Where do you stand in retirement savings?

Do you have enough saved to retire by age 65?

  • Yes - I have savings plus social security

    Votes: 2 100.0%

  • No - I will have to continue working past 65, social security will not be enough

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    2
M

mrknight

New Member
46% of workers between 45 and 54 have less than $10,000 saved for retirement. One third of those between 55 and 64 haven’t saved anything for retirement. 38 million working-age households who do not have any retirement assets. For people 10 years away from retirement, the median savings is $12,000.

I'm researching and interviewing retirees or folks close to retirement about individual stories. Even just for this thread, I'm very interested to see where most people fall in terms of being ready to retire and the ways of cutting back if the only income will be social security. For so many people, they have not saved enough for retirement and I want to talk to people about what they plan to do.

 

Speaking from Australia the figures you stated just about knocked me off my chair! "For people 10 years away from retirement, the median savings is $12,000. "

We've had compulsory superannuation contributions here for so long that I take for granted that anyone who actually works would have at least 100k put away out of their reach until they retire and need to access it. (450k is the 'comfortable' figure here.) Plus the aged pension for those on lower income who still need support. I guess that equates to 'social security' but the superannuation savings don't impact that as the pension is income assessed, and 'super' is exempt up to a high cut off point.

Only 'welfare' addicts would qualify for those low retirement figures here and they don't care as they just get their free money as they always have.
I've been out of the loop a long time but from memory about 9% of wages are contributed to the fund and the employee never sees it until they reach 55 when certain access can be achieved. We can continue to contribute even after retirement up to 65, or longer if still working part time, if we have other income or savings as super funds are taxed at a lower rate and it's a good hidey hole for the assets to enable us to qualify for a pension. Bit complicated but honestly..... people reaching retirement age with nothing!!?

Sorry but.... where did that go so wrong over there??

I won't be voting in your poll, and I would urge others here not Americans not to either, that would just skew your figures.
 
Diwundrin said:
Sorry but.... where did that go so wrong over there??
Click to expand...

Where to start ...

With the economic climate of the last several years here in the States I cannot see how you're surprised that there ARE some people - a good number, as stated by the OP - that do NOT have a massive cushion to fall on. That privilege belonged to our parents, not to us.

When you lose your job due to outsourcing and loss of government funding you have few places to turn. You begin closing out your assets, if they are not closed out for you, in order to get money to live.

COL has gone up without an accompanying rise in salaries.

Our minimum wages, as we've discussed many times here, are nowhere near yours. Every time we turn around taxes have gone up.

High divorce rates - and the accompanying high alimony and child-support decrees - further erode the ability to save for retirement.

Utility rates rise faster than a porn star on ******, but last much, much longer.

I'm happy you seem to be all set, I truly am, but don't act so surprised that there are so many of us seeing the future as a gray cloud of uncertainty.
 
Not surprised some are, but so many?
Sure wages are higher here, why is that? How did we survive with those higher wages and still have a healthier economy than most after the GFC?
No idea. But something's been working pretty okay by all appearances.

It comes down to intelligently applied long term legislation really, not only market forces. We must have accidentally elected someone who could see that down the track people were going to be retiring en masse, and got away from a mirror and microphone long enough to figure out how to cope with that. Even more importantly, someone who cared enough to bother.

Our set-up has been in place for many decades. It's been tweaked a bit now and then but always a reliable over-all safety net for most. Our wage structure is legislated, as is yours, but the superannuation contributions come from the employer, not out of take-home wages, and are built into their cost structures. Higher wages equal high costs but also allow more 'luxury' spending to keep things ticking over in the businesses who incur the costs of superannuation.

I'm too numerically dyslexic to get into how that works, but it's just different to how you seem to handle things there. We didn't get that massive rift between haves and nots either, although it is widening slowly, sadly.

You know what is considered a low income family here? Around $55,000 pa. Families on incomes over 100kpa still qualify for some Govt benefits. So big difference and again, I have no idea why, although I do have suspicions about how obsessions with 'free enterprise' have been manipulated that you folk would probably rather not hear.

Whether the 'good thing' here will last with Global forces impacting ever harder on costs and wages is another matter for younger people than I to worry about. I fear the US has left it's run too late for the Boomers, maybe future gens will fare better from the lessons.

So, yeah, glad I retired here, who wouldn't be? We're not No.1 best Country to retire in for nothing you know. :playful:
 
Superannuation schemes in OZ were once a perk of the public service and the more highly paid employees of larger firms, who were invited to join. Most wage earners were left out but small business owners tried to build their capital to retire on one day.

