OHCHUTE

I'll let you mull your misfortunes with one more thought. Any money you put in a regular bank savings account is pretty much guaranteed to lag inflation, and probably by a minimum of 100 basis points (1%). So yes, you know exactly what's there, but the longer you leave it there, the less valuable it becomes to you. You can minimize the damage with laddered CDs and take advantage of times when rates are better than this current 1% on 5 year CD nonsense, but you're always losing. The point of liquid savings is to have enough money to meet short term needs where you don't need to worry about fluctuations in the balance of your higher returning, higher risk assets. People who got hurt most by the 2008 crash are the ones that had too much money in riskier stock assets (like all of their money) and then in early 2009 converted all of it to low paying savings accounts, where they left it until last year. People who had sufficient savings and a proper balance of stocks and bonds did nothing (unless they suffered a job loss) and are better now than they were then. I made out like a bandit from that downturn. I don't have any misfortunes. Yes most who didn't move out of stocks are about back to where they were, but you are missing the main point. The market value at distribution. You say you made out like a bandit, but that probably wasn't at retirement age. For instance taking your lump sum in 2007 would have been a lot better than taking in 2009 for that matter, or even now perhaps. No one knows what the maket will be when they want to take their distribution.

Because many others have tried and failed so far, so I'm taking the comic relief approach. At least a couple people got the joke, at least. OH so the joke is non government people are the ones need worry about details and you don't? How fun

I'm not seeking a formula. All varibles have been excluded including interest earned and inflation. So It should be pretty simple. If you put $300K in a cookie jar. How much will be there when you want to take the money. If you put $300K in an account with a broker that fluctuates how much will be there when you want to put your hands on it. If you can't tell me, then obviously it could be less than $300,000 Right? Do you want piece of mind, or do you want risk? Here's a delema: A check is coming and the person is going to owe nearly $350,000 in TAXES which wipes out completely the interest earned over 25 years including some of the principal invested. All I know is, I'd rather make money not lose money.

So instead of pointing out what you might think are errors just what are the eligablity of 403b? That's not what we're even talking about. Jeessh. We are talking about wether or not your stock market fluctuation retirment investment will be good, bad, the same as having money in your pocket at the time you need it. That's all. And it would seem to me the only way to do that is come up with an illustration. Now I tried that, and I'm not getting too much help. Taxes are not added to or deducted went funding your retirement account. It's just money in the accout and nothing happens to the value of the money until you put your hands on it. Right? So why not help with the conversation...

Well, other people have pointed out that you make a lot of assumptions or start with poor definitions which influence your analysis very heavily. I'd just like to address one, which you don't seem too sure of. A 401K is not really a "kind of account" in the way a savings accoung is a "kind of account." 401K really only speaks to the tax treatment of the account, not the kinds of investments which are in it. The savings account really speaks to the kind of investment which are in it. A 401k, depending on employer and plan sponsor, may include many kind of investments. One of those investment types may be a savings accoung. Often it is a money market account, but so are many of the savings accounts sold at retail banks these days, in my limited experience. It likely has a lot of other choices, too. But if you want to match your savings account and get the tax advantaged status of a 401k, which you don't seem to entirely comprehent, you can jsut select that option in your plan. Sure I agree there are choices within a retirement vehicle including money market, bond funds, stocks and even mutual funds. Clearly if you put your money in static money market earning an annual percentage the results to what I'm inquring about might be the same and that choice within a 401 could be best. I'm looking more closely to areas where there are market fluctuation at the time you want the money. For instance. Taking money out of retirment would have been much worse in 2009 that today. Money in the cookie jar is there when you need. The same mony you put in. Not so with investment. ...

You could have a perfectly written review where the reviewer never ever touched the product, tested it etc. What value might the review have if that were the case? As opposed to a sloopy typed review by a person who might not necessairly (sp?) have an excellent command drafting reviews, yet tested the item heavily in comparying similar items under the same circumstances. I'm not advocating lack of copyediting prior to publishing. I do agree that lack of attention to grammer and spelling does have a quelling effect for those who are not particularily interested in the content that may be overlooked by those really seeking the information, especially during a buying decision. But who in the hell writes like this any more. Younger generations seeing paragraphs, well written or not, don't get read.

There are special benefits to 403(b) not available to non gov't employees. Funny you sound so confident about that, yet I don't work for the government. I'm not sure who you work for but my understanding is that it's not for corporations. I could be wrong. How about self imployed minister! A 403(b) plan is a U.S. tax-advantaged retirement savings plan available for public education organizations, some non-profit employers (only Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3) organizations), cooperative hospital service organizations, and self-employed ministers in the United States. It has tax treatment similar to a 401(k) plan, especially after the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Look at your account, times it by 27.5%, deduct that amount and compare that will all your payments and you'll learn if right now it was a wise choice should you want the money right now. Cheers

Wrong. OBAMA claims to take guns, hence NRA says no we'll resist taking guns. NRA isn't the one wanting to take the guns. You go in circles. You've never bought guns or ammo so how would you know about any motivation in buying guns. BTW: did you buy your gun yet, OBAMA going to ban guns so you better go get one while you can if you can even find one to buy.

