Hi @bee, Nice to hear from you.
My dense brain required two readings to grasp all of this. Spot-on, except the very last couple sentences aren’t quite computing for me. (“This is why ...”)
If I may restate your observations, I believe you’re highlighting the fact that when we invest in tax deferred accounts we are also investing on behalf of the government. That’s because eventually Uncle Sam does get to tax our contribution and in addition any growth on that contribution that has accrued over the years. As you note - your success and that of the government’s rise or fall together.
Overall the government may be seen to be riding on our backs and sharing in (what ought to be) our long term investment success. I continue to like Roth IRAs for the reason being you get to keep whatever you’ve earned over the years. And, if someone wants to roll the dice and do a later life Roth conversion into an asset they think has been unjustly beaten down and stands to rebound - than BINGO - you get to keep 100% of your winnings.

@openice: CEFA , CEF Connect, M*, and Guggenheim are showing the same, .1821
Regards,
Ted
CEFA.Com
https://www.cefa.com/FundSelector/FundDetail.fs?ID=116430
CEFConnect.Com
https://www.cefconnect.com/fund/GOF
M*.Com
https://www.morningstar.com/news/globe-news-wire/GNW_7552435/guggenheim-investments-announces-march-2019-closedend-fund-distributions.html
Guggenheim Website:
https://www.guggenheiminvestments.com/cef/fund/gof

CEF Connect shows .0781 as the divy, but that's the same amount under "Distributions" at M*. So I suspect it's a M* miscue.

When we save into tax deferred retirement account we push taxes (on income) into the future.
It would be an interesting stat to compare present day tax savings in the year that the IRA contribution was made to the tax liability on that contribution (and its potential investment growth) over time. The longer that we have for investments to potentially grow the better the potential outcome.
If I pay taxes on $100 at a rate of 20% in the year I earn that income I net $80 after taxes. If instead, I let the $100 grow tax deferred and I remain in a 20% tax bracket in retirement the government stands to collect not only it's initial 20%, but also 20% of any growth that the $100 made. I keep 80%.
It seems to me that the closer one is to withdrawing IRA funds (whether RMD or not) the less impactful (investment success) these tax deferred contributions can potentially be.
In fact, if you were one year away from retirement withdrawals and that $100 tax deferred contribution fell in value to say $50 (that would suck for you) and then it was withdrawn from the IRA, the taxes collected would be halved as well (that would suck for Uncle Sam).
This is why contributions made closer to retirement should be carefully invested on the risk spectrum. Those dollar potentially have less time to grow meaningfully.
Thoughts?

Thanks @Ted,
I like the idea of a GRA (Guaranteed Retirement Account).
Here's an example of allocation and performance of the CT State Pension plans.
https://ott.ct.gov/pensiondocs/fundperf/FundPerformance01312019.pdf
I see a big push back from 401K, 403b, 40-whatever providers to allow the GRA program to shift retirement moneys from their profit centers to State Pension Systems.
Interview also touched on selling at the wrong time (during a market pullback).
How do you avoid selling when markets are down (sequence of return risk)?

@openice:I'm not seeing that ! M* March distribution 0.18211 - Guggenheim Website 0.18210:
Regards,
Ted
M*: GOF
https://www.morningstar.com/news/globe-news-wire/GNW_7552435/guggenheim-investments-announces-march-2019-closedend-fund-distributions.html
Guggenheim Website:GOF
https://www.guggenheiminvestments.com/cef/fund/gof

M* shows March divy will be reduced to .0781 from .1821. Ex-date is 3/14. Guggenheim has no news. Fund is a GO at MFO. I don't own it, but some here do. Thoughts?

"Sens. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, and Ben Cardin, D-Md. ,,, said the original RMD age was set in the 1960s and has not been changed."
That would have been remarkably prescient as IRAs were created in 1974 by ERISA.
Originally there were no RMDs. They were created as part of the Tax Reform Act of 1986.
https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1049&context=legal
https://www.bnymellon.com/us/en/our-thinking/baby-boomers-and-required-minimum-distributions.jsp
From the latter page:

[W]ith the increase in defined contribution plan assets, there was a growing concern that taxpayers were using these retirement vehicles as a means to accumulate tax-free wealth rather than as a means to ensure an adequate retirement income. To address the issue, the Taw Reform Act of 1986 was passed requiring taxpayers to being taking annual distributions from their tax-deferred defined contribution plans upon reaching the age of 70½.

Related -- Man credited with calling the 2008 crisis says the next 20 years in the stock market will ‘break a lot of hearts’ -
https://finance.yahoo.com/m/027db830-2283-3401-a13e-4c3121b983f4/man-credited-with-calling-the.html
Jeremy Grantham, an investor credited with calling the 2000 and 2008 downturns, told CNBC on Thursday that investors should get inured to lackluster returns in the stock market for the next two decades, after a century of handsome gains.

