bankrupted many entities.

He laments that 401Ks are too complicate for people to understand.

He ignores SS as an already defacto mandated defined benefit

And in general promotes the idea that the enlightened few (like himself) must mandate our behaviors to save us from ourselves.
 
#7
#7
I don't see how such a thing would ever pass here in the US of A.

On a related note, I'm aggravated by the way our 401k system is structured that really hurts small businesses. Plans where the total amount of vested savings are low relative to a larger business pay a higher load than others because of the managers. Seems to me we ought to be encouraging the exact opposite.

My firm, for example, we can't get access to simple ETFs or index funds because the fund managers' take is too low on those. Naturally, if you track the available funds over time they all fall short of the market index as a whole, and its truly whacked when you then take out the management fees.

I get that investing the dollars pre-tax and then taking them out at hopefully a lower rate than when making a fill income offsets that. But as is, it sure seems to me like the fund managers are the real winners in the 401k scheme, whereas the small businesses are the losers.

I have my doubts that someone won't be pressing for this in the near future.

I'm also pretty sure you'll be on board with it if it empowers the fed (i.e., the Democrats support it).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8
#8
He advocates defined benefit pensions ignoring how both in the public and private sector these programs have bankrupted many entities.

He laments that 401Ks are too complicate for people to understand.

He ignores SS as an already defacto mandated defined benefit

And in general promotes the idea that the enlightened few (like himself) must mandate our behaviors to save us from ourselves.

The normal extension of this line of thought is: Not everyone can save for themselves equally, so those who can afford to save more should subsidize those who cannot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9
#9
I have my doubts that someone won't be pressing for this in the near future.

I'm also pretty sure you'll be on board with it if it empowers the fed (i.e., the Democrats support it).


Why should access to lower load vehicles like index funds be limited to the high rollers?

It ought to be the exact opposite because typically the folks with the lower amounts to save are going to be the less able to choose whereas the wealthiest are in the best position to choose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#12
#12
Why should access to lower load vehicles like index funds be limited to the high rollers?

It ought to be the exact opposite because typically the folks with the lower amounts to save are going to be the less able to choose whereas the wealthiest are in the best position to choose.

Why don't I get first dibs on the big IPO offerings? No road show has ever stopped by my office to do a pre sell.
 
#14
#14
This idea has disaster written all over it. Why in the heck would anyone promote an idea that forces all american workers to invest their hard earned money into the stock market?
 
#15
#15
The article is by Steve Rattner, a left wing Richard for sure. He never met a tax or regulation he didn't like. I suppose he could dig out the old Al Gore lockbox to put these "savings" into. But we all know what politicians do with earmarked or lockbox money. They spend it all and then some. Therefore, any forced savings that will be spent by the government is actually a tax.
 
#16
#16
Do you think Americans (on average) have adequate retirement savings?

Adequate for what? In general people should save more.

Should the government mandate it?

Do you think Americans (on average) have an adequate diet?

Do you think Americans (on average) consume too much alcohol?

Should the government regulate all behaviors to save us from any potential negative consequences of our actions?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#19
#19
I don't see how such a thing would ever pass here in the US of A.

On a related note, I'm aggravated by the way our 401k system is structured that really hurts small businesses. Plans where the total amount of vested savings are low relative to a larger business pay a higher load than others because of the managers. Seems to me we ought to be encouraging the exact opposite.

My firm, for example, we can't get access to simple ETFs or index funds because the fund managers' take is too low on those. Naturally, if you track the available funds over time they all fall short of the market index as a whole, and its truly whacked when you then take out the management fees.

I get that investing the dollars pre-tax and then taking them out at hopefully a lower rate than when making a fill income offsets that. But as is, it sure seems to me like the fund managers are the real winners in the 401k scheme, whereas the small businesses are the losers.

You could say that encourages people to look for other forms of investment. I don't just rely on my agencies 401k/pension.
 
#20
#20
We need to remember though that investing is a RISK. Some people make money, some people lose money. Risk versus reward, the age old dilemma. The fact we have the opportunity to engage in such risk with potentially good/great/awesome/gnarly reward is great.
 
#21
#21
Adequate for what? In general people should save more.

Should the government mandate it?

Do you think Americans (on average) have an adequate diet?

Do you think Americans (on average) consume too much alcohol?

Should the government regulate all behaviors to save us from any potential negative consequences of our actions?

True! BUT..economics 101 says saving more makes the economy stagnate. The government wants you to spend. They want you to have no savings. They want you to use credit out the wazzoo.
 
#22
#22
Adequate for what? In general people should save more.

Should the government mandate it?

Do you think Americans (on average) have an adequate diet?

Do you think Americans (on average) consume too much alcohol?

Should the government regulate all behaviors to save us from any potential negative consequences of our actions?

I don't know
No
Yes
No

The fact that he may be proposing a poor solution does not mean he is not addressing a real problem.
 
#23
#23
I don't know
No
Yes
No

The fact that he may be proposing a poor solution does not mean he is not addressing a real problem.

who made that claim? I was clearly critiquing his solution and the attitude the government is there to save us from ourselves.
 

VN Store



Back
Top