Mandatory Retirement Contributions

[BigBucnNole]

A new law would require employees to save for retirement

Auto-enrollment may be just what Americans need to save more for retirement --- but perhaps only if the government makes it a requirement.

www.marketwatch.com

As it stands, the proposal states participants must begin with a deferral of at least 3% and no more than 10%, with an annual increase of one percentage point for every year (up until the maximum 10%). “Requiring all plans to increase the share of contributions into retirement plans would make it much easier to accumulate enough money to live securely.”

 

[America 1st]

Not a fan.

Increase wages and let companies and employees do what they want.

 

[Old Glory]

A new law would require employees to save for retirement

Auto-enrollment may be just what Americans need to save more for retirement --- but perhaps only if the government makes it a requirement.

www.marketwatch.com

As it stands, the proposal states participants must begin with a deferral of at least 3% and no more than 10%, with an annual increase of one percentage point for every year (up until the maximum 10%). “Requiring all plans to increase the share of contributions into retirement plans would make it much easier to accumulate enough money to live securely.”

Or perhaps we could teach kids when they are younger throughout school about how money works and how to make it work for you, how taxes work, how to save money, etc. instead of forcing retirement contributions.

 

[Taggart]

Wait, so under the new law the max you can contribute is 10%???

Edit: just saw that current plans would be exempt from the new rules. Still don't like the government telling people how to save for retirement though... what if someone wants to invest all in cryptocurrency instead?

 

[Hoppo]

This feels like backdoor for raiding social security for liberal initiatives.

 

[shiv]

This feels like backdoor for raiding social security for liberal initiatives.

100%. That 10% has a very communist feel to it. Capping the amount of wealth someone can accrue

 

[ChicagoFats]

100%. That 10% has a very communist feel to it. Capping the amount of wealth someone can accrue

Agree that it has a communist feel and don't like it. But you can still accrue wealth, just not tax free

 

[shiv]

Agree that it has a communist feel and don't like it. But you can still accrue wealth, just not tax free

Yeah, good point

 

[AgEngDawg]

so basically the entire purpose of this shit it to limit how much you can give to 401k and call it a minimum.

 

[Old Glory]

100%. That 10% has a very communist feel to it. Capping the amount of wealth someone can accrue

I think the 10% is the max they can force you to start at, not the max you can contribute on your own:

“(3) MINIMUM CONTRIBUTION PERCENTAGE.—An eligible automatic contribution arrangement meets the requirements of this paragraph if—
“(A) the uniform percentage of compensation contributed by the participant under such arrangement during the first year of participation is not less than 3 percent and not more than 10 percent (unless the participant specifically elects not to have such contributions made or to have such contributions made at a different percentage), and
“(B) such uniform percentage is increased by 1 percentage point for each year of participation under such arrangement (but not above 10 percent) unless the participant specifically elects not to have such contributions made or to have such contributions made at a different percentage.

 

[shiv]

I think the 10% is the max they can force you to start at, not the max you can contribute on your own:

“(3) MINIMUM CONTRIBUTION PERCENTAGE.—An eligible automatic contribution arrangement meets the requirements of this paragraph if—
“(A) the uniform percentage of compensation contributed by the participant under such arrangement during the first year of participation is not less than 3 percent and not more than 10 percent (unless the participant specifically elects not to have such contributions made or to have such contributions made at a different percentage), and
“(B) such uniform percentage is increased by 1 percentage point for each year of participation under such arrangement (but not above 10 percent) unless the participant specifically elects not to have such contributions made or to have such contributions made at a different percentage.

That makes more sense. I'm glad someone reads the fine print.

 

[BigBucnNole]

so basically the entire purpose of this shit it to limit how much you can give to 401k and call it a minimum.

It’s a floor. But I argue people have a right to blow there money and face consequences.

 

[AgEngDawg]

It’s a floor. But I argue people have a right to blow there money and face consequences.

Gotcha.

 

[shiv]

It’s a floor. But I argue people have a right to blow there money and face consequences.

Yeah this is the key point