the 401k is going away!

[Imma]

@solon ,
I would nudge your friends to find out if they believe some other questionable things.
1) Have you heard of Chemtrails
2) Who won the 2020 election?

If the answer to either of these questions concerns you, then you'll know that they're getting information from sources that are in the business of scaring people.  Personally, I think you should try to correct these people, but you can also just roll eyes and walk away.

This is terrible, but also so true.

It's like there's another virus that's causing brain rot and it's spreading and infecting people. I mean, I've always known people who believed in vague conspiracies but these days believing in one conspiracy almost always means you believe in 5 other ones and support certain political candidates. It's no longer just the "oddballs" but a growing movement of zombies with rotten brains who believe in the weirdest things. Stuff that you couldn't even make up.

We have a pretty secure pension system in my country (as in - pension funds are regulated by the national bank and need to prove their financial stability ever year) and on top of that we have social security, too. As long as I can remember, I've heard people say "when we're old, there will be no pensions and social security" and use that as an excuse to spend all their money. It didn't even make sense to me as a kid, let alone now. If you truly believed that, shouldn't you rush to pay off your house? Those same people of course believe that stocks are fraud too, but they should at least open a savings account.  I've heard that so long that several people who used to say that are now retired with very good pensions.

[Monocle Money Mouth]

@solon ,
I would nudge your friends to find out if they believe some other questionable things.
1) Have you heard of Chemtrails
2) Who won the 2020 election?

If the answer to either of these questions concerns you, then you'll know that they're getting information from sources that are in the business of scaring people.  Personally, I think you should try to correct these people, but you can also just roll eyes and walk away.

This is terrible, but also so true.

It's like there's another virus that's causing brain rot and it's spreading and infecting people. I mean, I've always known people who believed in vague conspiracies but these days believing in one conspiracy almost always means you believe in 5 other ones and support certain political candidates. It's no longer just the "oddballs" but a growing movement of zombies with rotten brains who believe in the weirdest things. Stuff that you couldn't even make up.

We have a pretty secure pension system in my country (as in - pension funds are regulated by the national bank and need to prove their financial stability ever year) and on top of that we have social security, too. As long as I can remember, I've heard people say "when we're old, there will be no pensions and social security" and use that as an excuse to spend all their money. It didn't even make sense to me as a kid, let alone now. If you truly believed that, shouldn't you rush to pay off your house? Those same people of course believe that stocks are fraud too, but they should at least open a savings account.  I've heard that so long that several people who used to say that are now retired with very good pensions.

Anecdotally, I can confirm that once someone believes one conspiracy, they are more receptive to believing in other conspiracies. My old man is a good example of this. He's always been a UFO, bigfoot, secret government base believer. More recently, he's floated the idea the moon landing was a hoax. I've heard him talking about new world order and illuminati stuff too.

He lives on a drip feed of outrage and fear from Fox News and republican chain emails. When he's not watching Fox, he's watching pseudoscience and pseudohistory shows on the History Channel. He treats Ancient Aliens like it's thoroughly researched science journalism. He has no bullshit filter and no idea how the world actually works. If it sounds like a good idea and he agrees with it, it's the truth for him. Sadly, there is a large swath of the population that approaches the world like this. Thinking is painful for most people. Feeling a strong emotion is a substitute for a well formed thought. They're more than happy to substitute critical thinking for parroting something they saw on TV, the internet, or a bumper sticker if it makes them angry or elated.

In 2016, he was convinced if Clinton was elected, she was going to steal everyone's 401(k). He gave no explanation for how this would happen. He probably read it in a chain email and that was good enough for him.

