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.
I promise you, if you put that $30/month into your own IRA, you’ll make her a lot happier when she doesn’t have to support you when she’s grown up.
The problem isn’t spending a little to make you or your family happy, it’s spending for consumable things today, that’s going to put you at a huge disadvantage later.
I get it, I have two kids, it’s fucking expensive. But you know what’s even more expensive? Taking care of old people.
Unfortunately, with all of the price-gouging that’s been happening, $30/mo is nothing. It probably is now productive being spent. Even with compounding interest, that is going to result in enough funds to retire as an expat in a developing nation with an exceptional exchange rate and likely next to no end of life care, supposing that the investment firm that is profiting off of pensions being extinct does exceedingly well.
I also like to suggest saving anything that one can but noone is going to be able to realistically be able survive on that, unless there are significant socio-economic changes. It’s a “pie in the sky when you die” situation.
“I know you want that doll, honey, but I’ve put the money for it into an IRA and it will make you a lot happier when you don’t have to support me when you’re grown up.” You do you with your kids, I’m going to get mine things that will make her happy.
And she already knows she has no obligation to support me. I’ve made that clear to her.
Do you really think she’s just going to let you starve and live on the street?
And yes, that’s exactly what you say. Funny how it’s not things that make kids happy, it’s spending time with them. Reading to my daughter her favorite book for the 1000th time is much more enjoyable than just buying her a new doll.
It’s also a great lesson in short term happiness vs long term happiness.
You bought her a book? When you could have put that money in a Roth IRA?
You’re clearly an abusive parent!
Stop being obtuse. You know what he means.
Also, libraries are great for kids to choose their own books. You just assumed he spent money on a book instead of time taking his kid to the library. It’s true, kids don’t care about money. They care about time you spend with them.
True, I did assume that someone who claims to have read the same book to their child 1000 times did not get it from the library.
You’re saying you only have enough extra money each month for either a children’s book, OR that book’s value in retirement savings?
And assuming that’s their life situation as well?
I’m the one being told that it’s either buy a child a toy or invest in retirement.
Not by anyone in this thread.
Me:
You:
Me:
You:
So yeah, you did say either buy a child a toy or invest in retirement.
No I didnt.
You never heard of libraries?