Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

Treasury Announces Steps To Wind Down myRA Program

Too bad - guess people have either found other ways to save for retirement or have decided NOT to save for retirement.

 

Sure glad I didn't think along those lines.  Being self-employed for the majority of my working years, there was no employer match but some of the retirement tax vehicles really helped - 

 

Too bad people don't take advantage of the savers tax credit on their returns.

 

Think people will ever understand that someday they may not be working but living expenses keep coming in and keep getting higher.  Seems like most folks just live, think and plan for today only.

 

Don't fall for the line that people just cannot do it - for most people they have an entire lifetime to figure it out because it is a pretty normal result of life.  

 

U.S. Treasury 07/28/2017 - Treasury Announces Steps to Wind Down myRA Program

Honored Social Butterfly

Here's How Much Money You Could Retire With by Saving $10, $20, $40, $50, or $100 Per Week
Saving a little now could have a big impact later in life.

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2016/08/13/heres-how-much-money-you-could-retire-with-by-savi.aspx

Saving a little now can mean a whole lot of money later
For our example we'll have to set some baselines using Bankrate's investment calculator. We're going to assume our fictitious individual begins saving and investing at age 22 and that he or she plans to retire by age 67 (45 years later), which is the full retirement age, per the Social Security Administration, for people born in 1960 and after. Other assumptions include that our fictitious individual will invest their savings into the stock market, which has a historical return rate of 7%, including dividend reinvestment, and that contributions will be made weekly with interest compounding on a daily basis. Finally, we're going to make the assumption that all funds will head into tax-deferred accounts, such as a Traditional IRA or employer-sponsored 401(k), where you'd owe tax once you begin taking distributions, or a Roth IRA, where you'll owe no taxes on investment gains. Thus we'll wind up with a clean, tax-free figure.

Let's take a look at how quickly your nest egg could grow if you saved $10, $20, $40, $50, or $100 per week for a 45-year period.

The average American household brings home about $1,000 per week, meaning setting aside $10 is basically 1% of household income. Yet, setting aside $10 per week over 45 years will yield $165,776 by the time you turn 67 years old.

Here's what would happen if you began increasing the weekly savings rate:


At $20 per week you'd have $331,553 by age 67
At $40 per week you'd have $663,105 by age 67
At $50 per week you'd have $828,882 by age 67
At $100 per week you'd have $1,657,765 by age 67
Mind you, these calculations take into account the historical average rate of return of investing in stocks with dividend reinvestment. You may do even better if you choose to invest in individual stocks as opposed to index funds.

Furthermore, if you add just five additional years (i.e., you save and invest for 50 years instead of 45) to the above saving and investing example, the returns really skyrocket. Here's what you'd have after 50 years of saving and investing using the same weekly contributions as the prior example:

At $10 per week: $238,351
At $20 per week: $476,702
At $40 per week: $953,404
At $50 per week: $1,191,755
At $100 per week: $2,383,509

======================================================

Most people can save for retirement....the hardest part is to have the desire to do so.

I think the reason many do not save is our government gives people the idea that "big brother" should and will take care of you....and they do in many cases...Medicaid is just one example.





0 Kudos
310 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Why President Obama went with this myRA plan, how many invested and how much, what happened - answered in this link:

 

The Street 08/02/2017 - myRA, We Hardly Knew Ya: How the Private Sector Beats an Obama Savings Plan ...

 

Now the question is what will all these savers do with their (average) savings of $1700 ?

Move them to another accounts - bank, brokerage

Continue to save

Or just take it out and spend it on something of necessity or no necessity at all?

Hopefully, they did learn something about saving -

 

Wonder for how many this was their first attempt at saving.

0 Kudos
327 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Part of the paycheck-to-paycheck problem is that housing and transportation costs are increasing percentages of a person's required monthly expenditures. 

 

   

Honored Social Butterfly

NedyMom posted..


Part of the paycheck-to-paycheck problem is that housing and transportation costs are increasing percentages of a person's required monthly expenditures.

======================================================

There will always be excuses for not saving for retirement and most of they do not hold water.
0 Kudos
315 Views
68
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@KidBoy2 wrote:
NedyMom posted..


