You mean allocating your "what % of my paycheck (gross or net) goes into it" to 100% for the first few paychecks to get it to $19.5k?
even more reason for a solo 401k for everyone. Why should it matter for my 401k if kiki in hr doesn't contribute so mine needs to be clawed back?
> You mean allocating your "what % of my paycheck (gross or net) goes into it" to 100% for the first few paychecks to get it to $19.5k?
Also why does it need to be taken out of each paycheck. I can just fund it from cash Jan 1st each year.
At the end of the day, if the tax incentive is being used to get people to save, just let people save and claim the incentive. No need for a middleman (the employer).
I also have never seen a company allowing day 1 401(k) access but maybe I’ve always worked at a shittier tier of companies
Hense my use of the word "equity"
Pretend you’re explaining like I’m five when it comes to the word “equity” mostly because I don’t see where you used it in your post that be quoted as “equity”
I believe Amazon does too, since they run into HCI/HCE issues all the time, famously having a low match.
Among a plethora of others. For me, this has been quite a few companies, not all of course, I don't backload mostly out of laziness using this strategy often, but its beneficial when jumping to companies with low matches partway through the year.
But the limit was very high. I recall setting the contribution to something like 80% or 90% and maxing out after a few paychecks.
But in general: I agree with you. Why should we only be allowed to do what my employer allows? As if them allowing me to contribute is some benefit they are bestowing upon me. Rather than them just being middle-men between me and tax law.