Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bull_derrick who wrote (22674)	1/7/2005 1:47:59 AM
From: The Ox	Respond to of 23153

The max anyone can get from their 401K is 50%, whether it's one loan, 2 or 3. You are right they might be mortgaging their future, but only with 1/2, max. 1/2 is NOT GOOD but it's a lot more then zero.

To: bull_derrick who wrote (22674)	1/7/2005 1:48:46 AM
From: whitepine	Respond to of 23153

bull>Studies of 401K performance shows the average person makes very poor investment decisions regarding their retirement plan savings< wp> just give people their money contributions plus accrued interest. I have a defined benefit program. When the markets were tanking in 01, I wanted to take my 'portion' of the 70 Billion fund out. Of course, they would not allow that. The fund dropped to 48 Billion because as B/Holders, they rode 'er down. Now, how was that 'professional' wisdom any more wise than what the average bloke might do? People should have a choice. If government wants to end SS, fine. Just send me a check for the full amount of my contributions (+interest). The government does as much for bond holders. Why should we receive less? [of course I know the answer to my own question -- there are two classes of people: 1. citizens, and 2. politicians and corporate execs who don't need SS] Second, when I was given the 'freedom' to select a retirement option, I was only allowed to roll my assets into an IRA if I took an immediate 50% cut. Why? Simple, they didn't want me to manage my own affairs. They believe in bureaucratic paternalism/bureacratic liberalism. Regardless the wisdom of privatizing a portion of future contributions (I support), such should not be done by cutting distributions or increasing the age limit. If they NOW want to selectively discriminate and cut payments, to me it is the same as defaulting on a government bond. Just my...yada yada. wp