1/2 of Americans have almost no retirement money
Maybe they have $10,000, if anything at all.
…one in three people, according to the report from GOBankingRates, haven’t saved a dime for retirement and that’s looking at across the age spectrum.
The study by the website surveyed about 1,500 people, about half of whom have put away less than $10,000.
Copyright 2016 Liberaland Show Article
26 responses to 1/2 of Americans have almost no retirement money
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Mike March 22nd, 2016 at 10:20
Half of Americans don’t earn enough to save for retirement…
rg9rts March 22nd, 2016 at 12:39
This must have been written by a republican
rg9rts March 22nd, 2016 at 12:37
You need your full income just to exist today…so who has money for savings?? The top 1%??? Besides …the United States and the two polar caps tax the interest on savings…at 1.5 % wow…where is the incentive… Most of us expect to work in one way or another till we die…makes the gopee very happy
Jimmy Fleck March 22nd, 2016 at 13:27
I know of a source of money where every working individual could save 13% of their income for retirement with no added out of pocket costs for anyone.
tracey marie March 22nd, 2016 at 15:32
not everyone has a 401k offered to them.
Jimmy Fleck March 22nd, 2016 at 15:40
Not a 401k. Every working individual is already contributing 13% of their wages (up to a cap of about 110k) towards a retirement account. Unfortunately for them, the government confiscates all of this money and returns a small pittance back to them if they manage to live long enough. On top of that you lose 100% of your investment upon your death unless you leave a surviving spouse that did not also have their own retirement account with the government.
tracey marie March 22nd, 2016 at 15:41
oh puleeze.
bpollen March 22nd, 2016 at 21:29
Math is hard, huh?
Jimmy Fleck March 23rd, 2016 at 09:15
What math was hard? My retirement would be secure if I had complete control of my SS contributions to add to my personal retirement accounts. As it is, I get to see that money wasted with very little in return while also struggling to put away more money for my retirement. Anyone that thinks SS gives a good return on your investment is simply blind or stupid.
Obewon March 23rd, 2016 at 09:25
Yeah George W. Bush’s 2006 SS privatization would’ve vaporized another $5 T on top of the $17 Trillion lost in GWB’s Great Recession Record low everything since (R) Hoover’s Great Depression!
(R) Milton Friedman Chile pension privatization fail: Tinker Bell, Pinochet and The Fairy Tale Miracle of Chile. http://www.gregpalast.com/tinker-bell-pinochet-and-the-fairy-tale-miracle-of-chile-2/#sthash.Tut42xLq.dpuf
bpollen March 23rd, 2016 at 15:47
Seem to have forgotten that whole “recession” thingie… Lots of private investments were freaking devastated. Many people lost half or more of the value of their OWN retirement funds. Social Security payments didn’t get reduced because of the recession.
Then, you are assuming that that money you put in the bank for saving would NEVER get spent until retirement. In an era with stagnating and declining wages, value of houses (many people’s most valuable asset) going underwater, expenses and inflation cutting the value of what pay you DO get, jobs being moved to countries with little brown people that can be abused with impunity… that’s an untenable assumption.
See, if you don’t account for all pertinent factors, math IS hard. If you doubt me, look up the Mars Climate Orbiter. One little factor neglected and the entire $125 million flew off into oblivion.
Jimmy Fleck March 24th, 2016 at 09:52
The government doesn’t let you spend your SS taxes before you reach 65 so they could also restrict access to the retirement account until 65 as well. Sure there have been recessions in the past and will be more in the future. However, there are ways to avoid losing money in the long run. Anyone that was near retirement or actually retired should not have had as much invested in riskier options that were hit so hard in the last recession. For me, being younger at the time I didn’t really care that much about the stock market tanking. It was just a good time to put more money into it and now it has rebounded and grown quite well again. So I didn’t lose anything in the recession.
bpollen March 24th, 2016 at 14:59
…so they could also restrict access to the retirement account until 65 as well.
So, you are upset that you can’t control your SS funds, and your answer is to restrict access to your NON-SS retirement funds. This is a rant, not a well thought-out position. “Do to my own funds what I decry in Social Security.”
