this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2024
150 points (97.5% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3884 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] uberdroog@lemmy.world 42 points 5 months ago (3 children)

A tale as old as time. Personally, I support the French method of conflict resolution.

[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 17 points 5 months ago (1 children)

In some ways, they were really ahead of the times.

[–] uis@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago

They had heads of times

[–] uis@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago
[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 22 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Money is not free speech. Corporations are not people.

[–] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago

The Supreme Court thinks otherwise as they enjoy luxury gifts and vacations from wealthy donors.

[–] Dadifer@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago (5 children)

If someone could explain how this doesn't benefit the working class as everyone with a full-time job should have a 401k?

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 12 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Because it's overcomplicated, the barrier to entry is significant, and we blame its problems on the consumer as "financial literacy". Just over half of workers actually have one, and most of them are mismanaged by third parties lobbying for more complexity.

[–] Dadifer@lemmy.world -3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This is still benefiting just over half of workers, not billionaires.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 months ago

The billionaires own those third parties.

[–] fishpen0@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I’m a software engineer and have had multiple startup employers not provide a 401k. It’s actually much more common than you think to not have one at all. Only 56% of employers have a 401k.

It’s even more common to have no matching. Of the 56% that have a 401k only 50% have any matching at all. This leaves less than 25% of employers with matching.

Of my 3 employers who did not have a 401k they all compensated me in mostly equity. Only a single employer had their equity eventually pay out in some form and it’s not eligible to be put in retirement funds outside of the standard IRA which maxes out significantly less than that 401k

[–] shitescalates@midwest.social 3 points 5 months ago

Its just this attitude that allows the 401k middlemen to exploit the market and influence our government. People think it benefits them, but it really benefits other people more.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

Have to be able to save money to use a 401k

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Because you can hide hundreds of thousands annually in there. No working class individual makes that much. That money should be taxed

Edit: since people seem confused by the lack of clarity, copying my reply from below:

In a 401k? Yes. But if you read the article:

Today, wealthy taxpayers can protect up to $452,500 per year in tax-advantaged accounts in a single year, saving up to $203,600 on their taxes. And they can keep their money in tax-advantaged accounts far longer.

There are many types of tax-advantaged accounts.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tax-advantaged.asp

[–] die444die@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

23k is the max annual contribution. The money is taxed upon withdrawal. It’s not “hidden”.

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

In a 401k? Yes. But if you read the article:

Today, wealthy taxpayers can protect up to $452,500 per year in tax-advantaged accounts in a single year, saving up to $203,600 on their taxes. And they can keep their money in tax-advantaged accounts far longer.

There are many types of tax-advantaged accounts.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tax-advantaged.asp

[–] BeautifulMind@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

23k is the max annual contribution

If you're over 50, you can put $30,500 in your 401k, the extra $7500 per year is called a 'catch-up contribution'

[–] aubeynarf@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

wait, how do I get >$400k a year into tax advantaged accounts?

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 months ago

I have no idea. You can do about 30k for 401k with catch up contributions and another 8k in ira with catch up. Your employer can put in another 49k maximum. That's not even 100k. Hsa is a backdoor Ira, so there's 8.3k for a family. I guess it's the rule that allows a 529 to become an ira now, depending on the state you can put 200-500k in one, but that's a lifetime limit not annual.

[–] froost@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

I started looking into it, found cash balance plans that allow very high contributions to tax advantaged retirement accounts. However looks like something that is not available to the vast majority.