Greased by lobbying and campaign cash, tax breaks for retirement savings are one thing Congress agrees on. But they also blow out the deficit and add to income inequality.

Five months before Congress faced a near-catastrophic standoff over the debt ceiling, with Republicans demanding restrictions to food and Medicaid programs to rein in spending, a bill that raised the cost of private retirement savings accounts to $282 billion per year was quietly signed into law.

In this era of deeply divided politics, the 2022 bill known as Secure 2.0 was hailed as a bipartisan success — a victory for average Americans. It had sailed through the House by a whopping 414-5 vote. It followed four other major bills passed between 1996 and 2019 that dramatically expanded taxpayer savings – all equally lauded as bipartisan victories.

But that rare issue that brought a divided Washington together also increased wealth disparities and the federal deficit. And the victory was most strongly applauded by the burgeoning financial services industry, for whom tax-advantaged retirement savings has transformed a $7 trillion retirement market in 1995 to a $38.4 trillion behemoth in 2023.

    • @Xbeam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      383 months ago

      If you work for a company that has a 401k then you need to sign up for it. If the company has a match percentage then that is the absolute minimum you should contribute. And when you are younger you should set it up as a Roth so you pay taxes on it now.

      This isn’t a thing you should do at a certain age. The younger you start the better. The money just comes out of your paycheck, same as taxes.

      • Flying Squid
        link
        fedilink
        193 months ago

        I do not work for a company that offers such a thing. And I never have.

        This is what I’m saying about assumptions.

        • @gorysubparbagel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          373 months ago

          You can sign up for a Roth IRA then, there’s no need for anything from your employer to get one. As far as I recall there’s no minimum amount of money you need to put in at start.

          • @bhmnscmm@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            333 months ago

            I don’t know why you’re being down voted. I swear, some people would rather complain than make the smallest effort to help themselves. It’s good advice.

            Even very small contributions to a retirement account can make a big difference in old age.

              • @snooggums@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                9
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                Yes, all the underpaid people having to choose between food and rent just need to bot spend money on either so they can invest it.

                Yes, great insight!

                • @EatATaco@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  83 months ago

                  You don’t need anyone to invest the money for you. You can get a free account, with free trades, and then just buy index funds.

                  Even 5 dollars a day can put you close to millionaire over a 40 years.

            • @CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              133 months ago

              If you’re absolutely scraping by, where you can’t even spare a few bucks a week on something like this, then yeah, maybe you just can’t do it. But if you can spare even a tiny amount, then it’s wise to do that small amount starting as early in life as possible.

    • @Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      27
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Well if you stopped buying frivolous items like GROCERIES you’d have plenty to invest. Then you could enjoy your retirement for a comfortable 3 years before going back to work

      • Flying Squid
        link
        fedilink
        183 months ago

        We were talking to my daughter about this just yesterday. It’s not even groceries. People think that if you spend $30 or $40 a month on things that make you and those you love happy, you’ll never save enough to make yourself marginally more comfortable in the last 10-20 years of your life (if you’re lucky) that will be uncomfortable no matter what.

        So I suppose maybe if I denied myself and my child every pleasure in life, sure, I could put money in a 401(k). That is not something I would do and I certainly do not think it’s a good lesson to teach a child. I’m sure someone will call that some sort of “live for today” or YOLO attitude rather than not giving your child the most miserable childhood you can.

        • @ampersandrew@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          233 months ago

          So I suppose maybe if I denied myself and my child every pleasure in life, sure, I could put money in a 401(k).

          But that’s unproductive hyperbole. Not every pleasure in life costs money, and lots of things you spend money on can be optimized. And even after doing that, if you still feel too squeezed, it might be worth considering a career change and a plan for how to get there.

          • Flying Squid
            link
            fedilink
            103 months ago

            It might be unproductive hyperbole, but I’ve been told that exact same thing more than once right here on Lemmy.

        • @protist@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          223 months ago

          You were telling your daughter that you’re spending $30/mo on her to make her happy instead of saving it for your old age? I don’t know how you communicated that, but on the surface that does not sound like a healthy thing to tell a child.

          If you’re worried about providing your daughter a fulfilling childhood, maybe also consider prioritizing time with her? You spend a lot of time on Lemmy dude, is that time you could be spending with her? Or are you on your phone a lot when you’re with her?

          • Flying Squid
            link
            fedilink
            133 months ago

            Do you think that maybe you don’t pay attention to what actual times of day I’m on Lemmy vs. when I’m not on Lemmy and think that maybe I spend those times with my family?

            I’m here a lot because I’m currently very sick (I recently got back from the Mayo Clinic). I suppose that’s my fault?

            • @protist@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              93 months ago

              No, I’ve never paid attention to when you’re online, I just see you average 100 comments and posts per day. I still think telling your daughter that you’re spending $30/month on her instead of saving for retirement is not healthy.

              • Flying Squid
                link
                fedilink
                6
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                I know a lot of people taking care of their elderly parents. I have yet to meet one who says they regretted their parents buying them toys. Do you know any?

                Also, as I already said, I am on Lemmy a lot because I am very sick and have nothing else to do most of the time.

                • @protist@mander.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  43 months ago

                  You’re misunderstanding my point. I’m saying it’s not healthy to tell your young child explicitly that you’re making this choice between buying them a toy or saving for retirement. This conversation started with you saying you just had that conversation with your daughter yesterday.

                  • Flying Squid
                    link
                    fedilink
                    43 months ago

                    Do you think the conversation was literally “I’m making a choice between buying you this toy and saving for retirement?” For one thing, she’s almost 14.

    • @PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      183 months ago

      You can put $5 a week into it if you want to. $38/ week ($2k/yr) will get you the full $1K savers credit if you don’t have access to a retirement account through work. So essentially you’re only contributing $1k and doubling it with the tax credit.

        • @massacre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          7
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          You would be wrong. Compounding is an absolute beast. It’s nearly a Million. Let’s say you are 25 and just starting out. You manage to put in $1000 a year and get the $1000 credit. Let’s say you do this exact same thing until you are 65. You invest it in the S&P500 Index which historically returns ~10% annually

          Balance at 65: $929,444

          Total contributions: $80,000

          Employee contributions: $80,000

          Employer match: $0

          Investment returns: $849,444

          • @Zorsith
            link
            English
            23 months ago

            I’d be willing to bet that medical bills at the generally accepted “retirement age” will eat through most of that inside of 5-10 years. A retirement home even faster.

            “Millionaire” doesn’t mean what it used to.