Re: Found out employer does NOT match my 401k!

[Valueinv]

Suggestions:
Option 1:
-Definitely open and max out a Roth IRA… it will provide tax free income
after age 59.5 when you decide to take distributions and offers you tons
of investment choices.

- Then put as much as you can in your 401k because it is still tax
deferred growth.

Option 2:
-Roll over 401k to an IRA...contribute the max each year to the rollover
or just open A ROTH IRA and split the contributions in half between the
two. And since you’re employer doesn't match your contributions and if the
401k plan has average to high fees and expenses, you might actually be
better off saving for retirement in a taxable account or even a variable
annuity, but your calculations will decide that.

-If you are married, encourage your significant other to open an IRA as
well and contribute the max.

Dan M.

[Valueinv]

Suggestions:
Option 1:
-Definitely open and max out a Roth IRA… it will provide tax free income
after age 59.5 when you decide to take distributions and offers you tons
of investment choices.

- Then put as much as you can in your 401k because it is still tax
deferred growth.

Option 2:
-Roll over 401k to an IRA...contribute the max each year to the rollover
or just open A ROTH IRA and split the contributions in half between the
two. And since you’re employer doesn't match your contributions and if the
401k plan has average to high fees and expenses, you might actually be
better off saving for retirement in a taxable account or even a variable
annuity, but your calculations will decide that.

-If you are married, encourage your significant other to open an IRA as
well and contribute the max.

Dan M.

[John A. Weeks III]

In article >,
> wrote:

> I just found out to my dismay that my employer doesn't
> match ANYTHING to my 401k here at work anymore!

A look at the statistics show that few employers pay a
match. This is mainly due to more and more small businesses
offering 401K's and not doing a match. The big companies
do mostly offer some kind of match.

> Im also curious if there I should quit my 401k here at
> work and roll it over to a Roth IRA? Bottom line..any
> advantage to keep participating in a 401k even when no
> matches from employer?

You have to quit your job (or get fired) in order to roll
your 401K over to an IRA. You cannot roll to a Roth, you
have to roll to a rollover IRA. You can then pull the money
out and put it in a Roth, but you pay taxes doing that.

There are several big advantages to having a 401K even without
the match. First, you get a big tax advantage on the money that
goes in, and on your gains. Second, you can shelter far more
than what you can shelter with a IRA. Finally, you often can
still have an IRA even when you have a 401K. You best bet is
to take maximum advantages of these programs.

-john-

--
================================================== ==================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ==================

[John A. Weeks III]

In article >,
> wrote:

> I just found out to my dismay that my employer doesn't
> match ANYTHING to my 401k here at work anymore!

A look at the statistics show that few employers pay a
match. This is mainly due to more and more small businesses
offering 401K's and not doing a match. The big companies
do mostly offer some kind of match.

> Im also curious if there I should quit my 401k here at
> work and roll it over to a Roth IRA? Bottom line..any
> advantage to keep participating in a 401k even when no
> matches from employer?

You have to quit your job (or get fired) in order to roll
your 401K over to an IRA. You cannot roll to a Roth, you
have to roll to a rollover IRA. You can then pull the money
out and put it in a Roth, but you pay taxes doing that.

There are several big advantages to having a 401K even without
the match. First, you get a big tax advantage on the money that
goes in, and on your gains. Second, you can shelter far more
than what you can shelter with a IRA. Finally, you often can
still have an IRA even when you have a 401K. You best bet is
to take maximum advantages of these programs.

-john-

--
================================================== ==================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ==================

[John A. Weeks III]

In article >,
> wrote:

> I just found out to my dismay that my employer doesn't
> match ANYTHING to my 401k here at work anymore!

A look at the statistics show that few employers pay a
match. This is mainly due to more and more small businesses
offering 401K's and not doing a match. The big companies
do mostly offer some kind of match.

> Im also curious if there I should quit my 401k here at
> work and roll it over to a Roth IRA? Bottom line..any
> advantage to keep participating in a 401k even when no
> matches from employer?

You have to quit your job (or get fired) in order to roll
your 401K over to an IRA. You cannot roll to a Roth, you
have to roll to a rollover IRA. You can then pull the money
out and put it in a Roth, but you pay taxes doing that.