[kite]

^
all true.
But it's a bipartisan phenomenon, or rather, it transcends partisan politics.
My favorite lefty was certain that his daily weed habit was safer/more effective than vaccination at protecting his immune system. When he finally did catch the Delta variant last fall, it nearly killed him.  But he's a vegan, sees a chiropractor and "knows things" that the mainstream media, WHO and CDC & FDA are keeping secret.
I just watched the "Bad Vegan" mini-series and it occurred to me that the same kind of naïve stupidity could be simple nutritional deficiency. Because my friend ditched his lucrative career to open a vegan eatery and the parallels are uncanny.

Anyway, lots of reasons people think weird stuff or make choices counter to their own best interests.  "Predictably Irrational" by Dan Ariely is spot on, even going so far as to show how most of us are not immune.

 

[achvfi]

^
all true.
But it's a bipartisan phenomenon, or rather, it transcends partisan politics.
My favorite lefty was certain that his daily weed habit was safer/more effective than vaccination at protecting his immune system. When he finally did catch the Delta variant last fall, it nearly killed him.  But he's a vegan, sees a chiropractor and "knows things" that the mainstream media, WHO and CDC & FDA are keeping secret.
I just watched the "Bad Vegan" mini-series and it occurred to me that the same kind of naïve stupidity could be simple nutritional deficiency. Because my friend ditched his lucrative career to open a vegan eatery and the parallels are uncanny.

Anyway, lots of reasons people think weird stuff or make choices counter to their own best interests.  "Predictably Irrational" by Dan Ariely is spot on, even going so far as to show how most of us are not immune.

I like your post. So true.

[Imma]

^
all true.
But it's a bipartisan phenomenon, or rather, it transcends partisan politics.
My favorite lefty was certain that his daily weed habit was safer/more effective than vaccination at protecting his immune system. When he finally did catch the Delta variant last fall, it nearly killed him.  But he's a vegan, sees a chiropractor and "knows things" that the mainstream media, WHO and CDC & FDA are keeping secret.
I just watched the "Bad Vegan" mini-series and it occurred to me that the same kind of naïve stupidity could be simple nutritional deficiency. Because my friend ditched his lucrative career to open a vegan eatery and the parallels are uncanny.

Anyway, lots of reasons people think weird stuff or make choices counter to their own best interests.  "Predictably Irrational" by Dan Ariely is spot on, even going so far as to show how most of us are not immune.

I think it's actually pretty crazy how much the traditional far left and the traditional far right overlap these days. In my city we've been having a lot of demonstrations and protests by a group of conspiracy nutters (basically a mixture of climate hoax, Q and great reset folks) and there are as many yoga hippie tye dye types as there skinheads. I'm sure the hippies were also against vaccination 10 or 20 years ago, so their opposition against Covid vaccination is nothing unexpected, but until a few years ago they wouldn't want to be found dead marching with members of far right organizations. And likewise neo-nazi's absolutely used to loathe crunchy types. Now it's all just one big conspiracy family.

[getsorted]

^
all true.
But it's a bipartisan phenomenon, or rather, it transcends partisan politics.
My favorite lefty was certain that his daily weed habit was safer/more effective than vaccination at protecting his immune system. When he finally did catch the Delta variant last fall, it nearly killed him.  But he's a vegan, sees a chiropractor and "knows things" that the mainstream media, WHO and CDC & FDA are keeping secret.
I just watched the "Bad Vegan" mini-series and it occurred to me that the same kind of naïve stupidity could be simple nutritional deficiency. Because my friend ditched his lucrative career to open a vegan eatery and the parallels are uncanny.

Anyway, lots of reasons people think weird stuff or make choices counter to their own best interests.  "Predictably Irrational" by Dan Ariely is spot on, even going so far as to show how most of us are not immune.

I think it's actually pretty crazy how much the traditional far left and the traditional far right overlap these days. In my city we've been having a lot of demonstrations and protests by a group of conspiracy nutters (basically a mixture of climate hoax, Q and great reset folks) and there are as many yoga hippie tye dye types as there skinheads. I'm sure the hippies were also against vaccination 10 or 20 years ago, so their opposition against Covid vaccination is nothing unexpected, but until a few years ago they wouldn't want to be found dead marching with members of far right organizations. And likewise neo-nazi's absolutely used to loathe crunchy types. Now it's all just one big conspiracy family.