There are special benefits to 403(b) not available to non gov't employees.

No, that friend misinformed you. There are Roth 401ks becoming more widely available - they do not have the income limits of the Roth Ira. And long before I've seen 401ks that allow post tax contributions, though I always questioned the point of doing so. You'd be better off put that money into a traditional ira and converting it into a Roth. OHCHUTE made numerous errors in his arguments in this thread (starting with, when's the last time you could get 3% on a savings account - roughly 5 years ago.) But the main one he makes that is necessary to make his argument is when he says that the 300k in the 401k is diminished to 217k, but he ignored the fact that the pretax contributions were discounted by that same amount in taxes in the first place. Unless you're presuming higher blended tax rates in retirement than your marginal tax rate when making the contributions (which is not likely), then the 401k will destroy the savings account at the same 3% return since the later only earns 2.2% annually due to the yearly taxes. The moral is this - don't bother arguing retirement finances when people want to prove that 401ks don't work. They have no idea what they're talking about. They just want to rationalize their lack of retirement savings. I know people who bought annuities at 5% and they are living on interest only at the moment. The 3% was only used a hypothetical. Still even if 401K got 3% return personal savings could be better. Also what makes you think I have a lack of retirment savings? The 401K hasn't faired better than other accounts. There is one thing for sure: when you are ready to withdraw from 401 you'll enjoy or suffer the advantages of 401. With personal savings you'll know exactly what you will be enjoying, and you will not have to worry about market fluxuations at the time you want to access your money.

O.K. I agree. Now what do we do with the poster whose pose is perfect in grammer and spelling yet their communications makes them sound like a moron anyway? I'd much rather read a post with a few grammatical errors, where the content is reasonable and honest, than a perfect pitched sentence of a moron. Provided of course content can be understood. And just because the reader can't understand the message does not make the author a moron either. Best advice: if you don't understand the message, simple ask a question to clairfy. In staying consistant with DZ's writers style guide, perhaps a clairfying question below might work: WTF are you saying you stupid moron?

If your net salary after tax is $9,000 per month take home pay, and you put $1,000 out of the $9,000 under the mattress for 360 months (30 years) youi'll have $300,000 under your mattress. When you are 51.5 years old you can spend the money tax free. Now if $1,000 goes into 401K per month tax deferred for 30 years, you might have $300,000 at the end of 30 years, pending how well the stocks have done, but once you draw one dollar, pending your state and federal tax rate, that dollar gets taxed. So would you rather reach under the mattress and get $300,000, or would you rather get $217,000 from your brokerage house, after the (27.5%) taxes are paid on the tax deferred investment at retirement. This is not considering any interest on savings or money earned on investment. No inflation is considered either and some annuities have inflation riders to account for that aspect. Better yet and also: take some of that after tax $9,000 monthy take home pay, and pay more off your mortgage to reduce your debt load as any mortgage interest deduction off taxes, as much as the mortgage guys talk about, to keep you in debt, will never equal saving in not paying the interest in the first place. Especially considering sluggish rise in houseing prices that could never be made up upon sale at retirment. Avoiding too, regressive property tax discussion at retirement age. I'll avoid the social aspests till we agree on the figures.

Good point Lummy, you'd need take off 27.5% from the interest earned. Even at that you are still ahead of 401K.

At the rates figured you could put after tax $300,000 earning NO INTEREST and be ahead of a $300K 401K that earned a few points. I'm not sure too many have looked that this comparison as trillions are collected in 401K waiting tax treatment.

After computing stock market gains and losses over 30 years in combination with corporate matching contributions and, federal and state taxes you'll pay on withdrawals from your 401K investments, should one fund a 401K? Based on hypothetical market prices, interest earned on any saving account and tax rate: Try this: put $12,000 per year after tax money in 3% savings account or non qualified(no tax deferal) annuity for 30 years. You will end up with total: $582,736.88 CASH At retirement, you could take anything out of the $582,736 and not pay one cent in taxes. The $582,736.00 is yours totally to do anything you wanted to do with. Calculator here:Future Value of Deposits monthly deposit - interest compounded monthly - (rounded to cents) http://www.easysurf.cc/vfpt2.htm#sdmi They keep telling you when you are at retirement age your taxes won't be as much as they are when younger... HA HA HA Fund your 401K the same amount of money ($300,000). Pending loss or gain in the market and 27.5% estimated tax rate upon withdrawals, how much do you have left out of the $300,000? Well let say you investments were even, and you never made a cent. You paid in your $300,000. That money at face value is only worth to you $217,500.00 considering being taxed at 27.5% when you withdraw the money. To earn the same as 3% savings account or annuity your 401K must have earned you a total of 94% at the end of 30 years and an additional 27.5% to pay taxes or a combined total of 121.5%. That is if the math is correct.