There are several big advantages to having a 401K even without
the match. First, you get a big tax advantage on the money that
goes in, and on your gains. Second, you can shelter far more
than what you can shelter with a IRA. Finally, you often can
still have an IRA even when you have a 401K. You best bet is
to take maximum advantages of these programs.

-john-

--
================================================== ==================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ==================

[HW \Skip\ Weldon]

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 04:13:55 CST, "John A. Weeks III"
> wrote:

>There are several big advantages to having a 401K even without
>the match. First, you get a big tax advantage on the money that
>goes in, and on your gains. Second, you can shelter far more
>than what you can shelter with a IRA. Finally, you often can
>still have an IRA even when you have a 401K. You best bet is
>to take maximum advantages of these programs.

Agree. The payroll deduction feature and tax break (one of rare ways
to reduce income "off the top" and continue to have benefit of the
money) make 401k tough to beat. Still, we would need to know about
investment options because if they are sub-par, a good index fund
might beat it. Maybe the original poster will share with us what
some of those choices are.

Also, someone gave me pause the other day when they said, "I prefer an
unmatched 401k over Roth because I think that by the time I retire
there's a good chance a National Sales Tax or something similar will
replace the income tax." While I could have blustered about things
that happened in the past, I really couldn't offer any assurance that
he was wrong.


-HW "Skip" Weldon
Columbia, SC

[HW \Skip\ Weldon]

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 04:13:55 CST, "John A. Weeks III"
> wrote:

>There are several big advantages to having a 401K even without
>the match. First, you get a big tax advantage on the money that
>goes in, and on your gains. Second, you can shelter far more
>than what you can shelter with a IRA. Finally, you often can
>still have an IRA even when you have a 401K. You best bet is
>to take maximum advantages of these programs.

Agree. The payroll deduction feature and tax break (one of rare ways
to reduce income "off the top" and continue to have benefit of the
money) make 401k tough to beat. Still, we would need to know about
investment options because if they are sub-par, a good index fund
might beat it. Maybe the original poster will share with us what
some of those choices are.

Also, someone gave me pause the other day when they said, "I prefer an
unmatched 401k over Roth because I think that by the time I retire
there's a good chance a National Sales Tax or something similar will
replace the income tax." While I could have blustered about things
that happened in the past, I really couldn't offer any assurance that
he was wrong.


-HW "Skip" Weldon
Columbia, SC

[HW \Skip\ Weldon]

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 04:13:55 CST, "John A. Weeks III"
> wrote:

>There are several big advantages to having a 401K even without
>the match. First, you get a big tax advantage on the money that
>goes in, and on your gains. Second, you can shelter far more
>than what you can shelter with a IRA. Finally, you often can
>still have an IRA even when you have a 401K. You best bet is
>to take maximum advantages of these programs.

Agree. The payroll deduction feature and tax break (one of rare ways
to reduce income "off the top" and continue to have benefit of the
money) make 401k tough to beat. Still, we would need to know about
investment options because if they are sub-par, a good index fund
might beat it. Maybe the original poster will share with us what
some of those choices are.

Also, someone gave me pause the other day when they said, "I prefer an
unmatched 401k over Roth because I think that by the time I retire
there's a good chance a National Sales Tax or something similar will
replace the income tax." While I could have blustered about things
that happened in the past, I really couldn't offer any assurance that
he was wrong.


-HW "Skip" Weldon
Columbia, SC

[Jim]

"John A. Weeks III" > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> > wrote:
>
> > I just found out to my dismay that my employer doesn't
> > match ANYTHING to my 401k here at work anymore!
>
> A look at the statistics show that few employers pay a
> match. This is mainly due to more and more small businesses
> offering 401K's and not doing a match. The big companies
> do mostly offer some kind of match.
>
I thought I read something in the past which stated that employers
must do one of two things if they have a 401k-

1) provide a MATCH
OR
2) contribute a guaranteed % of all employees pay to 401k, regardless
if employee contributes. (This would imply if employee contrbutes
nothing, employer is required to contribute something like 2%).

is this accurate?

