Quote:
Originally posted by ltl/fb
re:2, 401(k) limits have already been raised in the last 5 years by more than the 4% of the SS wage base -- for people 50+, by more than 10%. Just for context.
|
I know. I thought that was the first step in a good direction.
Quote:
|
And, for the people who are least financially secure, allowing access in case of emergency will pretty much destroy their retirement savings, even if "emergency" is defined more stringently than "hardship" is now.
|
I understand that, but there needs to be some liberalization even if it does leave those of really bad judgment at the tender mercies of social security only. There's a huge resistance to tying up money with little chance of access before the prescibed age. If we do loosen that a bit, I think the resistance will drop, and investment will rise. Besides, the "least financially secure" aren't in 401k's anyway.
Quote:
|
And, as a question, would you require people to use this emergency access to pay off creditors in a bankruptcy?
|
Nope. So, obviously, we can't make it a safe haven like Florida homes have become - a place for the wealthy to hide their huge assets - but at the same time, those funds can't be hanging out there for the collection firms of the world to salivate over. Happy medium, somehow.
