Three academics and no politicians are cited as advocating for cutting the tax break. This isn't going to happen.

Getting rid of 401(k) tax breaks would have to be part of a huge bipartisan tax reform package. Huge like--biggest in our lifetime huge.

No politician that wants to remain in office is going to vote for just getting rid of them.

The Biden Presidency - 2020
 

E

Why do you get to attack people on here, including me, without any repercussions at all?

I don’t get the double standard

A thread was created literally to allow you a soap box that would allow threads not to be dominated or adulterated by your fights yet nothing happens when you attack me or others but we get warnings suspensions for the same stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No double standard? Must be your reading comprehension.

When you attack me (sarcasm, personal insults etc.), I do the same. As I have said many times, I'm not the initiator.


So, in other words, just ignore me. Don't engage me. Pretty simple.

So the whole progress made where you agreed to take your fights to an Edward thread where Edward can play the tennis matches in, that you were for, was bullshit?

It was made specifically for you and whomever you square up with to go back and forth in your semantics, goal post shifting, definition arguing etc and that’s what was happening above.

When it’s pointed out in a non threatening way you go on the attack so you can stay in said thread and turn it into the crap soup I described above?

No I don’t think it should happen
Yes I do think it ruins fofc

A great solution was agreed to by all

You attack

I do think you should be suspended


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your suspension must have been pretty butt hurt traumatic for you to always bring up “wah, it’s so unfair that I got suspended and he hasn’t been”.

I know you said you didn’t deserve it (when asked for details or posts, you didn’t provide it). But seeing how you stalk and complain about stuff that is under your own control, I can see why.

Tell you what, why don’t you take your complaints to the other thread and I’ll join you there? You’ve already exceeded the exchange that GhostEcon and I have had. Or do you need an audience like a drama queen?

Being suspended sucks

I have been at fofc for 30 years so I guess you could say I care about it

You dominate and adulterate threads into a competition of semantics and definitions

A solution to this problem was agreed on by everyone including yourself

You attack people personally including myself, in this very thread (and others) which I was accused of and suspended for

I do think you taking a month off for the same thing would be good for everyone and possibly yourself

If I knew who to point it out to I would

I believe that you are an energy vampire and thank God, for the most part, I was able to reclaim my energy from you but at the cost of fofc being very different than it was Pre-E domination


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

… and yet, don’t attack me and I won’t attack you. I don’t initiate but will respond in kind.

Join you at the other thread?

Let me know.

Jury came back in the NRA fraud trial and found it liable and former head wayne lapierre guilty of corruptily running the org-fined him over $4 million in restitution.

It'll never happen. 401Ks are one of the greatest scams wealthy people ever pulled on the American public. Completely gutted the pension system and threw a ton of dumb money into the stock market to prop up businesses. Not to mention all the massive fees financial institutions rake in to "manage" your account.

This is one of those bipartisian issues where every politician supports a 401K because it helps almost every major business donor they have.

Rich people steal it's a fine. Poor people steal it's prison.

The marketwatch article has a link to below pdf.

The Great American Retirement Fraud by Michael Doran :: SSRN

Lots of content and rationale for the argument, but I'll have to wait for other policy wonks to come up with a rebuttal.

However, the pdf does define "highly compensated employees". The cut-off is $135,000. The marketwatch article used the phrase "very high earners", which to me implied a much higher $.

I googled on participation rate.

Access Denied


For private sector, available to 68% and of those, 75% participated. But the stats for average & median balances by age range are below what I would want (but think the 55-64 savers could probably live in Mexico pretty comfortably once they start collecting the average social security of $1,770). Note below median balances are probably even lower because it does not factor those with just IRAs.

Federal Reserve Has Disappointing News on Retirement Saving – Center for Retirement Research




I'd agree with you, the tax deferral benefits are probably safe because of politics.

Our parent company decided long ago that instead of matching 401K contributions, it would simply do a dump of several thousand dollars into every employee's 401K as part of a Christmas bonus (there's also a straight cash bonus). The reason being, a portion of what we own is horse farms (which employ a large portion of our overall workforce), and none of them would benefit from the 401K matching because none of them would contribute.

You have to treat all employees the same, so we all get that instead of a match (which is fine). For certain designated executives, there is a separate plan that allows us to put money into another type of account (I don't recall the specifics) that will pay out over the first 10 years following retirement. I haven't done it yet because I'm still paying a kid's way through college and want to pay off my house, but once those things happen, I might do that. I know my boss puts 6 figures a year into that account. I suppose if you can afford to put a lot in there, it will be a nice cushion to pad the first decade of retirement (and possibly avoid using any retirement money other than required distributions).