[Jim]

"John A. Weeks III" > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> > wrote:
>
> > I just found out to my dismay that my employer doesn't
> > match ANYTHING to my 401k here at work anymore!
>
> A look at the statistics show that few employers pay a
> match. This is mainly due to more and more small businesses
> offering 401K's and not doing a match. The big companies
> do mostly offer some kind of match.
>
I thought I read something in the past which stated that employers
must do one of two things if they have a 401k-

1) provide a MATCH
OR
2) contribute a guaranteed % of all employees pay to 401k, regardless
if employee contributes. (This would imply if employee contrbutes
nothing, employer is required to contribute something like 2%).

is this accurate?

[Jim]

"John A. Weeks III" > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> > wrote:
>
> > I just found out to my dismay that my employer doesn't
> > match ANYTHING to my 401k here at work anymore!
>
> A look at the statistics show that few employers pay a
> match. This is mainly due to more and more small businesses
> offering 401K's and not doing a match. The big companies
> do mostly offer some kind of match.
>
I thought I read something in the past which stated that employers
must do one of two things if they have a 401k-

1) provide a MATCH
OR
2) contribute a guaranteed % of all employees pay to 401k, regardless
if employee contributes. (This would imply if employee contrbutes
nothing, employer is required to contribute something like 2%).

is this accurate?

[me6@privacy.net]

>Not that it makes much difference but Strong funds were acquired by
>Wells Fargo.

OOOOPs!

yes it was Wells Fargo....and NOT Caldwell Banker. My
mistake!!

[me6@privacy.net]

>Not that it makes much difference but Strong funds were acquired by
>Wells Fargo.

OOOOPs!

yes it was Wells Fargo....and NOT Caldwell Banker. My
mistake!!

[me6@privacy.net]

>Not that it makes much difference but Strong funds were acquired by
>Wells Fargo.

OOOOPs!

yes it was Wells Fargo....and NOT Caldwell Banker. My
mistake!!

[Ed Zollars, CPA]

wrote:

> Question..... am i required to QUIT my job to rollover
> my current 401k to and IRA? Or can i do it while Im
> still working here anyway?

Technically it depends on the plan document itself, but generally
there must be a qualifying event to trigger a distribution. And
Congress a couple of years ago removed the ability to roll over a
"hardship" distribution from the plan.

Note that it's not necessarily *required* that the plan permit a
rollover at termination, though most do. A plan can provide that
distributions will not be made until the retirement date provided in
the plan.

What I suggest you first do is consult the summary plan description
you should have received to see what the triggering events are. If
that isn't clear, you can request a copy of the plan document
itself, though that's likely to be fairly dense reading material.

--
Ed Zollars, CPA
Phoenix, Arizona

[Ed Zollars, CPA]

wrote:

> Question..... am i required to QUIT my job to rollover
> my current 401k to and IRA? Or can i do it while Im
> still working here anyway?

Technically it depends on the plan document itself, but generally
there must be a qualifying event to trigger a distribution. And
Congress a couple of years ago removed the ability to roll over a
"hardship" distribution from the plan.

Note that it's not necessarily *required* that the plan permit a
rollover at termination, though most do. A plan can provide that
distributions will not be made until the retirement date provided in
the plan.

What I suggest you first do is consult the summary plan description
you should have received to see what the triggering events are. If
that isn't clear, you can request a copy of the plan document
itself, though that's likely to be fairly dense reading material.

--
Ed Zollars, CPA
Phoenix, Arizona

[Ed Zollars, CPA]

wrote:

> Question..... am i required to QUIT my job to rollover
> my current 401k to and IRA? Or can i do it while Im
> still working here anyway?

Technically it depends on the plan document itself, but generally
there must be a qualifying event to trigger a distribution. And
Congress a couple of years ago removed the ability to roll over a
"hardship" distribution from the plan.

Note that it's not necessarily *required* that the plan permit a
rollover at termination, though most do. A plan can provide that
distributions will not be made until the retirement date provided in
the plan.

What I suggest you first do is consult the summary plan description
you should have received to see what the triggering events are. If
that isn't clear, you can request a copy of the plan document
itself, though that's likely to be fairly dense reading material.

