Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Retirement benefit of less than $80 a month
Old 10-11-2012, 06:12 AM   #1
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
obgyn65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: midwestern city
Posts: 4,061
Retirement benefit of less than $80 a month

"Nearly half of all working Americans do not have access to a retirement savings plan at work. For those with a 401(k), the amount in their plan would pay them a retirement benefit of less than $80 a month for life."

Full article :
AARP: A big step toward retirement security
__________________

__________________
Very conservative with investments. Not ER'd yet, 48 years old. Please do not take anything I write or imply as legal, financial or medical advice directed to you. Contact your own financial advisor, healthcare provider, or attorney for financial, medical and legal advice.
obgyn65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 10-11-2012, 07:04 AM   #2
Recycles dryer sheets
truenorth418's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 484
I'm sorry, but I read this article 3 times and I didn't see anything actually explaining the program. Am I missing something?
__________________

__________________
truenorth418 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 07:24 AM   #3
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,708
If you click on the article's 'bad trend' hotlink:

"Employers would divert at least 3% of their workers' salaries into a state-administered fund for which private money managers would make investment decisions. At retirement, workers would receive a monthly benefit based on contributions and investment returns, with the state guaranteeing a minimum rate of return."

Sounds like a forced savings plan where employers take a portion of your salary and give it to the government who then pays it back to you years later.

This would supplement the forced savings plan called Social Security where employers take a portion of your salary and give it to the government who then pays it back to you years later (or not).
__________________
Living well is the best revenge!
Retired @ 52 in 2005
marko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 07:31 AM   #4
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
REWahoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Texas Hill Country
Posts: 42,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by truenorth418 View Post
I'm sorry, but I read this article 3 times and I didn't see anything actually explaining the program. Am I missing something?
I think the $80/mo number comes from what you'd get if you bought a SPIA using the $25,000 in the average 401k account.
__________________
Numbers is hard

When I hit 70, it hit back

Retired in 2005 at age 58, no pension
REWahoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 07:41 AM   #5
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
travelover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,899
Quote:
Originally Posted by marko View Post
............
This would supplement the forced savings plan called Social Security where employers take a portion of your salary and give it to the government who then pays it back to you years later (or not).
Well sort of. Actually the government takes your money and pays it to current retirees. You get a promise that the government will in turn take money from active workers and give the money to you when you retire.
__________________
Yes, I have achieved work / life balance.
travelover is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 07:55 AM   #6
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by travelover View Post
Well sort of. Actually the government takes your money and pays it to current retirees. You get a promise that the government will in turn take money from active workers and give the money to you when you retire.
Actually, I was just being playful.
__________________
Living well is the best revenge!
Retired @ 52 in 2005
marko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 09:07 AM   #7
Full time employment: Posting here.
HawkeyeNFO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Inside the Beltway
Posts: 573
Don't like it. Too much potential for corruption and fraud on the part of the politicians. Our books have historically been "balanced" by taking from the Social Security funds, which is simply illegal accounting in a non-governmental world. Now the AARP wants to expand that type of program? Bad idea.
__________________
HawkeyeNFO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 09:22 AM   #8
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
nun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by marko View Post
If you click on the article's 'bad trend' hotlink:

"Employers would divert at least 3% of their workers' salaries into a state-administered fund for which private money managers would make investment decisions. At retirement, workers would receive a monthly benefit based on contributions and investment returns, with the state guaranteeing a minimum rate of return."
The UK has recently introduced a law requiring employers to offer retirement savings plans. Employees are automatically enrolled. If the employer cannot offer a qualifying scheme of their own there is a Government approved scheme called NEST (National Employment Savings Trust) that they can use. Under the new law the employer must contribute at least 3% and the employee at least 5%. The employee can opt out of the scheme if they want.

NEST home | UK employer pension scheme | NEST pensions
__________________
“So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”

Current AA: 65% Equity Funds / 20% Bonds / 7% Stable Value /3% Cash / 5% TIAA Traditional
Retired Mar 2014 at age 52, target WR: 0.0%,
Income from pension and rent
nun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 09:27 AM   #9
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
growing_older's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,608
Sounds like Teresa Ghilarducci has found a sympathetic legislature and gained some traction. This plan is just passed, not yet implemented, and initially only for people who do not have a 401k at work. It provides a government sponsored 401k-like account for people not in a 401k, with some differences. No details yet on tax treatment. It would have a "mandatory enrollment" feature at 3%, like many are suggesting 401k plans should adopt. However, unlike 401k plans, the employee would have no say in how the funds are invested. A government / private "partnership" would manage the accounts and invest only in "balanced" funds. Also, unlike 401k there is no provision to withdraw the money and move to an IRA or other provider of choice if you leave your employer. The money stays in the account until retirement, so if you move from job to job, you keep the same account.

I would be concerned that if the investment choice they make isn't appropriate or if the internal fees are too high, there is no way to vote with your feet and take control of the account. Before too long, this will be a temptingly large pool of money and I'd be concerned that politicians will have a hard time leaving it alone. Lastly, the tax status is unclear; I would want to know a lot more about how the money will be taxed both while accumulating and at disbursement. Can lump sums be withdrawn, or only annuitized?
__________________
growing_older is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 09:30 AM   #10
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by travelover View Post
Well sort of. Actually the government takes your money and pays it to current retirees. You get a promise that the government will in turn take money from active workers and give the money to you when you retire.
I have not read the article, but the above sentence caught my attention. I will say that it would not be enough.

