The study was commissioned by Retirement USA, a coalition of organized labor and pension rights advocates that hopes to use the study to push for a more stable retirement system. The group plans to unveil the study at a news conference in Washington on Wednesday.
Not that I disagree over the general message, but there's always an agenda. Second paragraph says it all as far as I'm concerned:
Has anyone else looked at Retirement USA's specific proposals? I noticed that the first in the list is the Ghilarducci plan, which was discussed on this forum some time ago. I've never liked that specific idea, and only had time to skim over the others, but some do sound interesting, including some they decided not to present at their conference.Not that I disagree over the general message, but there's always an agenda. Second paragraph says it all as far as I'm concerned:The study was commissioned by Retirement USA, a coalition of organized labor and pension rights advocates that hopes to use the study to push for a more stable retirement system. The group plans to unveil the study at a news conference in Washington on Wednesday.
The agenda sounds like a good one.
The agenda sounds like a good one.
I wonder if they are using the old assumptions that one has to have a retirement income equalling 80% of one's working income, in order to retire.
Ok, I'll give you an actual plan vs. reality, if you want to know what one couple did in preparing for retirement....that's what I want to know.
- Live the life we wanted before retirement. Don't fall in the trap of "when I retire I will..."
Here's what they say.
Target replacement rates are less than 100 percent because retired households typically pay lower taxes, are no longer saving for retirement, and have somewhat lower expenses than younger households. The targets vary depending on household type (single male, single female, married with two earners, and married with one earner), income group (low, middle, and high), defined benefit pension coverage, and home ownership.Sounds like the old 80% concept to me.
To me the question is.. what % are typical retirees able to replace today (or recent history) and how does that compare to a new forecast.
If for example most retirees have only been able to replace 50% and we think it should be 80% you'll already come up with a huge shortfall (the sky is falling) despite the fact that people got by just fine in the recent past.
If people used to be able to replace 50% and now, because of poor market returns and reductions in defined benefit plans, most people can replace 40% or 45% - that's what I want to know.
You're forgetting what is being spent for kids/grandkids in the future.They don't have to replace the money they are currently spending on the kids. (of course, maybe they need to plan for the 20-something moving back in .... but that's another issue)