UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (28) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Prev | Next | Next Thread
Author: aj485 Big gold star, 5000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 76418  
Subject: Re: New law needed for 401k Date: 10/6/2007 7:34 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
I am 55 years old and in my line of work (which is not very stable in terms of continous employment) , it has become industry norm to require at least 1 full year before you can contribute to 401k .

Why are jobs not very stable in your line of work? Are the ternminations usually voluntary on the part of the employee? Or do the employers do the terminating?

I know government has some exceptions for those who are closer to the retirement age when it comes to IRA contribution . I wish they (government) could also do something about the 401k and waiting period , specially for those 55 and older .

If the terminations are usually voluntary on the part of the employee, I would say that you have your own solution in hand - quit quitting. Yes, you may get $1 more at the new place, but think about how much that is costing you in the opportunity to invest in a tax-deferred account.

Even if the terminations are usually initiated by the employer, you can still invest in taxable accounts and IRAs. So nothing is stopping you from investing money for your retirement. Sure, you won't get the tax-deferral in the taxable accounts, but you also won't have to pay as much in taxes on the withdrawals in your retirement, and you won't be required to take out more money than you might actually need.

The 401(k) is a benefit that is offered by an employer. The government rules give employers some leeway in implementing that benefit, so that the employer can implement the benefit in a way that they believe will provide the best return for both the employer and their employees. If, because of high turnover, the employer chooses to use the 401(k) benefit to try to encourage long-term employment, that's their option. If the government were to require that employees be eligible beginning Day 1, do you really think that employers in your industry would continue to offer the 401(k) as a benefit?

AJ
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post  
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (28) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Prev | Next | Next Thread

Announcements

The Retire Early Home Page
Discussion on accelerating retirement day.
Foolanthropy 2014!
By working with young, first-time moms, Nurse-Family Partnership is able to truly change lives – for generations to come.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Post of the Day:
Macro Economics

Looking at Currency Ratios
What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
Community Home
Speak Your Mind, Start Your Blog, Rate Your Stocks

Community Team Fools - who are those TMF's?
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and "#1 Media Company to Work For" (BusinessInsider 2011)! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.
Advertisement