Was it the same % or same $ amount? I'd think same % is more fair. I'd prefer a per-paycheck or per-month employer contribution vs end of year. But still thoughtful of them to think about all employees.

FWIW I did project work at Koch Industries @Wichita. They had a ranch(es) and had an employee job code called "cowboy". Made sense, but not a job code I'd seen before or since.

Biden's having the Big Four (Johnson, Schumer, Jeffries, McConnell) to the White House to prevent the shutdown.

Johnson will be so outclassed there, it's an open question as to whether he will leave the meeting somehow personally owing Schumer $20.

(This is the downside to the GOP electing an inexperienced Speaker)

Reading some of the anonymous comments from gop and dem house members shows how out of his depth he is. McCarthy sucked, but always had a plan and always knew how many votes he had. Johnson doesn't really have a plan, doesn't know how many votes he has, and it sounds like his house members are frustrated that he has a tendency to go with the opinion of the last person he spoke to. No one knows where they stand with him or where he stands on any issue.

He may as well put Trump on speaker phone

One lump sum $$ amount to each employee. In terms of fairness, the company has a long history of taking care of its less fortunate workers, so it was deemed fairer to give everyone the same dollar amount distribution because this would be the only amounts the low earners would contribute to their 401Ks (they would not contribute at all given their level of earnings) rather than base it on a %, which would literally only benefit a small portion of the employees. The expectation is that the high earners will contribute from their salaries and have the means to do so. I have no issue with it.

In terms of thoughtfulness, it's more of a 401K plan legal/regulatory requirement that all employees are treated the same, I believe (you can't have some get $$, and some receive matching %). Thus, the decision was made to help the low-end wage earners with a $$ amount rather than have a matching % that technically applied to everyone, but hardly anyone got any benefit from. This is also why for the executives they set up the second plan with retirement tax incentives which, based on the way it is set up, is permitted to only apply to a select number of employees.

Very nice of them.

There's always something more stupid, but this ice cream thing is the current most stupid thing ever.

I think that stuff only helps him. Just makes the politician look normal. Reminds me of when they made a stink about Obama putting Grey Poupon on his burger as if half the country doesn't have a bottle of that stuff in their fridge.

You can get Grey Poupon at Jimmy John's - home of the liberal sub.

If you ever get a chance to try Lusty Monk Mustard, do it. Or don't, maybe. It is like crack, only more addictive.

Well hell, it's made in Asheville! That's where my brother/SIL and now my parents live. I'll be there in a couple of weeks. I'll have to track down a jar.

You want a different kind of mustard, try Aunt Lilikoi's passion fruit mustard. Made in Kauai. It's used on the famous puka dogs on Poipou beach. We loved it so much we've ordered about 8 jars since we visited in summer of 2022.

That sounds weird as hell

I don’t get TikTok by Joe. I’ve not read this was a big issue for Dems or Independents so won’t this only just hurt him?

Say something like ‘safety of children is paramount, I’ll have a fact finding mission to see how to reduce, limit etc whatever’.

They aren't doing it to appease voters, it's being done to appease a handful of very large donors.

So House Republicans are having another hearing with Special Counsel Robert Hur now that he no longer works for the DOJ and lets says its not going so well-in opening statements Dems show videos of an obviously confused Trump, who couldn't even identify his wife in a picture of her at one of his pre-trial meetings.



https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1767559884109738014

Yeah, it was a complete bullshit hit job by Hur. Biden knew the day and month of his son's death, but messed up the year. When my Dad died it was so hard that I couldn't tell you anything about when. I do remember in great detail shaving him a couple of weeks before, the way he looked on the bed,etc.

dola

In the transcript Hur praised Biden for photographic recall, but he still did the hit.

A Biden admin spokesperson tells @rollingstone the bill to potentially ban TikTok is necessary because the app may threaten “our broader national security, including through the manipulation by foreign powers of Americans’ views and beliefs.” https://t.co/Cu9MYbn3L6

— Andrew Perez (@andrewperezdc) March 12, 2024

I chuckled at this. Always good to get terms defined. Hur should have said "that is the layperson's definition, it would be more appropriate to refer to X".

Takeaways from Robert Hur’s testimony on Biden’s mishandling of classified documents | CNN Politics

And good that he was prepared to push back on what he did or did not state.

