Aren't 401ks technically a Collectivist Scheme?

[AuH20]

Somehow in the name of security we've been forcefed this lie. Extract revenue from both the employee and the employer over an extended period of time. so they can invest in mutual funds or company stock? And penalize them severely if they attempt to remove the money from the system before they're 59.5 years old. Am I wrong here? If I remember correctly, if you want to voluntarily leave a casino with your cash in hand, you are allowed to do so.

[LDA]

Well, yeah. It's forcing you to put money away for retirement, and the employer often has to contribute as well. Then, the government gets to take out a huge portion of it if you want to withdraw. It's a farce.

[Elwar]

It's better than Social Security...plus when people want to vote for laws to go after Wall Street...they're voting against their own retirement.

[Mini-Me]

Well, isn't the "farce" the whole trap of income tax and capital gains tax in the first place? I was always under the impression that the 401k is just a small loophole that the government has been "kind and benevolent" enough to construct for us, where we can bypass some of the ordinary taxes so long as we abide by a few conditions...you know, so we don't "abuse" the privilege they so kindly handed us. :rolleyes: As far as employers go, are any actually forced by law to offer 401k matching, or is that benefit a free market supply-and-demand thing to attract talent?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

401K's are entirely voluntary (For the employee....not sure about employer -- however, if indeed involuntary by the employeer then yes, it would be Collectivism and a breach of liberty). The contract is stipulated before engaging in a 401K and it is entirely up to the individual if they wish to partake. Secondly, Collectivism isn't inherently about groups, it's about involuntary associations and actions conducted on the whole for the "greater good", and other such utilitarian notions. Do not also confuse utilitarianism for the marginal utility theory.

Though, my limited understanding...doesn't the State have something to do with 401K's though? Or is it only between employer and employee?

[AuH20]

Also, let's just say there is a proverbial exodus of the markets. Who's to say if the fund you're invested in, drags its feet and you're the last one out? All the big fish can get out before your investments are destroyed? Am I wrong here? If the masters of the universe want to implode everything, we're basically at their mercy? Right?

[AuH20]

401K's are entirely voluntary (For the employee....not sure about employer -- however, if indeed involuntary by the employeer then yes, it would be Collectivism and a breach of liberty). The contract is stipulated before engaging in a 401K and it is entirely up to the individual if they wish to partake. Secondly, Collectivism isn't inherently about groups, it's about involuntary associations and actions conducted on the whole for the "greater good", and other such utilitarian notions. Do not also confuse utilitarianism for the marginal utility theory.

Though, my limited understanding...doesn't the State have something to do with 401K's though? Or is it only between employer and employee?


Are they entirely? I thought there is a stipulation enforced by some companies where you have a choice of putting forth the minimum payment, but participation is mandatory? Employees can forego the entire system completely?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Are they entirely? I thought there is a stipulation in some companies where you have a choice of putting forth the minimum payment, but participation is mandatory? Employees can forego the entire system completely?

I'm not sure, but you would have to agree to the stipulations of the contract before you entered employment. If one term of employment were that you would be required to purchase a 401K and it laid out the terms, then that would be acceptable as it would be again, entirely voluntary. Private businesses can set the guidelines for employment.

However, I don't know much about 401K's, but I do know it isn't involuntary (For employment in the US). The previous jobs I held before joining the military, and even in the military there was no requirement to have a 401k and money was not being siphoned off for the purpose of a 401k. Now, this isn't to say that I happened to make less money than I would have otherwise because of others who partook in this. Then again, I always had the option to open my own business.

As for the employer I have no idea of the requirements, however, I do know there are countless restrictions, regulations, and requirements to create a business, which is ludicrous on it's face. Another reason that just shows how we do not have private property.

[brandon]

Are they entirely? I thought there is a stipulation in some companies where you have a choice of putting forth the minimum payment, but participation is mandatory? Employees can forego the entire system completely?

I've never heard of this. And even if it were the case, it's not mandatory that you work for this company.


and +1 to mini-me's post. That sums it all up.

[AuH20]

Well, isn't the "farce" the whole trap of income tax and capital gains tax in the first place? I was always under the impression that the 401k is just a small loophole that the government has been "kind and benevolent" enough to construct for us, where we can bypass some of the ordinary taxes so long as we abide by a few conditions...you know, so we don't "abuse" the privilege they so kindly handed us. :rolleyes: As far as employers go, are any actually forced by law to offer 401k matching, or is that benefit a free market supply-and-demand thing to attract talent?

Good post. But have you heard the rumblings of merging 401k/IRA funds with that of the distressed Social Security pool? :D It made the news last year.

http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/3957

[angelatc]

Somehow in the name of security we've been forcefed this lie. Extract revenue from both the employee and the employer over an extended period of time. so they can invest in mutual funds or company stock? And penalize them severely if they attempt to remove the money from the system before they're 59.5 years old. Am I wrong here? If I remember correctly, if you want to voluntarily leave a casino with your cash in hand, you are allowed to do so.

So don't sign up if you don't want to play by the rules. It's a contract. Don't sign it.

Is there anything in the world that we don't bitch about?

[angelatc]

Are they entirely? I thought there is a stipulation enforced by some companies where you have a choice of putting forth the minimum payment, but participation is mandatory? Employees can forego the entire system completely?

Duh - yes.

And even if there were such employers, the answer is equally simple - don't fucking work there if you don't like the fucking benefits package.

[AuH20]

Duh - yes.

And even if there were such employers, the answer is equally simple - don't fucking work there if you don't like the fucking benefits package.

Actually, I have no problem with the benefits package. I rarely if ever use them. But I was automatically enrolled (more and more companies are adopting this model) 6 years ago with no notification, other than my contribution level. Of course, you could say I should have done my due dilligence and discovered the nature of the program. But now I'm trapped in this hamster wheel until age 60. I'm not going to extract any money from the 401k fund but, given the current state of things. I'm not too confident it's going to be worth anything in the long run..

[bobbyw24]

Aren't Ron Paul Forums Collectivist??

[Brian4Liberty]

401(k) plans are entirely voluntary up to this point.


Well, isn't the "farce" the whole trap of income tax and capital gains tax in the first place? I was always under the impression that the 401k is just a small loophole that the government has been "kind and benevolent" enough to construct for us, where we can bypass some of the ordinary taxes so long as we abide by a few conditions...you know, so we don't "abuse" the privilege they so kindly handed us. :rolleyes: As far as employers go, are any actually forced by law to offer 401k matching, or is that benefit a free market supply-and-demand thing to attract talent?

This. A 401(k) is a tax deferral loophole. Company matching is not mandatory, but if they do, it is an additional bonus. It's a government attempt to engineer some long term savings.


Also, let's just say there is a proverbial exodus of the markets. Who's to say if the fund you're invested in, drags its feet and you're the last one out? All the big fish can get out before your investments are destroyed? Am I wrong here? If the masters of the universe want to implode everything, we're basically at their mercy? Right?

And it's also a government attempt to engineer a stock market bubble/pyramid scheme. It is designed for long term savings, and they usually make it hard to move assets. There is a built in advantage to the non-401(k) day traders and inside traders. You get to dump your money in the casino, but you can't play like most of the players.

Many companies have a ton of options these days in the 401(k)s. There is usually a cash or money market option if you don't want to be in the stock market. Some companies 401(k) options are extremely limited. In those cases you may want to skip the 401(k) entirely, especially if there is no company match.