--
Ed Zollars, CPA
Phoenix, Arizona

[Ed Zollars, CPA]

Jim wrote:

> I thought I read something in the past which stated that employers
> must do one of two things if they have a 401k-

No, they don't have to do either. However, if they provide a "safe
harbor" match or contribution (which appears to be what you are
referring to), then it eliminates the testing that is otherwise
required to determine the limits on what the "highly compensated"
may contribute (highly compensated is a technical term in the plan
arena, and it's possible for someone to be earning minimum wage and
be highly compensated for plan testing purposes <grin>).

--
Ed Zollars, CPA
Phoenix, Arizona

[Ed Zollars, CPA]

Jim wrote:

> I thought I read something in the past which stated that employers
> must do one of two things if they have a 401k-

No, they don't have to do either. However, if they provide a "safe
harbor" match or contribution (which appears to be what you are
referring to), then it eliminates the testing that is otherwise
required to determine the limits on what the "highly compensated"
may contribute (highly compensated is a technical term in the plan
arena, and it's possible for someone to be earning minimum wage and
be highly compensated for plan testing purposes <grin>).

--
Ed Zollars, CPA
Phoenix, Arizona

[Ed Zollars, CPA]

Jim wrote:

> I thought I read something in the past which stated that employers
> must do one of two things if they have a 401k-

No, they don't have to do either. However, if they provide a "safe
harbor" match or contribution (which appears to be what you are
referring to), then it eliminates the testing that is otherwise
required to determine the limits on what the "highly compensated"
may contribute (highly compensated is a technical term in the plan
arena, and it's possible for someone to be earning minimum wage and
be highly compensated for plan testing purposes <grin>).

--
Ed Zollars, CPA
Phoenix, Arizona

[JJ]

I worked for a small tech company for about 17 years (I'm a loyal guy).
When I started, they matched 2 to 1 for the first 2% of contributions. I
think the owner did this to give the maximum help to those who could only
afford to contribute a small percentage of their salary. Several years
later, it was increased to match 2 to 1 for the first 3%.

Then we were acquired by another company in 2002 and the new company (my
current employer) does not match their 401K at all - bummer. Our salaries
were adjusted upward to compensate for the loss of this however.



> wrote in message
...
> I just found out to my dismay that my employer doesn't
> match ANYTHING to my 401k here at work anymore!
>
> Im curious what the rest of you get percentage wise in
> your matches.
>
> Im also curious if there I should quit my 401k here at
> work and roll it over to a Roth IRA? Bottom line..any
> advantage to keep participating in a 401k even when no
> matches from employer?
>

[JJ]

I worked for a small tech company for about 17 years (I'm a loyal guy).
When I started, they matched 2 to 1 for the first 2% of contributions. I
think the owner did this to give the maximum help to those who could only
afford to contribute a small percentage of their salary. Several years
later, it was increased to match 2 to 1 for the first 3%.

Then we were acquired by another company in 2002 and the new company (my
current employer) does not match their 401K at all - bummer. Our salaries
were adjusted upward to compensate for the loss of this however.



> wrote in message
...
> I just found out to my dismay that my employer doesn't
> match ANYTHING to my 401k here at work anymore!
>
> Im curious what the rest of you get percentage wise in
> your matches.
>
> Im also curious if there I should quit my 401k here at
> work and roll it over to a Roth IRA? Bottom line..any
> advantage to keep participating in a 401k even when no
> matches from employer?
>

[JJ]

I worked for a small tech company for about 17 years (I'm a loyal guy).
When I started, they matched 2 to 1 for the first 2% of contributions. I
think the owner did this to give the maximum help to those who could only
afford to contribute a small percentage of their salary. Several years
later, it was increased to match 2 to 1 for the first 3%.

Then we were acquired by another company in 2002 and the new company (my
current employer) does not match their 401K at all - bummer. Our salaries
were adjusted upward to compensate for the loss of this however.



> wrote in message
...
> I just found out to my dismay that my employer doesn't
> match ANYTHING to my 401k here at work anymore!
>
> Im curious what the rest of you get percentage wise in
> your matches.
>
> Im also curious if there I should quit my 401k here at
> work and roll it over to a Roth IRA? Bottom line..any
> advantage to keep participating in a 401k even when no
> matches from employer?
>

[me6@privacy.net]

>Then we were acquired by another company in 2002 and the new company (my
>current employer) does not match their 401K at all - bummer

That's basically what happened to me. We got bought
out by a much bigger company...which then fell on hard
times...and now there is no match at all on my 401k

Hence the question of if it is better for me to just
quit the 401k and go on my own with a Roth.

