Why can't 401(k) statements be delivered electronically?
"There are a lot of unintended consequences of fairly arbitrary IRS guidelines when it comes to 401Ks, they both close and create tons of loopholes and many companies are left to implement their own policy around these laws. Ultimately what you are left with are a lot of random things, interpreted differently by every single company in the country, that aren't directly codified by the IRS or Congress. If you have a choice regarding what brokerage firm manages your 401(k), then just call around. Be sure to ask the pencil pusher on the phone to double check because they might say ""OF COURSE you can get paperless statements it is 2015"" but then when you sign up it becomes ""ooohhh sorry due to recent guidelines this kind of account isn't eligible for paperless statements""" "Glad my question got bumped. I took it as a sign to get a solid answer out of Schwab. First the rep gave me the same line that it was impossible to provide paperless statements for a 401(k) plan because of ""regulations"". I pressed the issue and got this from the rep: I just spoke with our dedicated small business plan team. They told me   that there are regulations that state that a Qualified Plan, such as   this, require to have a statement sent. It is a Schwab policy that we   have decided to only allow paper statements for this account type. So to clarify, it is a Schwab business decision to have the statements   available only by mail. Hope someone from Schwab with some authority sees this post and is pushed toward helping change their policy. I can't imagine what a colossal waste of paper, postage, and hassle it is for everyone involved."
I think you understood much of what I say, in general. Unfortunately, I didn't follow Patches math.  What I gleen from your summary is a 1% match to the 10% invested, but a .8% expense. The ETF VOO has a .05% annual fee, a bit better than SPY.  A quick few calculations show that the 10% bonus does offset a long run of the .75% excess expense compared to external investing. After decades, the 401(k) appears to still be a bit ahead. Not the dramatic delta suggested in the prior answer, but enough to stay with the 401(k) in this situation. The tiny match still makes the difference. Edit - the question you linked to. The 401(k) had no match, and an awful 1.2% annual expense. This combination is deadly for the younger investor. Always an exception to offer - a 25% marginal rate earner close to retiring at 15%. The 401(k) deposit saves him 25, but can soon be withdrawn at 15, it's worth a a few years of that fee to make this happen. For the young person who is planning a quick exit from the company, same deal. "Before anything, I see that no one mentioned the one thing about 401(k) accounts that's just shy of magic - The matching deposit. In 2015, 42% of companies offered a dollar for dollar match on deposits. Can't beat that.  (Note - to respond to Xalorous' comment, the $18K OP deposits can be nearly any percent of his income. The typical match is 'up to' 6% of gross income. If that's the case, the 401(k) deposits are doubled. But say he makes $100K. The $18K deposit will see a $6K match. This adds a layer of complexity to the answer that I preferred to avoid, as I show with no match at all, and no change in tax brackets, the deferral alone shows value to the investor.) On to the main answer - Let's pull out a spreadsheet -  We start with $10,000, and assume the 25% bracket. This gives a choice of $10,000 in the 401(k) or $7500 in the taxable account. Next, let 20 years pass, with 10% return each year. The 401(k) sees the full 10% and after 20 years, $67K. The taxable account owner waits to get the 15% cap gain rate and adjusts portfolio, thus seeing an 8.5% return each year and carrying no ongoing gains. After 20 years of 8.5% returns, he has $38K net. The 401(k) owner on withdrawal pays the 25% tax and has $50K, still more than 25% more money that the taxable account. Because transactions within the account were all tax deferred.  EDIT - With respect to davmp's comment, I'll offer the other extreme -  In his comment, he (rightly) objected that I chose to trade every year, although I did assign the long term 15% cap gain rate, he felt the annual trade was my attempt to game the analysis. Above, I offer his extreme case, a 10% return each year, no trade, no dividend. Just a cap gain at the end. The 401(k) still wins. I also left the tax (on the 401(k)) at withdrawal at 25%, when in fact, much, if not all will be taxed at 15% or lower, which would put the net at $57K or 30% above the taxable account final withdrawal.  The next issue I'd bring up is that the 401(k) is taken out at the top (marginal) tax rate, e.g. a single filer with taxable income over $37,650 (in 2016) would save 25% on that 401(k) deduction. Of course if the deduction pulls you under that line, I'd go Roth or taxable. But, withdrawals start at zero. Today, a single retiree has a standard deduction ($4050) and exemption ($6300) for a total $10,350 ""zero bracket"" with the next $9275 taxed at 10%. This points to needing $500K in pre tax accounts before withdrawals each year would get you past the 10% bracket. (This comes from the suggestion of using 4% as an annual withdrawal rate).  Last - the tax discussion has 2 major points in time, deposit and withdrawal, of course. But, the answers here all ignore all the time in between.  In between, you see that for any number of reasons, you'll drop from the 25% bracket to 15% that year. That's the time to convert a bit of money to Roth and 'top off' the 15% bracket. It can happen due to job loss, marriage with new spouse either not working or having lower income, new baby, house purchase, etc.  