Same where I am. There has been a long overlap between the natural healers/health food store goers/chiropractic people and the very far right the home birth/Christian patriarchy/homeschool crowd.

[Michael in ABQ]

People like conspiracy theories because they give the illusion that someone is in control. Even if it's a shadowy evil organization bent on world domination.

The reality that there are millions of people making individual decisions and no one is on control is frightening.


Also, everybody likes to feel like they're "in the know" about something. By virtue of being on this forum all of us know that it's better to choose investing money in index funds rather than spending it on a $60,000 pickup truck for a 30-mile daily commute to an office job. We know that saving your money and investing now rather than spending it all on consumerism is the better path. That's the same feeling that someone gets who thinks twisting their spine around will cure cancer - and that the $100,000 course of chemotherapy and radiation won't.

[TomTX]

I'm not too worried about 401k being seized by the government and stolen to pay for other people's retirement.  However, I'm pretty meh on the 401k as implemented.  The tax advantages are nice, BUT with the crazy high fees that are charged on them (with every employer I've ever had one), when I look at growth over time, it's advantage over just saving outside of the 401k is questionable.

Really? Our 401k is with Fidelity and has a 0.02% expense ratio for FXAIX and 0.04% for FSPSX. Seems insignificantly higher than the taxable brokerage.

It really depends on the provider. Buying VTSAX in my Transamerica 401k is 0.79%.

But I still do it because it will still be a good deal, probably:
https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/401%28k%29#Expensive_or_mediocre_choices

Just as a heads up, your employer has a fiduciary duty with regard to the 401k plans - actually that started years ago.

When it passed, I started agitating (using the term fiduciary duty and showing examples of FAR lower cost alternatives) and got them to replace plenty of high-cost funds replaced with equivalent low-cost funds.

[TomTX]

My thoughts are, that it won't be an outright "taking" of the 401k.  But it'll be done in stealthy ways -- such as reducing the value of your SS benefits if you have "other income" than SS. Or increasing the cost of Medicare premiums even more, if you have "enough income."  They already do this -- and I expect it to get worse (for those who have saved.)

You can thank Ronald Reagan for making SS income taxable.

[PDXTabs]

My thoughts are, that it won't be an outright "taking" of the 401k.  But it'll be done in stealthy ways -- such as reducing the value of your SS benefits if you have "other income" than SS. Or increasing the cost of Medicare premiums even more, if you have "enough income."  They already do this -- and I expect it to get worse (for those who have saved.)

You can thank Ronald Reagan for making SS income taxable.

You really shouldn't stop there. Every time that the Democrats held the trifecta they could have changed it back, or indexed it to inflation. But yes, Reagan too.

[PDXTabs]

I'm not too worried about 401k being seized by the government and stolen to pay for other people's retirement.  However, I'm pretty meh on the 401k as implemented.  The tax advantages are nice, BUT with the crazy high fees that are charged on them (with every employer I've ever had one), when I look at growth over time, it's advantage over just saving outside of the 401k is questionable.

Really? Our 401k is with Fidelity and has a 0.02% expense ratio for FXAIX and 0.04% for FSPSX. Seems insignificantly higher than the taxable brokerage.

It really depends on the provider. Buying VTSAX in my Transamerica 401k is 0.79%.

But I still do it because it will still be a good deal, probably:
https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/401%28k%29#Expensive_or_mediocre_choices

Just as a heads up, your employer has a fiduciary duty with regard to the 401k plans - actually that started years ago.

When it passed, I started agitating (using the term fiduciary duty and showing examples of FAR lower cost alternatives) and got them to replace plenty of high-cost funds replaced with equivalent low-cost funds.