Climate change is a different thread. Tell it to brenthutch. Chaos Theory was explored by Marx, where professor Obama is well versed in Marxist theory. You create chaos so that you can take advantage. Many tyrants use disruption to gain a foothold, litigitmizing using force and suppression to safequard (enslave) the populace. Promoting gun bans and actually banning and taxing guns could be the catalyst for such a gov't lockdown.

So you allege NRA is out promoting mass shooting to gain gun sales. WRONG Mass shooting + Liberal( OBAMA) talk of bans= run on guns NRA= preserve rights We've already been through this BV. Can't cut into the conversation anywere you please and attempt to prove your point.

If there is any good argument for having few bullets in magazines just look at the back of that truck! Throwing gravel would have given a better pattern. Did they even take aim. Doubt it. Spray and pray. Instead of one shot one kill. Why were cops shooting them in the back when they posed no threat and without seeing who they were. They NEED TO TAKE guns from these cops as they don't have a clue. And the truck occupants need sue the police department for how stupid dumb they are. The people in the truck need to

Chaos Theory It's real and its happening. A small change can have huge effect. The mere mention of taking away a societies defenses has resulted in panic buying, hoarding those defenses. It's only going to get worst. A gun shop near by was broken into and 20 guns were stolen. Guess there will be no background checks on those items.

Nope - it is the 'fraidy cats' who created the panicky run on the gun stores. No it's the liberal that started the conversation that they wanted a ban on AR/ 223. THEY WERE LIBERALS And as a result EVERYBODY OF EVER RACE CREED AND COLOR AND POLITICAL PERSUASION, INCLUDING THE FEDERAL GOV"T is out buying guns an ammo. WHY.... BECAUSE EVERYONE KNOWS WHEN IT IS GONE IT IS GONE. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FEAR. ITS ABOUT OWNERSHIP and POSSESSION. AND BEING GRANDFATHERED IN UNDER ANY BAN. So liberals' words strike fear in the hearts of gun owners who start panic buying. I think that's what I said previously, just using different words. The run are newbies mostly libs. Experienced buyers have had plenty of stocks at pre lib blab ban prices. The cool thing are the libs will be stuck with guns and ammo worth less than what they paid. It will take about a year for prices to stabilize.

True, people are lazy. And as a result they'll get what is coming to them. Including clogged arteries.

Should middle class property owners get pissed off enough due to: Prices Cost of college tuitions Loss of work taxes Natural disasters viruses Assholes wanting to take away rights of others, rights they don't give a hoot about. This society could collapse. The banking society collaped but they just deleted toxic paper with the delete button. And printed more notes and money. (rather typed in money, to their electronic forms) Can't delete an angry mob so easily as toxic debt.

Nope - it is the 'fraidy cats' who created the panicky run on the gun stores. No it's the liberal that started the conversation that they wanted a ban on AR/ 223. THEY WERE LIBERALS And as a result EVERYBODY OF EVER RACE CREED AND COLOR AND POLITICAL PERSUASION, INCLUDING THE FEDERAL GOV"T is out buying guns an ammo. WHY.... BECAUSE EVERYONE KNOWS WHEN IT IS GONE IT IS GONE. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FEAR. ITS ABOUT OWNERSHIP and POSSESSION. AND BEING GRANDFATHERED IN UNDER ANY BAN.

Liberals: first they say they want to ban guns, then everybody in the whole friggin world goes and buy's a gun and bullets if they can even get them. GUESS WHAT FOLKS: we are on perpetural backorder. There are no 223's available right now in any grain weight. Thanks liberals for messing up our hobby.

We need to re-inforce the idea that access control and secuity are VERY GOOD measures to aid in protecting our kids. Not restricting my rights, because I'm a law abiding citizen. Do you have kids? Have you ever been in an elementary school visiting your kids? Do you know the layout of the school? Are the doors locked? Is there a buzzer? Is there a waiting area? Anybody watching the front door? Have you been living under a rock since the 60's--the world has changed bud. There are more nut cases now. Just today a cop is running around California killing people. And you sit there and type we should not LOCK DOORS. Why would even want to check your chute before jumping out of the plane? Quade: I can help you. I mean your not saying things that make any sense. Think about it: NOT LOCK THE DOOR is a defense? Do you lock your car doors at the supper market? Do you lock your house doors? How about your locker at DZ where you keep your wallet with all that cash you have... Taxing me, or requiring me to send in finger print cards all while keeping the school doors unlock and unattended WILL NOT PROTECT THE KIDS THERE. DOH