In order to solve people's financial trouble, even their current expenses have to be controlled. The government needs to keep all of their paychecks, and only give to the people what they need to spend. No more wasteful spending, no dumb splurging, nor spending on things non-essential like those iThings. Food, and only wholesome food mind you, water, and electricity. That's it! Small houses, not big ones either. Should I go on? No, I think you understand the program now.
__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky
NW-Bound is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 01:45 PM   #11
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,929
It sounds like this thread is talking about California Senate Bill 1234, the California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Trust.

http://sd22.senate.ca.gov/news/2012-...234-provides-r

From the National Law Review:
Quote:
The plan will require all employers with more than five employees to withhold 3 percent of employees’ pay unless employees opt out of the plan. The plan will be administered by a board chaired by the state treasurer, which will select either a private investment firm or the state’s public pension system to invest and maintain the plan’s funds.
Here is the text of the actual law: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...01120120SB1234
__________________
M Paquette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 01:46 PM   #12
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by NW-Bound View Post
I have not read the article, but the above sentence caught my attention. I will say that it would not be enough.

In order to solve people's financial trouble, even their current expenses have to be controlled. The government needs to keep all of their paychecks, and only give to the people what they need to spend. No more wasteful spending, no dumb splurging, nor spending on things non-essential like those iThings. Food, and only wholesome food mind you, water, and electricity. That's it! Small houses, not big ones either. Should I go on? No, I think you understand the program now.
This would at least have the benefit of protecting those of us who already live like this. As it is, we will be raided in the interest of "equality".

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 02:06 PM   #13
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
youbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawkeyeNFO View Post
Don't like it. Too much potential for corruption and fraud on the part of the politicians.
Nooooooo...... That could never happen!
__________________
"I wasn't born blue blood. I was born blue-collar." John Wort Hannam
youbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2012, 11:08 AM   #14
Recycles dryer sheets
ratto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by youbet View Post
Nooooooo...... That could never happen!
Didn't Bernie Madoff say something similar before?
__________________
ratto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2012, 11:11 AM   #15
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
This would at least have the benefit of protecting those of us who already live like this. As it is, we will be raided in the interest of "equality".

Ha
Ha, I think the new-speak word is "fairness".
__________________
Living well is the best revenge!
Retired @ 52 in 2005
marko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2012, 11:39 AM   #16
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,708
I can see it now: "Gee Joe, I'd like to keep you on the job here, but the gov't mandated 3% contribution is killing me...however, if you were to opt out of the program......"
__________________
Living well is the best revenge!
Retired @ 52 in 2005
marko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2012, 11:40 AM   #17
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,613
How many of these folks who have "$80 a month" in a 401k also have a decent pension waiting for them? I grow very tired of these articles that make broad statements about how inadequate everyone's retirement savings is when they don't consider that some of these folks will have a pretty good pension that meets all their financial needs.
__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

RIP to Reemy, my avatar dog (2003 - 9/16/2017)
ziggy29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2012, 01:25 PM   #18
Moderator
Walt34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Eastern WV Panhandle
Posts: 16,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggy29 View Post
How many of these folks who have "$80 a month" in a 401k also have a decent pension waiting for them? I grow very tired of these articles that make broad statements about how inadequate everyone's retirement savings is when they don't consider that some of these folks will have a pretty good pension that meets all their financial needs.
I've wondered about that too. Lots of people have pensions, even if they aren't as generous as in times past.

That said, I know a bunch of my relatives are going to be in very deep financial doodoo (some already are) when they find out what it costs to maintain the lifestyle they envision after work.
__________________
I heard the call to do nothing. So I answered it.
Walt34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2012, 09:31 AM   #19
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggy29 View Post
How many of these folks who have "$80 a month" in a 401k also have a decent pension waiting for them? I grow very tired of these articles that make broad statements about how inadequate everyone's retirement savings is when they don't consider that some of these folks will have a pretty good pension that meets all their financial needs.
Likewise, what percentage of people roll their old 401k accounts into the account their current provider provides? I know a few people that have more than six 401k accounts! I myself have two since a previous employer's plan offers me some better options than my current plan provides. That 401k account does have less than $25k in it. I don't think the company that manages it knows the account is less than 4% of our total retirement account balances...
__________________
lrak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2012, 09:59 AM   #20
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
2B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Houston
Posts: 4,330
AARP is politically biased and operates with questionable ethics (IMHO) so I would look upon any proposal from them with a jaded eye. Whether you agree with them or not, their position on the Affordable Care Act agreeing to take money from Medicare reimbursements cost them many members. They are currently trying harder to appear "non-partisan." Their questionable ethics comes from their business model. They charge people membership fees to try to sell them insurance and investment products which creates the bulk of their income.

If they favor forcing people to invest in retirement plans, they are obviously hoping to get on the bandwagon selling plans. If the government is serious about having people save for retirement, they would open up the government's thrift plan to every American.

BTW - My 401k has less than 5% of my total assets. I have the option to roll over into an IRA which I do every other year or so.
__________________

__________________
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane -- Marcus Aurelius
2B is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:42 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.