Triple G

Not so. I know the level of education that new employees get on their benefits and especially 401k plans. I’ve spent time going over scenario after scenario and the a answers from many as to why not are risk and liquidity. There are many reasons why many are not investing. For many, it does come down to discretional funds even for well-paid employees. The student debt they took on is a huge barrier.

https://www.moneyunder30.com/millennials-do-not-trust-financial-advice-11416

I have no first hand knowledge of anti-white curriculum. Do you? What are you doing about it if your taxes are going to those schools? Get involved. School board meetings are a wealth of actual facts and not propaganda fear mongering and conspiracy theory spread.

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

Tax rates have really not changed much since the 50’s
Inflation has .
$10 of concrete to build a highway would now be $110

letmedance Loc: Walnut, Ca.

So the well educated Democrats cannot pay their student loans, not very bright are they.

Triple G

I assure you there are a great many stupid republicans in the same boat and they’re pikers to boot with defaulting more readily.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/national-student-loan-debt-crisis-has-no-party-affiliation-according-to-american-financial-benefits-center-300690802.html

letmedance Loc: Walnut, Ca.

Well you missed my point, I keep hearing that the Democrats are College educated and the Republicans are the Red Necked uneducated W***e S*********ts.

Triple G

Oh, I got your point. Stupidity is not limited by education or political party.

pendennis

Savings, via investments such as 401k's are in some amount of trouble. The Feds changed rules on 401k's and the fund fees. Employers now have to fully disclose all fees in the investment options they offer. I understand that there needs to be full disclosure on funds, but some fees are not obvious, nor easily discoverable. Fees by the fund manager (e.g. Fidelity) are easily found, but the fees that Fidelity pays to list a particular stock, etc., in a particular fund are often hidden (nothing nefarious here) in the details of t***sactions, batching of shares, etc.

Federal regulations make the employer liable for not fully disclosing these fees. So, instead of providing a fairly easy investment vehicle for employees, many employers are opting not to offer any plan at all.

pendennis

Here's the real s**m. College loan debt falls to the student; no secret here, and there are IRS rules which keep the student on the hook, seemingly forever.

The question is really, "who benefits here?" In every instance, it's the college/university. They get the money up front, and if the student isn't wise in choosing majors, other fields of study, etc., the student fails, and the educational institution is financially OK.

Of course, there's no easy answer, but the current system is bankrupt, but a boon for colleges.

Triple G

Hogwash!

That particular requirement has been around since 2019. Large Plan Vendors and Sponsors saw it coming and have been disclosing those fees ahead of the requirement. I’ve been responsible for including them in employee enrollment guides and SPDs as far back as 2016. It was not an onerous task to add this requirement to the employer’s existing responsibilities as the provider (Fidelity, VOYA, Putnam) do the heavy lifting and Plan Sponsors already had the reporting mechanisms (SPDs, etc.)

Despite a bad year, 401k plans performed well in 2020 and there are more employees offered and enrolling in plans than ever before.

https://www.forusall.com/401k-blog/404a5-participant-fee-disclosure-rule/

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/benefits/pages/most-401k-plans-weathered-2020-without-reducing-employer-contributions.aspx

https://www.employeefiduciary.com/blog/401k-participant-disclosures-what-employers-need-to-know

https://www.ici.org/faqs/faq/401k/faqs_401k

pendennis

I can only relate what Fidelity and Vanguard did. Both companies reduced their offering to my company's employees in recent years, and the reasons cited were that neither company could completely detail all the fees which they paid to maintain the funds (investment or service), without raising those discovery costs to the employer and employee.

Triple G

That just means that they are doing their due diligence and not offering a particular fund within the employers plan; not doing away with an entire 401k plan or using it as an excuse not to have a 401k.

There are a myriad of reasons to change the number of and line up of individual funds. If they aren’t able to provide t***sparency of fees, they most definitely would be removed as would funds which may have changed investment strategy or when an investment manager’s track record is slipping.

Do you really want to invest in funds who won’t or can’t tell you how much of your yield is eroded by their fees? That disclosure requirement is a great protection to plan participants not a deterrent as you suggested.

All $’s in an exiting option are mapped over to a corresponding fund that has been thoroughly vetted. All of that is part of the disclosure requirements. Swapping out the line up of existing funds, closing funds to new investors, or adding new funds is a quarterly discussion of the company compensation and Retirement Plan Committees.

How long do you think funds who have no fee t***sparency will exist if they can’t get offered in the behemoth 401k plans? It’s weeding out the bad actors.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

How stupid can libs get.
It used to be those making over, say20,000 would pay taxes.
The tax code did not change for inflation as you say.
Thus anyone making over 20,000 pays taxes now where adjusted for inflation you would need to say, make a million before paying income tax.