FYI: Norway’s giant state pension fund is in the headlines because it decided to stop investing in energy exploration and production, or upstream oil. That is surprising and ironic because much of the assets in the fund came from North Sea oil production.
The less obvious—and more important—point is that Norway’s state pension fund can make that shift because it invests in equities. The fund, known as the Government Pension Fund Global, is a globally significant asset manager that generates returns for citizens and expresses social policy in its investment decisions.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/social-security-funding-stocks-norway-oil-divestment-51552074915?refsec=funds
Norway’s Gargantuan Pension Fund Will Drop Oil Investments:
https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1dg25160qpvmf/Norway-s-Gargantuan-Pension-Fund-Will-Drop-Oil-Investments

FYI: When Ron Strobel was an investment adviser in Seattle, many of his clients were Boeing engineers. They loved their jobs and wanted to keep working as long as they could.
But when they reached age 70½, they had to take required minimum distributions from their individual retirement accounts. They didn't like it.
"RMDs are the No. 1 complaint I hear" from people of retirement age, said Mr. Strobel, founder of Retire Sensibly. "I am seeing more and more clients work into their 70s either because they have to or because they just like working. It's ridiculous that the IRS forces them to begin withdrawing from their IRAs when they don't want to or don't need to."
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=YHqDXLSVMqGXjwSOrILIBA&q=+Legislation+When+clients+work+past+70,+RMDs+are+still+required+—+and+begrudged+&btnK=Google+Search&oq=+Legislation+When+clients+work+past+70,+RMDs+are+still+required+—+and+begrudged+&gs_l=psy-ab.3...3516.3516..4536...0.0..0.64.123.2......0....2j1..gws-wiz.....0.F7mJdAhiPsA

I think one thing that some miss is that the lower income folks have less of a need to max out their 401k vs. other options for savings. I'm a single guy who makes a little over 50k. My marginal tax rate is 12% with long term capital gains at 0%. I invest in my 401k only enough to get the full employer match, then turn to fully funding a Roth IRA. At such a low tax rate, I am happy to pay taxes now and not have to worry about such in the future, and I maintain the flexibility to pull the money out, with no fees etc, if some disaster happens. After I fund my Roth IRA, I then simply put any extra money into a regular brokerage account. I would only consider putting more money into a 401k, after I have a sizeable chunk of money in my regular brokerage account.
A married couple making 90k would probably find themselves in a similar situation where maxing a 401k may not be the best option even if the money could be spared.

MFO Members
FYI
Regards,
Ted
Vanguard Website:
https://pressroom.vanguard.com/news/Press-Release-VG-Files-For-Actively-Managed-ESG-Fund-030719.html

@msf You are right. Highly compensated employee is defined by IRS as someone that is making more than $120K and are in the top 20% of the company pay scale.
This of course does not take into account cost of living expenses of the locality. Some while $120k is a lot of money in some places, in some high cost cities it does not leave a lot of disposable income. This limit especially hits people working in smaller companies in these localities.

@old Joe @mjg
Hi sirs... I Should have label article 'investing 101',, .. These readingsshoukd be for newbies

FYI: Key Points
“This will be limping along; three steps down, two steps back. It’s not a typical experience,” Grantham, who is famous for calling the last two major bubbles in the market, told CNBC’s Wilfred Frost on Thursday.
“I was really hoping there would be a magnificent bubble ending to this, as there had been to the three great recent experiences,” he said. “It doesn’t look like it will and, therefore, you’re going to have a decline of a different nature.”
Regards,
Ted
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/07/this-bull-market-will-not-end-with-a-massive-pullback-grantham-says.html

Boomers were most likely to max out their 401(k) plans, followed by Generation X, and lastly millennials.

That's OK, we (millennials) are going to have 401(k) sharing.

The catch up provision is similar the "regular" 401(k) limit - it's set by law and the employer can't reduce it.
(In contrast, the "regular" contributions by highly compensated employees may be limited by law if they contribute way more than mere peons. This is to keep the plan fair. But the catch up amount is unconditional; employer cannot reduce it.)
FYI, here's a description of the nondiscrimination rules for high wage earners. It's complicated.
https://www.goodfinancialcents.com/401k-limits-for-highly-compensated-employees/

When the median household income is around $60k, how can you expect a high % of people maxing out 401(k)s? $18k would be 30% going to retirement savings - just not going to happen.

I agree with JoJo on this. Criticizing low-income workers for not maxing-out is reminiscent of Wilbur Ross wondering why all those unpaid government workers didn’t simply obtain a loan. :)
Couple thoughts: The IRS allows a generous catch-up provision during a worker’s later years if they failed to max out in early years. I learned of it accidentally through an “overheard” conversation at work. It proved a great way to make up for my lackluster contributions earlier. Folks nearing retirement (age 50+) should look into it. Think it depends on your employer’s willingness to allow it. https://www.kiplinger.com/article/retirement/T047-C001-S001-the-rules-for-making-ira-401-k-catch-up-contributi.html
Second thought: It’s hard to tell exactly what % of one’s disposable income maxing out would take. Remember the tax deferral one receives when contributing at work. When I was working, a buck contributed was costing something like 75 cents out of pocket - give or take.
On the other hand, if you include all the other taxes we pay in addition to income tax (sales tax, car & boat licensing fees, property tax, phone tax, gas tax, tax on alcoholic beverages & tobacco, social security tax, etc) than your disposable income is really much lower than first appears. That would make maxing out a really onerous option for lower wage workers. Heck, it could easily take 30% or even 40% of their disposable income.