Let me guess – you’re a
LiverpudlianLibertarian… where 2+2=9.Jimmy Fleck March 24th, 2016 at 16:41
You don’t understand that I am proposing to privatize the SS system such that you would continue to be mandated to pay the SS taxes but they would accumulate in a retirement fund under your personal name? This would not replace the other retirement funds available, that you would still be able to contribute to voluntarily and withdraw early (with all those penalties) if you wish. So when I say they could restrict access to the fund I was implying the new privatized SS account which is already restricted access as it is currently setup – so no change there.
bpollen March 25th, 2016 at 03:53
Social Security has TRILLIONS of dollars in current commitments. In order to follow your scenario, you have to provide the cash to fulfill those current commitments. Where does that come from? Borrowing? So there goes the deficit, plus interest payments on debt would skyrocket. Additionally, you have to come up with the funds to set up this new version where you get to invest your money. Then you have to set up the bureaucracy to fulfill millions of people making individual decisions about their investments. There would be no guarantee on those investments, so if you lose, taxpayers would have to pick up the slack if you can’t support yourself on what is left. Then you are going increase personal contributions to the government to help offset some of that cost.
If you think debt is bad now, privatization will DESTROY it. Because we will need to come up with massive amounts of ADDITIONAL monies to implement it, and run it, and cover the losers in the market (if you were retiring before the recession, the bottom woulda dropped outta of your retirement.) Guess who has to pick up the tab? Taxpayers, Libertarians included.
Now, if you think about it, there is NOTHING stopping you from investing in the market and reaping those benefits you claim to desire. You appear to be verklempt because the government is guaranteeing a return instead of allowing you to shoot craps with it. If you are a Trump supporter, for instance, I find it doubtful that you would have the expertise to be a competent investor. Or Louie Gohmert… who’d take investment advice from Larry Fine’s stupid brother?
SteveD March 23rd, 2016 at 04:48
Confiscates? It’s called taxation. This scam has existed in one form or another for over 6,000 years. Maybe it’s time to accept the fact that you have limited choices. Funny how phony libertarians always deny reality… because FREEDOM.
Social Security is financed by a 12.4 percent tax on wages up to the annual threshold, with half (6.2 percent) paid by workers and the other half paid by employers. (Meaning your employer reduces your wages to cover their portion.)
Cap= $118,500 in 2015.
Oops… maybe you’ll soon have a “choice.”
People’s retirement money will be put at the whim of the rigged stock market. Privatization means that the program will be run on a strictly for-profit basis, yet FICA taxes (“personal contributions”) will continually rise and benefits will continually shrink. Expect no less from the wonderful free (rigged) market.
Wall Street criminals will eventually attain full control. When they steal the money, they will simply bribe federal officials to ignore their crimes and LOSSES. However, the truth is that no federal government program can ever become insolvent. There is no transfer of funds. The U.S. government creates the money to pay SS benefits simply by paying benefits.
And that does not even factor in that many folk lack the basic financial literacy to make wise investment decisions on their own.
Social Security benefits go into the real economy, which is separate from the financial economy. Injecting more money into Wall Street will not help Main Street. It will only help Wall Street.
bpollen March 22nd, 2016 at 21:30
Then maybe you should avail yourself of that! Oh, wait… you can’t.
Obewon March 23rd, 2016 at 09:29
You forgot to factor in 0% RISK, 3% compounded FEES on gross value losses, Disability and Unemployment Insurance. SS max tax ends at $110K, Make more!
Jimmy Fleck March 23rd, 2016 at 09:46
Unemployment insurance is not part of SS. We pay a separate tax for that (well your employer technically pays it, but it is coming out of your paycheck whether you know it or not). 0% risk is not quite right either. There is a risk that SS ends up bankrupt, greatly reducing benefits, raising retirement age, or increasing the tax rate. Also, if you die before collecting SS you lose 100% of your investment – I would say that is high risk of loss. Disability I agree is a benefit, but I would wager that I could pay my own disability insurance premium as well as save for retirement and still come out ahead. In fact, I am already paying for my own private long term and short term disability insurance plans because what SS offers is not near enough to take care of my family if I were to become disabled.