I'm aware. For a while my boss and I were agitating to get it fixed. The CEO likes Transamerica, or some such. There are better providers with better fees. Eventually I'll leave and roll it into an IRA.

[rmorris50]

Answering the OP, I think it comes down to control, which is what I think your friends are really objecting  to. Everyone wants to control your money and your behavior around money. We could list a million examples here how businesses and governments do that. Putting money in a 401(k) is giving someone else control. If your money is in a bank account or after tax brokerage you essentially have no one controlling your money or restricting your access to it, and don’t have to ask permission and/or pay a penalty to touch it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BlueHouse]

People like conspiracy theories because they give the illusion that someone is in control. Even if it's a shadowy evil organization bent on world domination.

The reality that there are millions of people making individual decisions and no one is on control is frightening.


Also, everybody likes to feel like they're "in the know" about something. By virtue of being on this forum all of us know that it's better to choose investing money in index funds rather than spending it on a $60,000 pickup truck for a 30-mile daily commute to an office job. We know that saving your money and investing now rather than spending it all on consumerism is the better path. That's the same feeling that someone gets who thinks twisting their spine around will cure cancer - and that the $100,000 course of chemotherapy and radiation won't.

100% true.  Also applies to religion.  Makes people comfortable. 

[lifeisshort123]

To me, it is absurd that Social Security is taxed.  I doubt any politician will want to take that on, because to make it not taxed would likely have to raise the payroll tax. 

It scares me how little action our leaders have been willing to take to reform and ensure at least another 100 years of solvency for Social Security and Medicare.  These are vital programs, that are key to American Society.  And there are so many fixes to these programs. 

This is one of the more fun games you can play to “solve social security” for example.  http://socialsecuritygame.actuary.org/

The challenge with these programs is that while there may be “easy” answers, they are challenging political answers.

Same problem with any meaningful healthcare reform, the answers in many respects could be easy, but they have significant political trade offs.  Just ask the republicans who tried various AHCA proposals in 2017 or Bill Clinton in 1993, to say nothing of Harry Truman.

[NorthernIkigai]

Answering the OP, I think it comes down to control, which is what I think your friends are really objecting  to. Everyone wants to control your money and your behavior around money. We could list a million examples here how businesses and governments do that. Putting money in a 401(k) is giving someone else control. If your money is in a bank account or after tax brokerage you essentially have no one controlling your money or restricting your access to it, and don’t have to ask permission and/or pay a penalty to touch it.

Yeah, this is where I land.

In other contexts (vaccinations, etc.), I’m very inclined to trust the system and authorities in general. But when it comes to our equivalent of 401k investing, it just doesn’t seem worth it:

The system is such that our equivalent of social security should give you the basic income you need in retirement. I’ve got more than 20 years to go until I can tap into this, and my calculated retirement income is already more than 1,000 / month (in today’s euros, indexed to keep up with inflation). Not too bad as an addition to my stash, although it will come a bit late in life.

If I wanted to save independently into an equivalent of an 401k, I’d get no matching from my employer, I would get a tax benefit but if would be less than it was years ago, I could still only access the money at the official retirement age, and then I couldn’t even get it out at my preferred rate but rather monthly during 2–10 years. The system is really geared towards people who want to travel a bit or otherwise have higher expenses at the start of their retirement in their late 60’s, and towards no one else! Finally, I’d be stuck in a relationship with a particular pension insurance company for the whole length of the saving and pay out of these funds.

Just the fact that the rules for this have been changed (politically) something like four times in twenty years, and always for the worse and sometimes even retroactively, makes me think “what the heck — plain vanilla index funds and a few stocks it is, then”. The small tax advantage just isn’t worth it.

[greg_atlanta]

sounds like a crypto bro argument

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Answering the OP, I think it comes down to control, which is what I think your friends are really objecting  to. Everyone wants to control your money and your behavior around money. We could list a million examples here how businesses and governments do that. Putting money in a 401(k) is giving someone else control. If your money is in a bank account or after tax brokerage you essentially have no one controlling your money or restricting your access to it, and don’t have to ask permission and/or pay a penalty to touch it.