Or in-between, a disability put you out of work. That permits you to take money out with no penalty, and little chance of paying even the 25% that you paid going in. This, from personal experience with a family member, funded a 401(k) with 28% money. Then divorced and disabled, able to take the $10K/yr to supplement worker's comp (non taxed) income." First, read my answer here: Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing For me, the answer to your question comes down to how badly you want to get rid of your student loan debt. I recommend that you get rid of it as fast as possible, and that you sacrifice a little in your budget temporarily to make that happen. If that is what you want, here is what I would do. Following the steps in my other answer, I would pay off the student loans first. Cash out your non-retirement growth fund to jump start that, then challenge yourself to take as much of your paycheck as you can and throw it at the debt. Figure out how many months it will take before the debt is gone.  Once the debt is gone, you won't have those monthly payments anymore and you won't be continually losing money in interest to the bank. At that point, you can build up your cash savings, invest in your employer's 401(k) plan for retirement, and start saving toward other long-term saving goals (car, house, etc.) To address some of your other concerns: If you cash out the non-retirement fund, you'll probably owe some capital gains tax. (Although, on a $3k investment, the long term rate won't add up to very much, depending on your tax bracket and cost basis.) You can't use the money from your non-retirement fund to invest in your 401(k).  You can only contribute to your 401(k) via payroll deduction.  To explicitly answer your question, your non-retirement fund is not bound by the limitations of retirement funds, meaning that you can cash it out and use it however you like without penalty, only paying perhaps a few hundred dollars of capital gains tax at tax time next year. Think of it as another source of cash for you. "The same author wrote in that article “they have a trillion? Really?” But that’s what happens when ten   million dollars compounds at 2% over 200 years. Really? 2% compounded over 200 years produces a return of 52.5X, multiply that by 10M and you have $525 million. The author is off by a factor of nearly 2000 fold. Let's skip this minor math error.  The article is not about 401(k)s. His next line is ""The whole myth of savings is gone."" And the article itself, ""10 Reasons You Have To Quit Your Job In 2014"" is really a manifesto about why working for the man is not the way to succeed long term. And in that regard, he certainly makes good points. I've read this author over the years, and respect his views. 9 of the 10 points he lists are clear and valuable. This one point is a bit ambiguous and falls into the overgeneraluzation ""Our 401(k) have failed us."" But keep in mind, even the self employed need to save, and in fact, have similar options to those working for others. I have a Solo 401(k) for my self employment income.  To be clear, there are good 401(k) accounts and bad. The 401(k) with fees above 1%/yr, and no matching, awful. The 401(k) I have from my job before I retired has an S&P index with .02%/yr cost. (That's $200/$million invested per year.) The 401(k) is not dead." No, you cannot. 401k must not be discriminatory, i.e.: you cannot have different matching for different employees. OK, so first of all, employers don't set up IRAs.  IRA stands for Individual Retirement Account.  You can set up a personal IRA for yourself, but not for employees.  If that is what you're after, then just set one up for yourself - no special rules there for self employment. As far as setting up a 401(k), I'd suggest checking with benefits management companies.  If you're small, you probably don't have an HR department, so managing a 401(k) yourself would likely be overly burdensome.  Outsourcing this to a company which handles HR for you (maybe running payroll, etc. also), would be the best option.  Barring that, I'd try calling a large financial institution (Schwab, Fidelity, etc.) for clear guidance. "This is the infographic from the Fidelity. It exemplifies what's wrong with the financial industry, and the sad state of innumeracy that we are in.   To be clear, Fidelity treats the 401(k) correctly, although the assumption that the withdrawals are all at a marginal 28% is a poor one. The Roth side, they assume the $5000 goes in at a zero tax rate. This is nonsense, as Elaine can't deposit $5000, she has to pay tax first, no? She'd deposit $3600, and would have the identical $27,404 at withdrawal time.  And this is pure nonsense -  ""Let’s look at the numbers another way. Tom takes the $1,400 he saved   in taxes from his $5,000 pretax contributions, and invests that money   in a taxable brokerage account. That could boost his total at age 75   to $35,445."" The $1400 saved is in his 401(k) already, there's no extra $1400. $5000 went in pretax.  Let me go one more step, and explain what I think Joe meant in his comment below - tax table first -   At retirement, say a couple has exactly $168,850 of income. With the $20K in standard deduction and exemptions, they are right at the top of the 25% bracket.  And have a federal tax bill of $28,925. Overall, an effective rate of 17%.  Of course this is a blend from 0%-25%, and I maintain that if some money could have gone in post tax while in the 10%/15% brackets, that would be great, but in the end, if it all skims off at 25%, and comes out at an effective 17%, that's not too bad.  The article is incorrect. Misleading. And offends any of us that have any respect for numbers. And the fact that the article claim that ""87% found this helpful"" just makes me... sad.  I've said it elsewhere, and will repeat, there are not just two points in time. The ability to convert Traditional 401(k) to Roth 401(k), and if in IRAs, not just convert, but also recharacterize, opens up other possibilities. It's worth a bit of attention and ongoing paperwork to minimize your lifetime tax bill. Time makes no difference. There is no ""crossover point"" as with other financial decisions. For this illustration, the results are identical regardless of time.  By the way, in today's dollars, it would take $4M pretax to produce an annual withdrawal of $160K. This number is about top 2-3%. The 90%ers need not worry about saving their way to a higher tax bracket." You are not allowed to take a routine 401(k) withdrawal each year. There are specific reasons that you might be allowed to take a withdrawal and what you're proposing doesn't fit into those categories.