Leaderboard

Let us not forget that Congress chose to enact a law that will prevent states from establishing retirement savings vehicles for employees of companies not otherwise doing anything to facilitate accumulation of funds for their rank and file employees, thus ensuring that many such people will have nothing but Social Security to rely on after their working days end. How much concern is to be found in Congress for poor Americans?

First, learn what "tongue in cheek" means, then re-read my post with that knowledge. Second, considering legislation that potentially kicks the "poorest" American's off health insurance (and consequently actual health care) just made it through the House, I dispute your contention that CongressCritters care at all about the "poorest." Third, they did it before (TRA86 that cut the 402(g) limit by, what, 80%?). Fourth, you apparently have more of those funny cigarettes, if you think ANYTHING bi-partisan is going to pass in the foreseeable future (and it really hasn't in the past 8-1/2 years) Fifth, your "$40k" loan scenario is probably just another reason why plan loans are a bad idea. One never knows anymore when one's job is going to be eliminated without warning. It's happened to me (and thankfully, I heed my own advice that "Loans... EVIL!"

I think the biggest argument against Participant Loans is the default rate when you leave the company with an outstanding loan. I mean often you are hit with a tax bill for income you spent a year or more ago at a time when you may now have no current income. Personally I hate participant loans but they aren't going anywhere anytime soon that I see. As for the double taxation. No the principal replaces principal that has never been subject to taxation and the interest is taxed just like any other gains of a retirement plan.

It was quite a while back, but I submitted a VCP (during EGTRRA RAP) for an employer that had adopted a plan in 1987 and hadn't amended since. The plan was a generous money purchase plan for a tax exempt employer. I did not use the streamlined schedule that would have required all amendments be adopted retroactively as the correction method. Instead I proposed to correct by adopting a current (then) EGTRRA volume submitter plan. We received a compliance statement without having to go back to TRA 86 and GUST documents and interim amendments. I was surprised and needless to say, very pleased with the result.

Unintended consequences. Here is the thing though, when you are (or hold yourself out to be) a subject matter expert, you have to be able to discuss the theories and and conclusions with those who disagree or fail to understand your argument. This is especially true when the things you publish are meant to educate others Just about every business trying to find an edge uses SEO to generate traffic and name recognition. Blogs and semi-educational posts are very effective tools for SEO. But you have to be able to take some criticism or engage in a conversation when someone disagrees.

Dont get me wrong, I have nothing against HR or the function they fill. I'm not saying they do it maliciously or even because they want to. It is just their responsibility to nip things in the bud. Which in BGs case happens to be butt nekkid rolling in cash

I used to do some in-house education classes at one of my old jobs. And to illustrate the point further, (this was before the proliferation of camera phones, so no selfies, Thank God), I said I dumped the money on the bed and rolled around naked on it. (Someone said something to HR and I was told to find another anecdote for my class. True story.)