Part of the paycheck-to-paycheck problem is that housing and transportation costs are increasing percentages of a person's required monthly expenditures.

======================================================

There will always be excuses for not saving for retirement and most of they do not hold water.

This thread annoys me because I get really tired of people equating someone's moral worth with their income.   The average one bedroom apartment in DC costs $2,000 a month.   Nobody on $50,000 can afford that easily.  That's half their monthly paycheck.  For a one bedroom.  Get a two bedroom with a roommate for about $3,000 a month and "only" pay $1500. 

 

Hard work matters.  But luck matters, too.  Where you were born.  How well off your parents were.  Your access to quality education.  Your health.   Your access to decent jobs.  So many things.  People can and do overcome those challenges.   But then they are usually years behind their peers financially.  

 

Just because someone doesn't have enough saved does not mean they aren't both a hard worker and a saver.   There are exceptions, of course.   But the vast majority of people in this country are just trying to make a living like everyone else. 

 

 

 

 

Honored Social Butterfly

Spot on Nerdy Mom & mick , It's alot easier when your folks give ya a solid kick start in life. I know many well off couples , who seem to forget how well their parents set them up and want to stick their chest out like it was all on their own.

 

Like you stated , many have busted their buts and done their best , but life has hit them with set backs and health issues , many to no fault of their own. It's a piece of cake raising a family on 50 - 60 k and saving a cool million in your 401k - NOT !!! Dont all responsible middle class families have an extra $1,200 or so a month to tuck away in a Roth IRA ???

 

There , but for the grace of God go I !!!

Honored Social Butterfly

Remember what the great recession did to retirement accounts ( 40-50% decline in value ) and how many years it took to just regain from those losses ?

Honored Social Butterfly


@NerdyMom wrote:

@KidBoy2 wrote:
NedyMom posted..


Part of the paycheck-to-paycheck problem is that housing and transportation costs are increasing percentages of a person's required monthly expenditures.

======================================================

There will always be excuses for not saving for retirement and most of they do not hold water.

This thread annoys me because I get really tired of people equating someone's moral worth with their income.   The average one bedroom apartment in DC costs $2,000 a month.   Nobody on $50,000 can afford that easily.  That's half their monthly paycheck.  For a one bedroom.  Get a two bedroom with a roommate for about $3,000 a month and "only" pay $1500. 

 

Hard work matters.  But luck matters, too.  Where you were born.  How well off your parents were.  Your access to quality education.  Your health.   Your access to decent jobs.  So many things.  People can and do overcome those challenges.   But then they are usually years behind their peers financially.  

 

Just because someone doesn't have enough saved does not mean they aren't both a hard worker and a saver.   There are exceptions, of course.   But the vast majority of people in this country are just trying to make a living like everyone else. 

 

 

 

 

-------------------------

So which should come first - a job and what you will make or where they want to live regardless of what kind of pay scale they might get.

 

In Atlanta, the Millenials want to live along the beltway -'a wide paved walk, run, bike, etc. loop around intown areas.  The rents have skyrocketed but mostly from this desire.  Now all we hear is people complaining that they can't live there because it getting out expensive.

 

Now wheremI live about 30 miles outside in a watershed area which is rural and always will be -  $ 50,000 a year put you solidly in the middle class and with prices to fit that,style.

 

Haven't you ever met an older person whose area has taken off and the property taxes are too high for their income --'when once it fitted them just right.  Then they sell and add to their bounty - life left behind for another.

 

The problem is that better paying jobs seem to follow or make, I don't know which, higher cost of living areas.  Companies want to be where there is a great lifestyle, culture, art, nature - I call it tamed nature, restaurants, - an area such as that is gonna be expensive to live in, even close by.

 

People who cannot pay the going rent should find another place to live and work so they can at least start to save if for only a rainy day.

 

 

 

 

Honored Social Butterfly

NurdyMom posted..

This thread annoys me because I get really tired of people equating someone's moral worth with their income. The average one bedroom apartment in DC costs $2,000 a month. Nobody on $50,000 can afford that easily. That's half their monthly paycheck. For a one bedroom. Get a two bedroom with a roommate for about $3,000 a month and "only" pay $1500.

