Posted on 04/16/2018 9:50:17 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Do you think saving for retirement is just too tough? Think again. The number of people with 401(k) balances of at least $1 million hit a record 150,000 at the end of 2017 in plans run by Fidelity Investments. Likewise, the number of Fidelity-run IRAs with retirement savings balances of $1 million or more hit a record 152,000.
And if $1 million seems out of reach for you — at least for now — don't worry, because those million-dollar balances were part of a broader pattern of retirement savings balances overall growing to record highs.
Your retirement savings balances can join in on the fun — if you take six steps designed to maximize growth in retirement accounts, recommended by Meghan Murphy, a Fidelity 401(k) expert.
Start early.
Invest the yearly maximum.
Invest smartly. If you can't afford the maximum, at least aim for a contribution amount that will trigger the largest company match offered.
Invest for growth.
Stick to your plan. Do that by rebalancing periodically.
Use target date funds. That's especially important if you can't make appropriate investment decisions for yourself or don't want to try.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
I'd say the Feds have a claim on at least 20-25% of those "millions".
I would most definitely find a way to move from the country and take what I earned and saved with me before letting the absolute scum of the Earth parasites that are politicians (particularly Democrat politicians) take it from me in order to pay off debts they created. What would be different at that point than having the Venezuelan government confiscate private property, wealth, businesses, and factories? It would have the same affect in America as it has had in Venezuela.
Political Junkie Too wrote: My 401(k) is invested in the stock of the company I work for. How would Warren force me to invest in her annuities without selling my company holdings?
You would lose control over the investments in your 401K. The government would sell any current assets and invest the revenue in government long term bonds and give you an annuity upon retirement. Really simple to write the laws.
While I haven’t heard this proposed, I’m sure the dems would want to enforce some kind of retirement equality where the amount of the annuity would not be 100% proportional to the amount you put in.
I remember that. Appalling.
Political Junkie Too wrote: What would that do to my company’s assets if shareholders were all forced to divest in order to fund government annuities? Who would be the buyer of a forced sale, the government? Wouldn’t that be a de facto nationalization of companies whose workers invested their retirement savings?
Why would the government be overly concerned with trivial matters like that? If they were, they could schedule the liquidation of those assets over a period of time to minimize the downside.
De facto nationalization would be viewed as a positive, not a negative.
NorthMountain wrote: “Such an act is both armed robbery and abject tyranny. Any politician who suggests it should be treated appropriately.”
About half the population would consider taking your retirement accounts as anything but “armed robber or abject tyranny”. After all, “you didn’t build that”.
Yes, but sell to whom?
We're talking about a distressed sale of American NYSE equities. Even if the government could do such a thing, what would be the impact to the companies? What would happen if their stocks were suddenly sold off en masse at reduced prices at the whim of the government?
Furthermore, lets assume that all corporate stocks held in retirement accounts are subject to this; the conclusion is that Americans cannot buy American stocks being sold by the government, because those stocks were initially held by American investors in the first place. So what happens? Will these stocks be sold to foreign investors?
Would Congress really sell the NYSE off to foreigners, destroying American ownership of its largest corporations?
Or am I exaggerating, and something else would happen?
-PJ
I wouldn’t scrimp and deny myself to die rich. What’s the point?
Do you remember when Unocal was being bought by CNOOC (Chinese National Offshore Oil Corporation? Remember when Congress stepped in to stop the sale, claiming it was a national security measure to keep Unocal assets in the United States?
So now we'd have a Congress that hands these assets over to foreign investors?
I don't think so. I think that's the fatal flaw in the plan.
-PJ
2) The States demanded a Bill of Rights for good many good reasons. Likewise, there are many good reasons the founders included the (now) Second Amendment in the Bill of rights.
they had nothing ready to deal with Obamacare.
I can tell you from experience that the only ones hurt were those who panicked and sold out at the bottom.
Those who held on have done quite well.
My 401(k) is invested in the stock of the company I work for.
There were a bunch that just had crappy timing. They panicked or rotated out when they retired. Just with a bunch less than they had a couple of years before.
I think exactly the same.
When I retired, I took SS at the first possible opportunity, ignoring all of the "sage" financial advisors who say to wait until 72 or something like that.
1. It is politically impossible to stop SS payments to someone who has started getting them.
2. Once I have spent the SS money it is not possible to get it back.
Meanwhile my own money sits in the stock market and grows. But, if you haven't started SS when the SHTF and have any other assets, the government will require you to deplete them before you can start. Count on it.
That would probably be considered in the “means testing” that they will go through to reduce your Social security payment.
So, inevitably, those who have a sound plan will get screwed by those who were grasshoppers their whole lives.
I have a sister who went through her 401(k) during a two year hiatus. She never owned her home. And now she is 61 and has just gone on disability (which is actually legit). But she is counting on Social security for about 80% of her retirement.
That is just crazy.
I have no debt, period. My monthly expenses COULD be paid with my social security. But both my wife and I have six figure nest eggs. We could, theoretically, call it a day except we both like our jobs and the health insurance is still pricey.
And I know that by the time I go to get “mine” they will have changed the rules and I will get a lot less.
Every 10th adult in Singapore is a millionaire.
Political Junkie Too wrote: “Yes, but sell to whom?”
The vast majority of 401 K assets would not need to be sold. I would imagine the ‘Government Retirement Fund” would hold something similar to a S&P 500 fund and some government bonds. In fact, I would bet the government would transfer these assets to investment brokers like Fidelity, etc. Of course they might have to make some adjustments to match the SP500 but that could be managed. In effect, this would be a transfer of ownership rather than a liquidation of assets.
When I posted my response I assumed you were referring to smaller companies, not a SP500 component. Equity in those companies would probably be sold over a period of a few years to minimize impacts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.