There is a lot of talk about taking some IRA and 401k...It could be added to SS.
What does "taking some IRA and 401k" mean here?
Do you have a link to this talk?
There is a lot of talk about taking some IRA and 401k...It could be added to SS.
They have had talks about retirement in congress. What has been talked about is taking your IRS and 401k and give you a annuity when you are gone that money would go government or SS. If the folks in Washington are talking about Medicare for all and taking you insurance away..don't think SS for all can't happened by taking you IRA. I'm sorry I don't the lady pushing this, I do think she teaches at Boston u
I don't think it would be doubled.
A person who worked at least 30 years is currently guaranteed a minimum of $10,470 per year.
Under the proposed legislation, that would go to $15,612. That's less than a 50% increase.
A social insurance system does not and need not undertake to furnish complete protection to all whom it covers under all circumstances. The social insurance approach is to assure that the benefits would provide a minimum protection, leaving to the individuals the responsibility of buying additional protection from private sources through their private means.
- Social Security Board Chairman Arthur Altmeyer
They have had talks about retirement in congress. What has been talked about is taking your IRS and 401k and give you a annuity when you are gone that money would go government or SS. If the folks in Washington are talking about Medicare for all and taking you insurance away..don't think SS for all can't happened by taking you IRA. I'm sorry I don't the lady pushing this, I do think she teaches at Boston u
This sounds like the stretch IRA. There’s a lengthy discussion here http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f28/rmd-going-to-72-a-97142-17.html
In her book When I'm Sixty-Four: The Plot against Pensions and the Plan to Save Them, Ghilarducci proposed mandatory participation in a government-run savings plan to which each worker and his employer would supplement his Social Security pension by contributing 5.0 percent each of her or his salary. The plan would be administered by the Social Security Administration, but would be separate from Social Security records. In turn, a refundable tax credit of $600 would go to each participant, regardless of his contributions. The account would have a guaranteed interest rate equal to the government's official inflation rate plus three percent.
Right. I saw IRA, 401K and annuity and jumped to the wrong conclusion. The link you provides solves that. It doesn't seem to be part of the proposal in the OP; it's not legislation proposed or under consideration.No, I don't think it is the stretch IRA.
I think it is this. https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresa...ity-needs-more-revenue-not-cuts/#ac21a0446900
What has been talked about is taking your IRS and 401k and give you a annuity when you are gone that money would go government or SS.
The problem wouldn't be worse if taxes were raised sufficiently to cover the increased benefits. (I suppose it depends which "problem" you are referring to.)If the increase is 50% or 75% it would be a huge strain on the finances.... the system can't meet its promises as it is so increasing those benefits 50% or 75% makes the problem much worse.
That's one view. Another view would be that the whole "three legs" concept went the way of the dinosaurs when most companies did away with pensions.This provision is trying to convert SS to be the centerpiece of retirement rather than one-leg of a three-legged stool as it was originally designed to be.
Depends on the details. The people who need Social Security the most are the people least likely to be able to afford the reduction in take home pay.If you want to expand benefits that much then make individual IRA contributions mandatory so people build those extra legs of the stool at their own expense.
The problem wouldn't be worse if taxes were raised sufficiently to cover the increased benefits. (I suppose it depends which "problem" you are referring to.)
That's one view. Another view would be that the whole "three legs" concept went the way of the dinosaurs when most companies did away with pensions.
Depends on the details. The people who need Social Security the most are the people least likely to be able to afford the reduction in take home pay.
- The donut hole in contributions: Another one I don't get. Why have the gap? My only guess is, since there is not a new bend point being created it is just a surcharge on very high income earners, who will not get any adjustment to their PIA from it.
There is a significant number of middle class voters in this category - and they would scream bloody murder if their taxes were increased. It is meant to provide cover to our elected representatives of both political parties and allow them to to vote for the bill
That's true.however, I contend that the pension leg was essentially replaced by 401ks/403bs/IRAs since those retirement savings vehicles arose as defined benefit pensions were declining
Some heeded the warnings, some didn't. Generic "you need to save" warnings are pretty much useless for most. Some were able to figure out on their own how much they needed to save and others weren't able to do so.... unfortunately, to few Americans heeded the warnings that you needed to save for retirement and are now in a pickle. I'm not interested in bailing them out.
As with most legislation, they were trying to accomplish more than one thing. Here, they found a way to make SS solvent for the remainder of the century while simultaneously increasing benefits.- 2% increase in benefits: I don't understand this one. We are trying to make SS solvent, and we INCREASE benefits for EVERYONE?
Indeed, the point of the donut hole is clearly to impose a surcharge on very high earners, while not doing so for not as high earners.- The donut hole in contributions: Another one I don't get. Why have the gap? My only guess is, since there is not a new bend point being created it is just a surcharge on very high income earners, who will not get any adjustment to their PIA from it.
pb4uski said:... unfortunately, to few Americans heeded the warnings that you needed to save for retirement and are now in a pickle. I'm not interested in bailing them out.Some heeded the warnings, some didn't. Generic "you need to save" warnings are pretty much useless for most. Some were able to figure out on their own how much they needed to save and others weren't able to do so.
I agree. A more accurate statement is "Some were not able to figure out what they needed to save, while others simply don't have the interest or motivation to try."I don’t buy ‘some weren’t able to figure out what they needed to save’ - more often willful ignorance.
Polls repeatedly show that most folks think they only need to save up to the company match, and no more.I don’t buy ‘some weren’t able to figure out what they needed to save’ - too often negligence or willful ignorance.
Polls repeatedly show that most folks think they only need to save up to the company match, and no more.
Really? are you sure?Polls have been known to be wrong
Is it really?And people have been known to make poor decisions. That's the way it is.
Really? are you sure?
Is it really?