Hard work matters. But luck matters, too. Where you were born. How well off your parents were. Your access to quality education. Your health. Your access to decent jobs. So many things. People can and do overcome those challenges. But then they are usually years behind their peers financially.

Just because someone doesn't have enough saved does not mean they aren't both a hard worker and a saver. There are exceptions, of course. But the vast majority of people in this country are just trying to make a living like everyone else.

========================================================

I am tired of people that can afford to pay their own way do not.

I am also tired of people making excuses for people not saving for retirement and then expecting "Big Brother" to come to their aid .

I grant you that today we have become, thanks to our Congress a country of entitlements and dependency. Sad but true and I think you can see that .

People need to live within their income.

FYI...The average American household brings home about $1,000 per week, meaning setting aside $10 is basically 1% of household income. Yet, setting aside $10 per week over 45 years will yield $165,776 by the time you turn 67 years old.

I get my case!



0 Kudos
348 Views
61
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@KidBoy2 wrote:


========================================================

I am tired of people that can afford to pay their own way do not.

I am also tired of people making excuses for people not saving for retirement and then expecting "Big Brother" to come to their aid .

I grant you that today we have become, thanks to our Congress a country of entitlements and dependency. Sad but true and I think you can see that .

People need to live within their income.

FYI...The average American household brings home about $1,000 per week, meaning setting aside $10 is basically 1% of household income. Yet, setting aside $10 per week over 45 years will yield $165,776 by the time you turn 67 years old.

I get my case!




$165,000 for retirement is nothing for a person making $50,000.  You are conservatively supposed to save 10x your highest salary for retirement.    

 

The overwhelming majority of workers do not have access to pensions these days.   They are on a cash-only basis for saving.    401(k)s aren't even that great if your employer has little expertise in choosing decent funds.    

Honored Social Butterfly


@NerdyMom wrote:

$165,000 for retirement is nothing for a person making $50,000.  You are conservatively supposed to save 10x your highest salary for retirement.    

 


That depends upon other factors rather than the fact they make $50,000.  Maybe for someone looking at others and comparing them to theirselves they think so, but to put yourself in other's shoes the world is different.

 

Maybe those with money might say a person is supposed to save so much, but when you get down to another's level the world is different.  I've built up more savings in retirement than before.  That's because our children are out on their own, we have had our bills from raising them has been paid off, etc.  And of course after being over 65, even our taxes have been reduced. 

0 Kudos
326 Views
6
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@NerdyMom wrote:

$165,000 for retirement is nothing for a person making $50,000.  You are conservatively supposed to save 10x your highest salary for retirement.    

 


That depends upon other factors rather than the fact they make $50,000.  Maybe for someone looking at others and comparing them to theirselves they think so, but to put yourself in other's shoes the world is different.

 

Maybe those with money might say a person is supposed to save so much, but when you get down to another's level the world is different.  I've built up more savings in retirement than before.  That's because our children are out on their own, we have had our bills from raising them has been paid off, etc.  And of course after being over 65, even our taxes have been reduced. 


I'm talking about someone who is 100% responsible for their own retirement. That means someone who does not have a pension and someone who does not have a spouse who will continue to work.   Most people working today do not have access to a defined benefit plan, such as a pension.  In this case, 10x your salary is the minimum you should save. And if you make more money, you need to save more than that.   Because Social Security does not replace as large a portion of your pre-retirement income.    

 

 

0 Kudos
330 Views
5
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@NerdyMom wrote:

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@NerdyMom wrote:

$165,000 for retirement is nothing for a person making $50,000.  You are conservatively supposed to save 10x your highest salary for retirement.    

 


That depends upon other factors rather than the fact they make $50,000.  Maybe for someone looking at others and comparing them to theirselves they think so, but to put yourself in other's shoes the world is different.

 

Maybe those with money might say a person is supposed to save so much, but when you get down to another's level the world is different.  I've built up more savings in retirement than before.  That's because our children are out on their own, we have had our bills from raising them has been paid off, etc.  And of course after being over 65, even our taxes have been reduced. 


I'm talking about someone who is 100% responsible for their own retirement. That means someone who does not have a pension and someone who does not have a spouse who will continue to work.   Most people working today do not have access to a defined benefit plan, such as a pension.  In this case, 10x your salary is the minimum you should save. And if you make more money, you need to save more than that.   Because Social Security does not replace as large a portion of your pre-retirement income.    