And yes i do now one can put more into a 410k.... but
that's really not an advantage to me since Im lucky to
put 2k in anything each year.

[me6@privacy.net]

>Then we were acquired by another company in 2002 and the new company (my
>current employer) does not match their 401K at all - bummer

That's basically what happened to me. We got bought
out by a much bigger company...which then fell on hard
times...and now there is no match at all on my 401k

Hence the question of if it is better for me to just
quit the 401k and go on my own with a Roth.

And yes i do now one can put more into a 410k.... but
that's really not an advantage to me since Im lucky to
put 2k in anything each year.

[me6@privacy.net]

>Then we were acquired by another company in 2002 and the new company (my
>current employer) does not match their 401K at all - bummer

That's basically what happened to me. We got bought
out by a much bigger company...which then fell on hard
times...and now there is no match at all on my 401k

Hence the question of if it is better for me to just
quit the 401k and go on my own with a Roth.

And yes i do now one can put more into a 410k.... but
that's really not an advantage to me since Im lucky to
put 2k in anything each year.

[Ron Peterson]

wrote:

> Hence the question of if it is better for me to just
> quit the 401k and go on my own with a Roth.

Do the Roth because you have better investment alternatives.

--
Ron

[Ron Peterson]

wrote:

> Hence the question of if it is better for me to just
> quit the 401k and go on my own with a Roth.

Do the Roth because you have better investment alternatives.

--
Ron

[Ron Peterson]

wrote:

> Hence the question of if it is better for me to just
> quit the 401k and go on my own with a Roth.

Do the Roth because you have better investment alternatives.

--
Ron

[BreadWithSpam@fractious.net]

writes:

> I just found out to my dismay that my employer doesn't
> match ANYTHING to my 401k here at work anymore!

That's unfortunate. During the downturn, several
major employers cut or reduced their matches, but
AFAIK, several have brought them back since, too.

> Im curious what the rest of you get percentage wise in
> your matches.

50% of the first 6% that the employee contributes, with
the match going in paycheck by paycheck (as opposed to
a former employer which made the match payment at the
end of the year as a single payment).

> Im also curious if there I should quit my 401k here at
> work and roll it over to a Roth IRA? Bottom line..any
> advantage to keep participating in a 401k even when no
> matches from employer?

There are several reasons:
1. much higher limits on the amount that you may contribute.
2. potentially better protection for the $$ against lawsuits
or other claims (depends on the state)
3. access to certain types of investments which are
otherwise hard to get at (ie. stable value funds)
4. earlier access to it at retirement (probably not really
important)

Hrm. That's off the top of my head. There are probably
others.

Frankly, if you can manage it, max out both the 401k _and_
the Roth (or traditional IRA if your income's above the
Roth limits).

--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting

[BreadWithSpam@fractious.net]

writes:

> I just found out to my dismay that my employer doesn't
> match ANYTHING to my 401k here at work anymore!

That's unfortunate. During the downturn, several
major employers cut or reduced their matches, but
AFAIK, several have brought them back since, too.

> Im curious what the rest of you get percentage wise in
> your matches.

50% of the first 6% that the employee contributes, with
the match going in paycheck by paycheck (as opposed to
a former employer which made the match payment at the
end of the year as a single payment).

> Im also curious if there I should quit my 401k here at
> work and roll it over to a Roth IRA? Bottom line..any
> advantage to keep participating in a 401k even when no
> matches from employer?

There are several reasons:
1. much higher limits on the amount that you may contribute.
2. potentially better protection for the $$ against lawsuits
or other claims (depends on the state)
3. access to certain types of investments which are
otherwise hard to get at (ie. stable value funds)
4. earlier access to it at retirement (probably not really
important)

Hrm. That's off the top of my head. There are probably
others.

Frankly, if you can manage it, max out both the 401k _and_
the Roth (or traditional IRA if your income's above the
Roth limits).

--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting

[BreadWithSpam@fractious.net]

writes:

> I just found out to my dismay that my employer doesn't
> match ANYTHING to my 401k here at work anymore!