Yeah, this is where I land.

In other contexts (vaccinations, etc.), I’m very inclined to trust the system and authorities in general. But when it comes to our equivalent of 401k investing, it just doesn’t seem worth it:

The system is such that our equivalent of social security should give you the basic income you need in retirement. I’ve got more than 20 years to go until I can tap into this, and my calculated retirement income is already more than 1,000 / month (in today’s euros, indexed to keep up with inflation). Not too bad as an addition to my stash, although it will come a bit late in life.

If I wanted to save independently into an equivalent of an 401k, I’d get no matching from my employer, I would get a tax benefit but if would be less than it was years ago, I could still only access the money at the official retirement age, and then I couldn’t even get it out at my preferred rate but rather monthly during 2–10 years. The system is really geared towards people who want to travel a bit or otherwise have higher expenses at the start of their retirement in their late 60’s, and towards no one else! Finally, I’d be stuck in a relationship with a particular pension insurance company for the whole length of the saving and pay out of these funds.

Just the fact that the rules for this have been changed (politically) something like four times in twenty years, and always for the worse and sometimes even retroactively, makes me think “what the heck — plain vanilla index funds and a few stocks it is, then”. The small tax advantage just isn’t worth it.

Could you please elaborate on what these rule changes have been?

[BlueHouse]

To me, it is absurd that Social Security is taxed.  I doubt any politician will want to take that on, because to make it not taxed would likely have to raise the payroll tax. 

+1

Also, the absurdity of their being a cap on income that is taxed for SS.  I wonder if the majority of people who cry when the possibility of raising the cap even understand what it means.  I remember when I hit that level of income and I felt like Scrooge McDuck jumping in piles of money.  It was a fantastic way to suddenly start saving enormous amounts of money.  I benefited hugely off of that policy, but I also felt like "this can't be real/legal/moral/etc".  Honestly, I wouldn't even mind if people got 5 years of the tax cap, and then would have the tax kick in again.  Those 5 years of extra income made a big difference in my wealth, but it really is just incredibly regressive. 

[rmorris50]

I think 401(k)s really only financially benefit those with high incomes who can take advantage of the tax arbitrage. However, the behavioral aspects of 401(k)s can be very powerful over time, if you can max them out and force yourself to live on your lower net paycheck. But the risk is very high for many people of not diligently saving after tax dollars if they forgo participating in a 401(k).

I myself for more than two decades maxed out 401(k)s and deferred comp plans, so I’m very retirement rich. But I neglected saving a lot of after tax dollars. Only about 10 percent of our NW is in after tax dollars sitting in a bank. The rest is in retirement accounts and our house.

So to retire early I now have to figure out how to tap that other money efficiently. Which I know the options, it’s a matter of which path.

But I would still encourage people to max out retirement accounts. I’d rather have my problem than have tried to save after tax but not been able to keep my hands off it. But I do cringe inside at all the control the gov and employers have over my money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TomTX]

My thoughts are, that it won't be an outright "taking" of the 401k.  But it'll be done in stealthy ways -- such as reducing the value of your SS benefits if you have "other income" than SS. Or increasing the cost of Medicare premiums even more, if you have "enough income."  They already do this -- and I expect it to get worse (for those who have saved.)

You can thank Ronald Reagan for making SS income taxable.

You really shouldn't stop there. Every time that the Democrats held the trifecta they could have changed it back, or indexed it to inflation. But yes, Reagan too.

Nah, gotta have 60 votes in the Senate which is far rarer - and we have two rather wavery, highly self-serving Democrats with Manchin and Sinema

[NorthernIkigai]

Answering the OP, I think it comes down to control, which is what I think your friends are really objecting  to. Everyone wants to control your money and your behavior around money. We could list a million examples here how businesses and governments do that. Putting money in a 401(k) is giving someone else control. If your money is in a bank account or after tax brokerage you essentially have no one controlling your money or restricting your access to it, and don’t have to ask permission and/or pay a penalty to touch it.