 

 


And of course you are assuming that a person has disposable income.  A good many spouses are stay at home moms taking care of their children.  I believe they are responsible.  Think about child care costs, even with credits if they work.  Also think about income status also, I've associated with those who for some reason live paycheck to paycheck...they aren't professional types with good incomes. 

 

Think about someone who plans from the time he graduates from high school for pension and benefits which effectively is the same as saving. Regarding a spouse continuing to work doesn't apply to your recommendations since they are pre-retirement and planning for retirement thoughts.

 

Additionally perhaps you are comparing your situation with the general population and not taking in consideration factors that are affected by class status. 

 

And yes, I started my retirement savings by paying off bills incurred when children left home, first transferring $100 a month to savings, then when a bill was paid off, putting that amount into savings...paying myself.

0 Kudos
334 Views
4
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@NerdyMom wrote:

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@NerdyMom wrote:

$165,000 for retirement is nothing for a person making $50,000.  You are conservatively supposed to save 10x your highest salary for retirement.    

 


That depends upon other factors rather than the fact they make $50,000.  Maybe for someone looking at others and comparing them to theirselves they think so, but to put yourself in other's shoes the world is different.

 

Maybe those with money might say a person is supposed to save so much, but when you get down to another's level the world is different.  I've built up more savings in retirement than before.  That's because our children are out on their own, we have had our bills from raising them has been paid off, etc.  And of course after being over 65, even our taxes have been reduced. 


I'm talking about someone who is 100% responsible for their own retirement. That means someone who does not have a pension and someone who does not have a spouse who will continue to work.   Most people working today do not have access to a defined benefit plan, such as a pension.  In this case, 10x your salary is the minimum you should save. And if you make more money, you need to save more than that.   Because Social Security does not replace as large a portion of your pre-retirement income.    

 

 


And of course you are assuming that a person has disposable income.  A good many spouses are stay at home moms taking care of their children.  I believe they are responsible.  Think about child care costs, even with credits if they work.  Also think about income status also, I've associated with those who for some reason live paycheck to paycheck...they aren't professional types with good incomes. 

 

Think about someone who plans from the time he graduates from high school for pension and benefits which effectively is the same as saving. Regarding a spouse continuing to work doesn't apply to your recommendations since they are pre-retirement and planning for retirement thoughts.

 

Additionally perhaps you are comparing your situation with the general population and not taking in consideration factors that are affected by class status. 

 

And yes, I started my retirement savings by paying off bills incurred when children left home, first transferring $100 a month to savings, then when a bill was paid off, putting that amount into savings...paying myself.


I think you are mistaking my point here, because you are making my argument for me -- that it's hard to save for retirement.   People who can do it should be proud of their accomplishments and have some gratitude for being able to do so.   And NOT look down on those who can't do it.     My whole point throughout this thread is to not demonize those who cannot save enough.   I'm not the one fussing because people "look to the government to bail them out." 

Honored Social Butterfly


@NerdyMom wrote:

I think you are mistaking my point here, because you are making my argument for me -- that it's hard to save for retirement.   People who can do it should be proud of their accomplishments and have some gratitude for being able to do so.   And NOT look down on those who can't do it.     My whole point throughout this thread is to not demonize those who cannot save enough.   I'm not the one fussing because people "look to the government to bail them out." 


There are those who look to the government to bail them out.  And there are those who won't take from 'charity' or if they do, does so reluctantly.  These types believe that getting government assistance is charity.  But I have come across those who because of their status can't understand why everyone can't be like them.  And I've seen those who think that those who have should share with them...

 

I would love to have $165,000 in savings, but instead we have 3 children who we invested in through the years and are successful in life. 

0 Kudos
359 Views
2
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@NerdyMom wrote:

I think you are mistaking my point here, because you are making my argument for me -- that it's hard to save for retirement.   People who can do it should be proud of their accomplishments and have some gratitude for being able to do so.   And NOT look down on those who can't do it.     My whole point throughout this thread is to not demonize those who cannot save enough.   I'm not the one fussing because people "look to the government to bail them out." 


