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.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    7 months ago

    Multiple times, people here on Lemmy have assumed I have a 401(k), as if it’s something everyone has, and it always amuses me.

    • ThrowawayOnLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      53
      ·
      7 months ago

      It probably is something you should have after a certain age. If not a work supplied 401k, then at least your own managed Roth IRA. And if you’re still on the younger side, it’s perfectly understandable not to have a 401k yet.

        • Xbeam@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          38
          ·
          7 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@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            19
            ·
            7 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
              arrow-up
              37
              ·
              7 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
                arrow-up
                33
                ·
                7 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
                    arrow-up
                    9
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    7 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!

                • CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  13
                  ·
                  7 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
          arrow-up
          27
          ·
          edit-2
          7 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@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            ·
            7 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
              arrow-up
              23
              ·
              7 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@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                10
                ·
                7 months ago

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

                • QuarterSwede@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  23
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Sounds like you have an axe to grind. Sorry life has been hard for you friend. Hope it gets better. Hang in there.

            • protist@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              22
              ·
              7 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@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                13
                ·
                7 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
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  ·
                  7 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@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    7 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.

        • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          7 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
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              7 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
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                7 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.

    • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      7 months ago

      If you don’t have access to one through work you qualify for a deduction and a credit if you contribute to an IRA.

      • ROAGO@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        Regular IRAs are riskier in the long run though. The extra cash from the tax breaks is nice, but they’ll more than likely get taxed to hell when you finally are able to withdraw from it. ROTHs are more resilient to changes because the rich use them to avoid taxes, so it has protections from changes by the government.

    • Zorsith
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 months ago

      The only reason I have one is because I can reasonably afford it, and I would be constantly harassed about not contributing to one if I didn’t.

      I am under no assumption it will even have any meaningful amount of money in it by the time I will be able to retire, assuming that will even be possible by the time I’m 65 (or whatever the retirement age is raised to in the meantime)

      • SoylentBlake@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Hey we got a rational one here…

        None of us will be able to retire by 65. The SS age will be raised to 70, then 72, while life expectancy will continue to fall from ~76 now. Trust me, the rich in charge, do not care. Full stop. they don’t care if we have anything that resembles a good life. They Do. Not. Care.

        Putting money away for retirement also assumes a faith in the currency. If you got 1mil sitting in there now, it might be 3 mil in 30 years, but that’ll be the cost of what then? One doctors appointment?

        You will never retire

        Workers are no longer allowed generational wealth. All wealth WILL be extracted in the end, from you or your estate, to pay for the privilege of dying. This isn’t a democracy. This is a caste system. Neofuedalism.

        If there is one common trait of today’s rich, it’s that they all cheat. They look at our systems in place and they game them. It’s why the laws, for us, punish us so hard for trying to do the same thing. That’s.what.power.does. That’s why the gment gets all uppity that China does XYZ, even tho we’ve been quietly doing that same thing for 40 years. We just don’t want the competition.

        When you can buy everything the only thing left to spend money on is power, that’s why billionaires are a security threat. Apple, boarding half a trillion dollars (only ONE reason to do that) could destroy our economy in one day, make no joke, this is very real multinational corporate geopoliticking.

        They got you at every step of the game, shit they were ready for you since before you were born. The only way to beat them is to not play. I wish I had a guidebook on how to do that, I do, but I don’t, I suspect it’s much to individualized.