gryffindor
Recycles dryer sheets
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 51
All of the recent news about pensions, state governments and the economic crisis (and a letter in newspaper that I can't remember well enough to find the link) make me think that the "new inequality" that will be emerging in the next 10 years will be around retirement insecurity and the boomers.
You'll have at least 3 groups of people
Government retirees will be on a defined benefit streams of income while everyone elses' taxes go up. This group will be relatively secure unless government bankruptcies force some radical action (e.g., State of California declares itself to be bankrupt and tries to go through courts to restructure pensions which are constitutionally illegal today). Probably the safest group of them all will be those on military pensions. Percentage of people at 65 = maybe 15%?
There will be the select few people who have saved enough money in the private sector through hard work and 401ks, entrepreneurship, etc. to accumulate assets where they can live near their baseline income at a 3-4% SWR. That group has been hit hard recently, but if they don't panic should be able to do ok, albeit at a different level than they may have been planning. Percentage at people at 65 = 15%?
The rest of the boomers will not have enough saved and have a significant amount of uncertainty and a lot lower set of assets. SWRs of 3-4% make it difficult for them to get there rapidly. Income testing of SSI and higher taxes will make it even worse. They will have to be working part-time on an ongoing basis. And will try to define the culture that working part-time is the best way to retire in fact due to reasons XYZ. Percentage of people at 65 = 70%?
No easy way for government to solve this one, the math is too difficult (let alone the social policy issues). But the political implications could be explosive. I think the financial implications for all the people on the board is that there might be a set of actions by the government that few people have taken into account in their planning. Diversification is a broader concept than just financial assets.
You'll have at least 3 groups of people
Government retirees will be on a defined benefit streams of income while everyone elses' taxes go up. This group will be relatively secure unless government bankruptcies force some radical action (e.g., State of California declares itself to be bankrupt and tries to go through courts to restructure pensions which are constitutionally illegal today). Probably the safest group of them all will be those on military pensions. Percentage of people at 65 = maybe 15%?
There will be the select few people who have saved enough money in the private sector through hard work and 401ks, entrepreneurship, etc. to accumulate assets where they can live near their baseline income at a 3-4% SWR. That group has been hit hard recently, but if they don't panic should be able to do ok, albeit at a different level than they may have been planning. Percentage at people at 65 = 15%?
The rest of the boomers will not have enough saved and have a significant amount of uncertainty and a lot lower set of assets. SWRs of 3-4% make it difficult for them to get there rapidly. Income testing of SSI and higher taxes will make it even worse. They will have to be working part-time on an ongoing basis. And will try to define the culture that working part-time is the best way to retire in fact due to reasons XYZ. Percentage of people at 65 = 70%?
No easy way for government to solve this one, the math is too difficult (let alone the social policy issues). But the political implications could be explosive. I think the financial implications for all the people on the board is that there might be a set of actions by the government that few people have taken into account in their planning. Diversification is a broader concept than just financial assets.