There are those who look to the government to bail them out.  And there are those who won't take from 'charity' or if they do, does so reluctantly.  These types believe that getting government assistance is charity.  But I have come across those who because of their status can't understand why everyone can't be like them.  And I've seen those who think that those who have should share with them...

 

I would love to have $165,000 in savings, but instead we have 3 children who we invested in through the years and are successful in life. 


But I don't think you are 62 and just starting retirement, right?   You likely don't "need" all this cash on hand.   It's my generation that had pensions pulled out from under them.   Or watched pensions like Bethlehem Steel fail for their own parents.  They did get a government bail out, and I think they should.  I want my tax dollars to help in situations like that.  That's what we do for each other. You work your whole life thinking you'll get a pension and then the company just up and dumps you.   

 

 

Honored Social Butterfly

I agree NerdyMom that we should be there for those who had pensions taken from them , just like we need to strengthen and increase Social Security,  not make reductions. 

Honored Social Butterfly



NerdyMom posted..

$165,000 for retirement is nothing for a person making $50,000. You are conservatively supposed to save 10x your highest salary for retirement.

The overwhelming majority of workers do not have access to pensions these days. They are on a cash-only basis for saving. 401(k)s aren't even that great if your employer has little expertise in choosing decent funds.
========================================================

$165,000 is a nice nest egg and I wish more people would have that amount when they retire...many have next to nothing. Most will have their home paid off. With $165,000 people will have money to do things they want and invested at 5% they will get $8,250 a year to do as they wish...people that have not saved will have to depend on SS to live on.

People do not have to have a 401K or any employer plan anyone can open a IRA.

I am tired of people that can afford to pay their own way do not.

I am also tired of people making excuses for people not saving for retirement and then expecting "Big Brother" to come to their aid .



0 Kudos
341 Views
52
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@KidBoy2 wrote:


NerdyMom posted..

$165,000 for retirement is nothing for a person making $50,000. You are conservatively supposed to save 10x your highest salary for retirement.

The overwhelming majority of workers do not have access to pensions these days. They are on a cash-only basis for saving. 401(k)s aren't even that great if your employer has little expertise in choosing decent funds.
========================================================

$165,000 is a nice nest egg and I wish more people would have that amount when they retire...many have next to nothing. Most will have their home paid off. With $165,000 people will have money to do things they want and invested at 5% they will get $8,250 a year to do as they wish...people that have not saved will have to depend on SS to live on.

People do not have to have a 401K or any employer plan anyone can open a IRA.

I am tired of people that can afford to pay their own way do not.

I am also tired of people making excuses for people not saving for retirement and then expecting "Big Brother" to come to their aid .




Then you are in luck.  No need to complain.  The average retirement savings among those 56-61, close to retirement, is $163,000.  

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/07/how-much-the-average-family-has-saved-for-retirement-at-every-age.ht...

 

Do you know a lot of seniors who as the government to bail them out?  Most of the struggling seniors I know look to their kids for help.  They move in with their kids when they can't make it on their own.

0 Kudos
326 Views
50
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

NerdyMom posted..

Then you are in luck. No need to complain. The average retirement savings among those 56-61, close to retirement, is $163,000.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/07/how-much-the-average-family-has-saved-for-retirement-at-every-age.ht...

Do you know a lot of seniors who as the government to bail them out? Most of the struggling seniors I know look to their kids for help. They move in with their kids when they can't make it on their own.

=================================================

retired posted..

Mean retirement savings of families between 56 and 61: $163,577
Median retirement savings of families between 56 and 61: $17,000".

Thanks Retired for pointing that out...it sure makes my point.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

My point was and is that people are not saving for retirement when they can and should. I blame or politicians...they give voters the idea why worry it's "big brothers" job to look after you. We do live in the world today of entitlements.

Yes I know of people that have used our government programs to bail them out after they lived beyond their means and did not save for retirement.

I have pointed out that people making 50k a year can save for retirement if they want...do you understand that?

Again..I am tired of people that can afford to pay their own way do not.

I am also tired of people making excuses for people not saving for retirement and then expecting "Big Brother" to come to their aid .