Yeah, this is where I land.

In other contexts (vaccinations, etc.), I’m very inclined to trust the system and authorities in general. But when it comes to our equivalent of 401k investing, it just doesn’t seem worth it:

The system is such that our equivalent of social security should give you the basic income you need in retirement. I’ve got more than 20 years to go until I can tap into this, and my calculated retirement income is already more than 1,000 / month (in today’s euros, indexed to keep up with inflation). Not too bad as an addition to my stash, although it will come a bit late in life.

If I wanted to save independently into an equivalent of an 401k, I’d get no matching from my employer, I would get a tax benefit but if would be less than it was years ago, I could still only access the money at the official retirement age, and then I couldn’t even get it out at my preferred rate but rather monthly during 2–10 years. The system is really geared towards people who want to travel a bit or otherwise have higher expenses at the start of their retirement in their late 60’s, and towards no one else! Finally, I’d be stuck in a relationship with a particular pension insurance company for the whole length of the saving and pay out of these funds.

Just the fact that the rules for this have been changed (politically) something like four times in twenty years, and always for the worse and sometimes even retroactively, makes me think “what the heck — plain vanilla index funds and a few stocks it is, then”. The small tax advantage just isn’t worth it.

Could you please elaborate on what these rule changes have been?

Those I outlined above: changes in how the tax advantage is calculated, in how much you can save this way, in when you can access the money (specifically tying it to the general retirement age, which has been raised a lot since then), in deciding that you have to get the money in monthly instalments during 2–10 years, etc. Some of these things have been tweaked several times. They are all codified in law, and hence made by politicians.

This kind of voluntary retirement saving used to be quite attractive (except for the even higher fees that used to be charged back then, before competition drove down the prices), but it has been spoiled over the years by these changes. Unsurprisingly, it has become much less popular among both customers and financial service providers than it used to be, whereas the general trend and interest in investing has gone up during the same period.

[NorthernIkigai]

sounds like a crypto bro argument

Would you mind elaborating?

[NorthernIkigai]

I’d rather have my problem than have tried to save after tax but not been able to keep my hands off it.

Aah, I don’t have that problem (or at least I haven’t over the past decade and a half — maybe I’ll go nuts yet and go buy a Ferrari/Tesla/Miata?). I very much consider this my retirement savings.

I just disagree wildly with the government on when my retirement should start: the system thinks 2044 at the earliest and preferably a few years later, I’m still hoping some time this decade.

[ixtap]

I’d rather have my problem than have tried to save after tax but not been able to keep my hands off it.

Aah, I don’t have that problem (or at least I haven’t over the past decade and a half — maybe I’ll go nuts yet and go buy a Ferrari/Tesla/Miata?). I very much consider this my retirement savings.

I just disagree wildly with the government on when my retirement should start: the system thinks 2044 at the earliest and preferably a few years later, I’m still hoping some time this decade.

They have built in sooo many options to start whenever you want with just a little effort to understand the caveats. SEPP, Roth ladder, access to Roth contributions...

[rmorris50]

I’d rather have my problem than have tried to save after tax but not been able to keep my hands off it.

Aah, I don’t have that problem (or at least I haven’t over the past decade and a half — maybe I’ll go nuts yet and go buy a Ferrari/Tesla/Miata?). I very much consider this my retirement savings.

I just disagree wildly with the government on when my retirement should start: the system thinks 2044 at the earliest and preferably a few years later, I’m still hoping some time this decade.

They have built in sooo many options to start whenever you want with just a little effort to understand the caveats. SEPP, Roth ladder, access to Roth contributions...

