Beware your first 2013 paycheck

[slow99]

chooooo$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ choooooooo$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[snacksnack]

So let me get this straight. If you make a nice round number of 1000 dollars a week and they are taking an extra 2% from that paycheck that would be 20 bucks. Now I contribute 2% more to 401k that would bring my gross down to 980. Now the extra 2% on the 980 is 19.60 a week they take right? so this is like saying I made an extra .40 cents per 1000 and 20.80 per year saved from going to the man? Is this really what you are bragging about fucking the man out of by contributing to your 401k?

[Binky]

Am I the only one here that simply upped my 401k contribution by 2% when they first made this cut? Sucks to be y'all.

FICA is based off gross pay BEFORE 401k is taken out so you're paying the 6% whether you like it or not. Boosting your 401k another 2% isn't changing anything except further reducing your takehome.

Maybe its just sunday and I'm missing what the benefit is.

[talisman]

Sucks to be you if you were not already contributing the maximum allowed to your 401K when the 2% reduction first began.

Max allowed is 100%. I've got a house and car to pay for sucka!


You guys are retarded. When they REDUCED our taxes by 2%, I INCREASED my contribution by the 2% so I wouldn't even notice it. Jesus Christ.

[The King]

Max allowed is 100%. I've got a house and car to pay for sucka!


You guys are retarded. When they REDUCED our taxes by 2%, I INCREASED my contribution by the 2% so I wouldn't even notice it. Jesus Christ.

The maximum 401K contribution you could make last year was $17,000, or $22,500 if you were over 50. So, would 100% of your wages have been $17,000 or $22,500? Either you're not paid shit, or your financial education is totally absent.

[talisman]

The maximum 401K contribution you could make last year was $17,000, or $22,500 if you were over 50. So, would 100% of your wages have been $17,000 or $22,500? Either you're not paid shit, or your financial education is totally absent.

I was talking per pay period, not total.

[The King]

I was talking per pay period, not total.

$17,000 or $22,500 divided by the number of pay periods you had in 2012 then. Makes absolutely no difference, the maximum still applies.

[talisman]

*facepalm* Forget I mentioned it.

[The King]

Lol, retard

[racrguy]

$17,000 or $22,500 divided by the number of pay periods you had in 2012 then. Makes absolutely no difference, the maximum still applies.

Do I have to explain this to you?

[The King]

You go, google girl.

[snacksnack]

The maximum 401K contribution you could make last year was $17,000, or $22,500 if you were over 50. So, would 100% of your wages have been $17,000 or $22,500? Either you're not paid shit, or your financial education is totally absent.

So are you taking it down by 2% or keeping it and loosing the 2%?

[The King]

So are you taking it down by 2% or keeping it and loosing the 2%?

That 2% meant nothing with respect to how it affected your 401K if you were already contributing the maximum allowed in 2011 and 2012.

[slow99]

Mine is $115 lower year/year...period/period isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. Looks like my wife's is about $80 lower year/year.

[Hmbre97]

Mine was down almost $100 but then I remembered I don't drive a train and a big chunk of mine was my increased HSA contributions.

I guess one upside to making jack shit is less money for the govt to take. Yay!