0 Kudos
322 Views
45
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Republicans continue to claim it's because people are stupid and selfish that they do not save enough for their own retirements, but that one little statistic blows that lie out of the water:

Mean retirement (total dollars divided by number of people)=$163,577

Median retirement (same number over and under) = $17,000

 

The ONLY way that happens is when the amounts saved by a few are vastly more than the mean.

 

If you're an average Joe making $57,000 today, and by some miricle you were able to begin your career in 1975 earning the then average wage of $10,579, and gotten raises every year so you continued to earn the "median/average wage for US workers", AND you could put back 5% of every paycheck for retirement AND you found some magical investment that returned 5% every year since 1975, THEN you'd have a total retirement nest egg of $190,975.00.

 

However, we KNOW no such thing ever happened because the REAL WORLD shows the "average" (half did more half did less) worker only socked away $17,000, and if you include all the zillionaires, the actual average (mean) was only 86% our mythical "Average Joe" was able to do.

 

So either the GOPerLords rant about how American workers are just too dumb and lazy to arrange their own financial affairs is true, or their fairlytale view of what's actually possible sucks wind. I vote for the "sucks wind" conclusion.

 

The other obvious "conclusion" is this: If anyone wants to be able to retire at 65, they better get a Congress that will FIX SS and create a guarenteed investment plan for all workers with mandatory contributions. Or we can hope Walmart et al don't get rid of all those wonderful "Senior Special" jobs running cash registers or (more likely) retreiving shopping carts from the parking lot.

Honored Social Butterfly


@Olderscout66 wrote:

Republicans continue to claim it's because people are stupid and selfish that they do not save enough for their own retirements, but that one little statistic blows that lie out of the water:

Mean retirement (total dollars divided by number of people)=$163,577

Median retirement (same number over and under) = $17,000

 

The ONLY way that happens is when the amounts saved by a few are vastly more than the mean.

 

If you're an average Joe making $57,000 today, and by some miricle you were able to begin your career in 1975 earning the then average wage of $10,579, and gotten raises every year so you continued to earn the "median/average wage for US workers", AND you could put back 5% of every paycheck for retirement AND you found some magical investment that returned 5% every year since 1975, THEN you'd have a total retirement nest egg of $190,975.00.

 

However, we KNOW no such thing ever happened because the REAL WORLD shows the "average" (half did more half did less) worker only socked away $17,000, and if you include all the zillionaires, the actual average (mean) was only 86% our mythical "Average Joe" was able to do.

 

they better get a Congress that will FIX SS and create a guarenteed investment plan for all workers with mandatory contributions. I vote for the "sucks wind" conclusion.

 

The other obvious "conclusion" is this: If anyone wants to be able to retire at 65, they better get a Congress that will FIX SS and create a guarenteed investment plan for all workers with mandatory contributions. Or we can hope Walmart et al don't get rid of all those wonderful "Senior Special" jobs running cash registers or (more likely) retreiving shopping carts from the parking lot.


Do you not realize that your desire for ".....they better get a Congress that will FIX SS and create a guaranteed investment plan for all workers with mandatory contributions" is based on a mindset of ".....GOPerLords rant about how American workers are just too dumb and lazy to arrange their own financial affairs...".

 

So, does that make you a GOPerLord? It seems you want the government to take care of things for those people who are "too dumb and lazy" to attend to their needs.

0 Kudos
293 Views
43
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Like the Tax Payers and Gov't took care of you rk9152 with your " Socialist " Lifetime Federal Pension with Cost of Living Increases and Lifetime Medical Healthcare. You were  such a non lazy and  smarter worker,  than all the rest of America that only you deserve such " Entitlements"

With all due respect 

Honored Social Butterfly


@mandm84 wrote:

Like the Tax Payers and Gov't took care of you rk9152 with your " Socialist " Lifetime Federal Pension with Cost of Living Increases and Lifetime Medical Healthcare. You were  such a non lazy and  smarter worker,  than all the rest of America that only you deserve such " Entitlements"

With all due respect 


You know, mandm84 -'at least that was a plan.

 

Same thing for people who stay in the military or any government service - state or federal.

 

No different tha finding a job with a large employer who has retirement benefits.

It is a plan.

 

i was self employed and thus had to make a different plan - HAD to make more to fund my plan.  But I knew that the plan was definitely needed.