Agree with the many options, but i wouldn’t minimize the effort and modeling it can take to understand the options and their probably of success. I have a spreadsheet that dynamically models all the options on when and how I can access my money and the living expenses I need to cover. I’ve had this spreadsheet for about 5 years now and I constantly modify it and update it. So determining the most efficient way to access your money to retire early isn’t as simple as you might think.

Or out another way, planning out the deaccumulation of assets is pretty complex.

Good news I have a pretty good idea how I’ll access my money once I decide to pull the trigger, thanks to the insights my spreadsheet has been providing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthernIkigai]

I’d rather have my problem than have tried to save after tax but not been able to keep my hands off it.

Aah, I don’t have that problem (or at least I haven’t over the past decade and a half — maybe I’ll go nuts yet and go buy a Ferrari/Tesla/Miata?). I very much consider this my retirement savings.

I just disagree wildly with the government on when my retirement should start: the system thinks 2044 at the earliest and preferably a few years later, I’m still hoping some time this decade.

They have built in sooo many options to start whenever you want with just a little effort to understand the caveats. SEPP, Roth ladder, access to Roth contributions...

As mentioned above (“our equivalent of social security” and “the equivalent of a 401k”), I am not in the US.

[Turtle]

My thoughts are, that it won't be an outright "taking" of the 401k.  But it'll be done in stealthy ways -- such as reducing the value of your SS benefits if you have "other income" than SS. Or increasing the cost of Medicare premiums even more, if you have "enough income."  They already do this -- and I expect it to get worse (for those who have saved.)

You can thank Ronald Reagan for making SS income taxable.

You really shouldn't stop there. Every time that the Democrats held the trifecta they could have changed it back, or indexed it to inflation. But yes, Reagan too.

Nah, gotta have 60 votes in the Senate which is far rarer - and we have two rather wavery, highly self-serving Democrats with Manchin and Sinema

Being a Democrat who votes Republican won't save them from the Fox News/email chain outrage folks.  Just ask Claire McCaskill.  I sure wish Missouri still had her instead of the international embarrassment that is Hawley, but I digress.

[PDXTabs]

My thoughts are, that it won't be an outright "taking" of the 401k.  But it'll be done in stealthy ways -- such as reducing the value of your SS benefits if you have "other income" than SS. Or increasing the cost of Medicare premiums even more, if you have "enough income."  They already do this -- and I expect it to get worse (for those who have saved.)

You can thank Ronald Reagan for making SS income taxable.

You really shouldn't stop there. Every time that the Democrats held the trifecta they could have changed it back, or indexed it to inflation. But yes, Reagan too.

Nah, gotta have 60 votes in the Senate which is far rarer - and we have two rather wavery, highly self-serving Democrats with Manchin and Sinema

While I'm not the Senate Parliamentarian I don't see why this isn't a budgetary taxing+spending item that could get passed through reconciliation with 50 votes.

[Imma]

I’d rather have my problem than have tried to save after tax but not been able to keep my hands off it.

Aah, I don’t have that problem (or at least I haven’t over the past decade and a half — maybe I’ll go nuts yet and go buy a Ferrari/Tesla/Miata?). I very much consider this my retirement savings.

I just disagree wildly with the government on when my retirement should start: the system thinks 2044 at the earliest and preferably a few years later, I’m still hoping some time this decade.

They have built in sooo many options to start whenever you want with just a little effort to understand the caveats. SEPP, Roth ladder, access to Roth contributions...

As mentioned above (“our equivalent of social security” and “the equivalent of a 401k”), I am not in the US.

It's a big issue in the NL as well (assuming you're elsewhere in Europe). I still used it because my employer at the time didn't offer any pension anyway, so it's better than nothing, but it's not ideal. This is just a little extra tax-free money that I can access if I'm still alive at retirement age. One "advantage" here is that you can access it early if you are permanently disabled, and I have a health issue which is bad enough that I could probably claim to be permanently disabled at the moment I'm going to FIRE.