Man Hur must be an originalist for the constitution given how many times he said that word does not appear in the report

He's playing both sides. Trying not to give either side their gotcha.

lol

He's a GOP operative angling for a judgeship or Deputy AG type job in the Trump admin.

Joe is negative with TikTok. Trump is negative with Facebook.

Both are social media that can influence but I'll go with Joe as TikTok is "owned" by China. Somehow, Joe should reinforce this messaging.

I'll go with neither. Social media in various forms is not going away and fighting it is a losing and wrongheaded battle. Manipulating/influencing Americans' beliefs by others anywhere in the world is a fact of the modern age, and is a two-way street.

The antidote, to the extent there is one, is education and people caring about what is true enough to use critical thinking.

Yeah, he should totally reinforce a message of banning internet sites at the behest of his donors and because some idiots told him that's the reason young people aren't on board with his genocide.

This is the shit liberals claim Trump will do. Don't hear much from them on this topic now.

This is the ideal but unfortunately, not reality.

If you had to pick one, I rather have the social media influencing our populace controlled by a US company vs a Chinese one. Easier for lawsuits and pressure to change vs a FU from China.

Just bolding one of THE most-overlooked realities ever.

I'm actually kiiiiinda okay with the segment that excuses it under the "... but we're doing it for good" clause. I mean, that kind of at least acknowledges the hypocrisy you're engaging in if you do it.

I'd like to slap the everlovin shit out of those who are simply fucking stupid enough to not be capable of acknowledging that we do the exact same shit. And trust me, that is not a statistically insignificant segment. (usually overlaps with the "I just wish the media was unbiased like it used to be" fairytale crowd)

All the social media companies have considerable investment and influence from foreign companies/entities. Which ones are you not going to ban? And they all are still subject to US law when it comes to lawsuits.

And why should the US government be pressuring any social media company over their speech? Why should our internet be at the whims of the most morally corrupt people on the planet?

I think the other reality is how do you even stop it? Build a great firewall like China that blocks out the world? Just seems like an idea that an 82-year old who has no idea how the internet works would support.

The other insane thing is how much this would alienate young voters which him and his party rely on. I genuinely think if he did this and Trump took the opposite stance (which he has), Biden is cooked in November. And it's likely unconstitutional so they wouldn't even get the perceived benefit from it (helping their donors, stopping people from saying mean things about his policies).

I don't think it's right to try and change what social media does, anymore than it's right to sue newspapers or TV in past eras for saying things we don't like.

I agree with the main thrust of what Rainmaker is saying (rather stunning how often that's happening around here lately). Trying to ban/restrict the 'ones we don't like' is only going to hurt ourselves. The last time protectionism made sense, nobody on this forum was alive.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

I don't agree with killing Tik Tok, but technically the plan is pretty clear. If it is removed from Google and Apple it's going to die out and both Google and Apple aren't going to take the legal risks of hosting if legislation has been passed to kill it.

I would also add that this has nothing to do with China. They invest heavily in a number of our social media companies and no one cares. China is just being used as the justification because the real reason is more troubling.

What this is about is other social media companies having their lunch eaten by a better service and looking at the government to limit their competition. Plus a struggling politician who thinks his negative approval rating is caused by young people getting information from sources with opposing viewpoints.

I think the whole thing is not just pointless because it's incredibly difficult to censor the internet and likely unconstitutional, but sets a dangerous precedent. I don't think any politician should have the power to ban completely legal sites because they don't like what's on it or were bribed to do so.

Zuck can't compete with Tik Tok and the only thing he has going for him with GenZ is Instagram so he's desperately trying to lobby a Tik Tok ban.
Facebook is Social Media for old people and everything else he's tried has been awful.

Don't underestimate how many companies would love to buy TikTok at a hefty discount if they're forced to sell. Google could swallow them up and essentially have a monopoly on short form video with younger people. Meta could buy it too if they want to grab more young social media users.

There is also the part of the bill that says circumventing the ban can result in 20 years in prison and a hefty fine. The lawmakers involved said it's not intended to go after people, just corporations (lol), but the law is incredibly vague and would put people at risk if an aggressive DOJ wanted to target someone.

Yeah, Meta and Alphabet have a ton of big investors who donate a lot of money to politicians. The fact Meta is up like 10% since the rumblings of this ban started is not a coincidence. There's a lot of money involved in killing your competition.

I think you're underplaying the China connection. I don't know how accurate the accusation is, but plenty of people in both parties honestly believe China is using Tik Tok as an intelligence operation.