Well some would go even further and conclude you dont need and that mother of 3 is more entitled to that priviledged enabled wealth in your 401k too.

So im guessing you will only be too happy to turn the excess over to those with the greater need.

One is the result of your investments, one is not. This isn’t hard, Bob.

No it isnt hard. moralizing over the distribution of individual economic resources based on subjective and relative standards of need are fine.

Just dont complain when someone or some group decides your 'investments' are included in that calculation.

Personally i dont think anybody 'needs' more than $500k in a 401k. And excess should be distributed to the economically disadvantaged....like the Mom and 3 kids that lost her job. See what i mean.

Btw.....where is daddy?

I didn’t know you were going to get kinky, Bob. You know the government taxes your 401(k) to “distribute individual economic resources based on subjective and relative standards of need,” right? Keep yelling at the screen though. You’re making progress.

Ya thats a great way to handle the redistribution of unneeded wealth.

I think in addition to regular income taxes a additional 20% economic equity surcharge on 401k withdrawals from accounts with balances in excess of $500k is an outstanding idea.

You are correct. This isn’t that hard. I invest my time to go to work. The result of my investment ($$$) is partitioned off in my name via a 401 and the other part of my investment is garnished in the name of “you don’t need that as much as that poor mother of three”.

They both start with the investment of MY time.

Can you at least acknowledge that this might be a slippery slope? When society has reached the tipping point where have nots out number the haves, that their definition of “enough” and “fair share” will be impossible to put back in the box. With one man, one vote, it will be a race to the bottom from there. As someone before me said, “This isn’t that hard”:cool:

I actually know a guy who collected unemployment at 65, and it worked. To satisfy the work requirement, he applied to many 121 operators, including Delta, American, United etc and of course they all turned him down.

He was on unemployment for a total of 26 weeks.

Sweet....can I still get me of them free Obama phones to go with my 26 weeks? I’m gonna do it not based on need, but because it’s free. Or I guess we could raise the mandatory retirement to my full SS retirement age...say 66 and 2 months. Seems reasonable.

I just hope the 3.2 T that Nancy(suck my teeth) wants, combined with the already 2.2T Cares won’t make us insolvent before I can get my free stuff. Hope you “rich” pilots can hold out on NO concessions and help defray my expenses after I am forced out by the government.

Nice, top 2 threads have gone political. Can’t wait until November 3rd when we can just all Accept our fate and move on

Nothing political about it ....23 -27T of debt is a fact. Somebody has to pay for it. I'll be retired. Hello sucker.

No matter who is elected, I'm still gonna get me a free Obama phone to go with my 26 weeks of unemployment. Hello ducker

I just use the logic that the recipients of "free stuff"use, "The government pays for it". Hello sucker.😋😋😎