That's unfortunate. During the downturn, several
major employers cut or reduced their matches, but
AFAIK, several have brought them back since, too.

> Im curious what the rest of you get percentage wise in
> your matches.

50% of the first 6% that the employee contributes, with
the match going in paycheck by paycheck (as opposed to
a former employer which made the match payment at the
end of the year as a single payment).

> Im also curious if there I should quit my 401k here at
> work and roll it over to a Roth IRA? Bottom line..any
> advantage to keep participating in a 401k even when no
> matches from employer?

There are several reasons:
1. much higher limits on the amount that you may contribute.
2. potentially better protection for the $$ against lawsuits
or other claims (depends on the state)
3. access to certain types of investments which are
otherwise hard to get at (ie. stable value funds)
4. earlier access to it at retirement (probably not really
important)

Hrm. That's off the top of my head. There are probably
others.

Frankly, if you can manage it, max out both the 401k _and_
the Roth (or traditional IRA if your income's above the
Roth limits).

--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting

[BreadWithSpam@fractious.net]

(Jim) writes:
> I thought I read something in the past which stated that employers
> must do one of two things if they have a 401k-
>
> 1) provide a MATCH
> OR
> 2) contribute a guaranteed % of all employees pay to 401k, regardless
> if employee contributes. (This would imply if employee contrbutes

There are rules like that for the SIMPLE IRA.

>From <http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=111420,00.html>

How much must I contribute for my employees to a SIMPLE IRA plan?

In addition to the employees' salary reduction contributions, you
generally required to match each s salary reduction contribution on
a dollar-for-dollar basis up to 3% of the s compensation. Instead
of the matching contribution, you may choose to make nonelective
contributions of 2% of the s compensation


For the 401k, the rules are more complicated. There are
requirements that "highly compensated" folks aren't the
only ones who benefit from it, and there are provisions
which let companies protect themselves from those
requirements by doing things like matches.




--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting

[BreadWithSpam@fractious.net]

(Jim) writes:
> I thought I read something in the past which stated that employers
> must do one of two things if they have a 401k-
>
> 1) provide a MATCH
> OR
> 2) contribute a guaranteed % of all employees pay to 401k, regardless
> if employee contributes. (This would imply if employee contrbutes

There are rules like that for the SIMPLE IRA.

>From <http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=111420,00.html>

How much must I contribute for my employees to a SIMPLE IRA plan?

In addition to the employees' salary reduction contributions, you
generally required to match each s salary reduction contribution on
a dollar-for-dollar basis up to 3% of the s compensation. Instead
of the matching contribution, you may choose to make nonelective
contributions of 2% of the s compensation


For the 401k, the rules are more complicated. There are
requirements that "highly compensated" folks aren't the
only ones who benefit from it, and there are provisions
which let companies protect themselves from those
requirements by doing things like matches.




--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting

[BreadWithSpam@fractious.net]

(Jim) writes:
> I thought I read something in the past which stated that employers
> must do one of two things if they have a 401k-
>
> 1) provide a MATCH
> OR
> 2) contribute a guaranteed % of all employees pay to 401k, regardless
> if employee contributes. (This would imply if employee contrbutes

There are rules like that for the SIMPLE IRA.

>From <http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=111420,00.html>

How much must I contribute for my employees to a SIMPLE IRA plan?

In addition to the employees' salary reduction contributions, you
generally required to match each s salary reduction contribution on
a dollar-for-dollar basis up to 3% of the s compensation. Instead
of the matching contribution, you may choose to make nonelective
contributions of 2% of the s compensation


For the 401k, the rules are more complicated. There are
requirements that "highly compensated" folks aren't the
only ones who benefit from it, and there are provisions
which let companies protect themselves from those
requirements by doing things like matches.




--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting

[me6@privacy.net]

> Unless you're only making $30k/yr,
>that's less than 10% of your income.

Yes this is all I make per year.... 30k

[me6@privacy.net]

> Unless you're only making $30k/yr,
>that's less than 10% of your income.

Yes this is all I make per year.... 30k

[me6@privacy.net]

> Unless you're only making $30k/yr,
>that's less than 10% of your income.

Yes this is all I make per year.... 30k