Obewon March 23rd, 2016 at 10:22
Child. Create your own corporation, open a SEP IRA and tax defer up to $50K+ annually, when you’re aged 50+. https://www.google.com/search?q=sep+ira&rlz=1C1SNNT_enUS378US378&oq=SEP+IRA&aqs=chrome.0.0l6.411j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=sep+ira+contribution+limits+2015
Or stay lazy, using pitiful Roth for neoclowns. http://rothcpa.com/2014/10/fica-max-increases-to-118500-for-2015/
Jimmy Fleck March 23rd, 2016 at 12:40
I do own my own business and I am putting money away for retirement on my own. I just wish the government didn’t take so much for a program that is going to go bankrupt without major changes which most likely will include taking even more money from me. But in reality the people that should be most upset about the SS system are the poor. In general they will pay into this system for all of their working years but tend to die younger which limits their return on their investment. They don’t get to pass down their nest egg to their descendants, instead it is simply gone. Someone working 40 hours a week at minimum wage would pay about $1,900 in SS taxes a year (their contribution plus employer contribution). Investing this over 45 years at 6.5% interest nets a final value of over 500k. This is assuming the person never makes more than the current minimum wage throughout their life. It would take 58 plus years at current SS payment rates to get your money back and this is just for a minimum wage earner.
Obewon March 23rd, 2016 at 19:52
“I do own my own business”-Apparently you’re ‘temporarily embarrassed’ or underfunded as employed via your customers.
I remain self-employed during my during my entire adult life via 3 self-founded software and consulting corps. Not once have I ever been a shameful penny-pincer, and not once have I espoused the economic “SS Insurance” illiteracy you provide herein as an ‘excuse’ for your insolvency.
Working to pay for my own College, I was shocked I could buy wholesale products, markup +400% and pay my employees +50% greater than any of my competitors, thereby eliminating retraining. I suspect by your post you aren’t really in business, or it’s a poor one.
Jimmy Fleck March 24th, 2016 at 10:01
I don’t know what makes you think I am insolvent. Business is fine thanks. Not sure what that has to do with being upset that 12.5% of my income and my employees’ income goes flying out the door to a wasteful program that could be handled so much better.
Obewon March 24th, 2016 at 20:21
? USA’s Disability, unemployment and SS Insurance laws are Reality and the rule of law. That’s why it’s easier to just make more money, growing your business income and again “SEP-IRA”-tax deferred $50K+ annually per each corporate owner.
Dwendt44 March 22nd, 2016 at 18:51
And it’s going to get worse, likely much worse.
Corporations are cutting benefits like pensions. Replacing high paying jobs with low paying ones. More and more part time positions (even at the Post Office) with no benefits.
Low minimum wages keeps people from saving anything. Some IRA/401K investment companies are outright crooked. Only four or five real good ones.
Foundryman March 23rd, 2016 at 11:11
Everytime a story like this comes up the first thing the righties want to blame is taxes. As if the taxes they or WE all pay would make us all rich if only we didn’t pay them. They like to ignore that nothing is free even all the “free stuff” THEY get from those taxes, like police, fire and rescue, road building and repair, garbage pickup, the military, the post office for christs sake!
It’s as if they freely choose to remain totally ignorant of reality. If they had to pay a private capitalist company for those services themselves they wouldn’t be able to afford the rusted out pickup truck they drive now with the Nobama sticker on the back of it.
What’s needed for the common man is an enhanced social security retirement system with COLA on benefits and that is equally financed by the rich and the working class. Right now the rich pay a very small percentage of their income into SS while the rest of us pay the full 12.5%.
The argument that asks why the rich should pay into a system they will never need is total rubbish once we get away from the lie that they have “built this” ” they have earned this” or “they are the job creators”. And instead get back to the reality that they wouldn’t have a pot to pee in if it wasn’t for the workers and the working class paying with the blood of their sons and daughters and forefathers for them to get rich in the first place.