 

People pick how they earn money to live on day by day, year by year - there is no rule that says you can't change this to make more for your needs now and for the long term.

Honored Social Butterfly

GOPers love to hate those who are not paid enough to prosper. Since 1999 when real income peaked at $57,843, the pay of the average American worker has DROPPED to only $54,000 today. Several surveys have established the around 65% of American families cannot absorb an unexpected expense of $500 without borrowing.

FACT: If you don't have at least $500 available for investing in retirement each month, you're not going to have a reasonable retirement.

 

 

It's NOT that American workers aren't smart enough to save for their retirement, its that thanks to the Reagan taxscam, their bosses no longer pay them enough to afford to save for retirement.

Honored Social Butterfly


@Olderscout66 wrote:

GOPers love to hate those who are not paid enough to prosper. Since 1999 when real income peaked at $57,843, the pay of the average American worker has DROPPED to only $54,000 today. Several surveys have established the around 65% of American families cannot absorb an unexpected expense of $500 without borrowing.

FACT: If you don't have at least $500 available for investing in retirement each month, you're not going to have a reasonable retirement.

 

 

It's NOT that American workers aren't smart enough to save for their retirement, its that thanks to the Reagan taxscam, their bosses no longer pay them enough to afford to save for retirement.


The "leveling" of pay began way back in the Carter years. It was the result of a change in the market and the economy - not the fault of Carter or any President. The nonsense about people being payed less because the "bosses" paid less tax under Reagan is ........well......nonsense.

0 Kudos
563 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

A question for those in this conversation -

 

Which way would workers rather have it -

 

The company that they work for gives them a lower salary but subsidizes their health benefits and pension greatly and manages them too..

 

OR

 

Pays them a higher salary (comparable to the above with subsidies included in their pay) and they (the employees) handle their own health care insurance coverage and retirement funding and managing.

 

Which way would work out better for the employees?

 

Which way would work out better for society?

 

Would the employees getting this higher salary actually find and manage these other benefits on their own or would they still only save a small amount, if any and would they pick their own health insurance coverage?

 

 

 

 

0 Kudos
332 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@GailL1 wrote:

A question for those in this conversation -

 

Which way would workers rather have it -

 

The company that they work for gives them a lower salary but subsidizes their health benefits and pension greatly and manages them too..

 

OR

 

Pays them a higher salary (comparable to the above with subsidies included in their pay) and they (the employees) handle their own health care insurance coverage and retirement funding and managing.

 

Which way would work out better for the employees?

 

Which way would work out better for society?

 

Would the employees getting this higher salary actually find and manage these other benefits on their own or would they still only save a small amount, if any and would they pick their own health insurance coverage? 


Many companies have menu plans where you are entitled to pick this and that or plan (b) but you brought up an interesting idea.  Since the value of your salary is the money you receive each month + the benefits you receive + the pension accrued, maybe these should be included in the menu of benefits so you could choose (if you wanted) the cash value of all benefits or any mixture.

0 Kudos
325 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@mandm84 wrote:

Like the Tax Payers and Gov't took care of you rk9152 with your " Socialist " Lifetime Federal Pension with Cost of Living Increases and Lifetime Medical Healthcare. You were  such a non lazy and  smarter worker,  than all the rest of America that only you deserve such " Entitlements "?

 

 


I do detect that someone is extremely jealous because others made good decisions when they were young.  Socialism or was it the same as working for private industry with their pensions and medical care after retirement?  This area has many retirees from the industrial corporate world and a good many of them enjoy good healthcare coverage and cost of living increases on their pensions.

 

Civil Service pensions are contributory by employees, just as some corporate retirement programs are.  I believe that this topic has mentioned about a person also being responsible for their own retirement fund. 

0 Kudos
263 Views
34
Report
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Does AARP donate to political parties or endorse candidates?

AARP is strictly non-partisan and always has been. We never endorse or donate to candidates, political parties or political action committees.

Learn more.

AARP Members Only Games

Play members only games, like FIll Ins, Lumeno, 2048 and a collaborative, multiplayer Let's Crossword.

Play Now
AARP Members Only Games Logos
AARP Rewards

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards. Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts.

Get started with AARP Rewards now!
/html/assets/Rewards-program-badge-355x224.png