SECURE Act

[Smallsteps]

I guess it is law now. This is the provision that will require a careful plan if you have managed to save enough for 30-ish years of retirement (in tax advantaged retirement accounts) and unfortunately pass on early in your retirement. The biggest problem might be a lack of awareness for non-spousal heirs which might be a problem even if you have managed to convert your pretax retirement accounts to Roth. I think the penalty is 50% if all the funds are not removed by the 10 year point.

It could make saving in taxable equity investments for heirs a little more attractive, although legislation could be passed to take away the stepped up basis....

That is a good point that good, bad or indifferent all the changes to plans and rules can be changed again.
Usually I would assume if the government thinks there is a big enough pool of non spousal heirs that will end up paying more taxes on money left in IRAs.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

I think they should have more savings opportunities for people without a 401k. I am one such person who doesn't have a 401k. I have been saving since 2006 the maximum in a Roth IRA. I did not have a 401k during my years working because I was mostly a temp for 4 years. I had health benefits from my DH and being able to buy from temp agency. Plus seriously I was 22-25ish and I needed crap with health insurance. That being said I have about $150k in my Roth IRA after investing and saving this entire time. It just was hard to save in a tax advantageous way without a 401k. During the same time frame 2006-2019 my DH has amassed over $525k in his 401k plus his Roth $325k for max contributions from 2006-2019. So he's the bulk of our retirement savings. If I had chosen to work and had a job that offered and matched we'd have $2 M+ in retirement accounts probably. But at the same time maybe not because maybe we wouldn't have been saving.

[bjl584]

I've been seeing this pop up recently.
I haven't really researched it enough to know the details.
It doesn't seem like anything is going to change from a personal perspective for me for the time being.

[Petunia 100]

Maybe a little off topic but I've been thinking about this. We have a retirement saving crisis! Why doesn't the company match ever INCREASE??

I've been working for 29 years and in all that time its always been matched 100% up to 3% then 50% up to 6% in my job (I know different everywhere).

How about companies having to increase their MATCH periodically! What about that????

Companies don't have to offer a match at all.

[Petunia 100]

I think they should have more savings opportunities for people without a 401k. I am one such person who doesn't have a 401k. I have been saving since 2006 the maximum in a Roth IRA. I did not have a 401k during my years working because I was mostly a temp for 4 years. I had health benefits from my DH and being able to buy from temp agency. Plus seriously I was 22-25ish and I needed crap with health insurance. That being said I have about $150k in my Roth IRA after investing and saving this entire time. It just was hard to save in a tax advantageous way without a 401k. During the same time frame 2006-2019 my DH has amassed over $525k in his 401k plus his Roth $325k for max contributions from 2006-2019. So he's the bulk of our retirement savings. If I had chosen to work and had a job that offered and matched we'd have $2 M+ in retirement accounts probably. But at the same time maybe not because maybe we wouldn't have been saving.

I think that we should just do away with employer plans altogether and raise the IRA limits. We could still allow employers to match and even fund IRAs through payroll deduction.

[disneysteve]

I think that we should just do away with employer plans altogether and raise the IRA limits. We could still allow employers to match and even fund IRAs through payroll deduction.

Exactly. The same as for healthcare. Uncouple it from employment and let employers cover some or all of the costs as part of your total compensation plan.

[Smallsteps]

Exactly. The same as for healthcare. Uncouple it from employment and let employers cover some or all of the costs as part of your total compensation plan.

While in theory I would agree.............. however even when subsidized through employment so many people do not take advantage of plans /options that are offered to them NOW.

I have come to understand while there is a certain percentage of people whom will learn the retirement game and any changes and play it to their advantage........ most people simply do not play.
Even in employee healthcare many people do not know, research or care what plan they chose until their part of the bill shows up. Only the lowest premium unless they were burned before and then study up to not learn the hard way again. what is covered? what was the deductible and who is in network.

Far too many want someone else to take any risk and make any decisions regarding investments or healthcare.
It has been as old as time in the good old days when pensions were the norm, savvy investors knew that some running the pensions were corrupt or worse yet inept.

401ks were to enable employees to drive their OWN future but far too many WANT to leave the task with an employer.
Someone to blame that the available options were not good ... the match too small etc.

This is what has pushed so many into thinking a one size fits all approach would be better ....IMO a proposal designed by jealousy and greed, Mad that some worked the system to their advantage and some sat on the sidelines.