Then a progressive government decided it would be a good thing if Australians saved more to fund their own retirements and legislated that employers would contribute 3% of an employee's wage to a fund that would follow the worker wherever he went and which could not be accessed before 55 years of age. Initially the 3% was in lieu of a wage increase but over time the amount was gradually increased up to 9%. Then it sat at 9% for a number of years and is now moving up gradually to 12% with a final target of 15%. Workers can also pump extra money into their fund, with tax benefits for doing so.

The funds manage the money by investing the savings in a portfolio of shares, property bonds etc. during the accumulation phase and on retirement the employee can choose between taking a lump sum or rolling it over into an allocated pension or an annuity.

It takes decades before most people in a society are able to fund their own retirement and some people due to various life's hardships will never be able to get there. My retirement savings were a lot less than hubby's but we sold an investment property and rolled that in. Even so, we are still eligible for a part aged pension to top up our income because the GFC made a big hole in our portfolios. At this rate, we will probably be able to substantially fund our own retirements for the remainder of our lives.

Sometimes the word 'compulsory' is actually a good way to bring about changes for the benefit of society as a whole and for individuals too.
 
Sometimes the word 'compulsory' is actually a good way to bring about changes for the benefit of society as a whole and for individuals too.
Click to expand...

Oh dear, we're getting closer on that thinking Polly.

It suits some to see things politically, and generally, only in binary code. good/bad black/white yes/no but life isn't like that. Sometimes 'for our own good' really is.
Senseless to knock back a 'compulsory' idea simply because it doesn't gel with an overall view of everyone for themselves or 'individual freedom'. Sometimes, (just sometimes) that is in itself the price for keeping that freedom, and well spent.

Just as senseless is milking business enterprises to death and putting everyone on the bread line out of misguided ideas of equality.

Balance in all things. The pendulum swings towards Nannying at present but that just requires evening up, not utter elimination to suit an ideology.
Some stuff makes basic sense, we just need to scrub the stupid frilly garbage out which benefits only tiny, or unworthy, minorities, or the personal fetishes of politicians.

Gotta stay flexible whether in politics, beliefs, ethics or behaviour. A rough course to keep our philosophy of life on track is fine, but strict adherence to the path can mean missing a lot of other good stuff out there.

2 compulsory legislations have been hugely beneficial to OZ. Superannuation and voting. Neither would get up in the States though I imagine. They'd be fought tooth and claw as an imposition on 'personal freedom'. To do what exactly? Allow the easier election of rich fools and let poorer people starve in their old age? Wow, we 'sold out' our freedom for that?

Warri's probably busting to tell me it was a quasi Socialist government who 'invented' superannuation, but that's okay. They weren't all bad. Even stopped clocks are right twice a day. They weren't Commos, on the surface anyway, just Socialist. They got tossed out by the voters for thanks, to give the rich boys a run and get the economy ticking along again, but the legislation stayed, and rightfully so.

The Rich Right (called Liberals here to confuse foreigners) rips the taxes and welfare out of us to balance the books and make the budget work. Then we put the Labor mob in to spend the money on stuff we need till they start running up bills too fast and it's time for the hardliners again. That's how we've always done it, kept a nice balance and working so far.
I just can't figure out why it doesn't work that way everywhere.
 
Warri's probably busting to tell me it was a quasi Socialist government who 'invented' superannuation
Click to expand...
No I'm not. You know as well as I that it was one of the 'maddies', AKA Paul Keating, who pushed it through.
God bless his silk blend sox.

:clap:
 
He did get a bit warped coming out of the Labor mould, more Limousine Left. I actually voted for him, once. Then couldn't get to the ballot box quick enough to turf him out when he went OTT but not all his ideas were wrrong. He didn't 'invent' it though did he? just tweaked it to broaden it.

... anyway Group for this?, we'll be shot for hijacking.
 
I find it, if nothing else, tacky and foolish to discuss finances, especially on-line and really I am not about to divulge whether or not I have any money squirreled away.
 
We have compulsory savings. It's called social security. Most workers these days have access to 401k or similar accounts which should make retirement easier for future generations.Of course those without jobs don't pay into either of these.

Our government encourages people to be on welfare which will not only take money from those working and trying to save as well as those on welfare are taking from the government rather than paying their share.Time spent without a job will impact the amount the receive from social security as well as any 401k or pension plan.

As for me, I'm already retired so your question doesn't apply.
 
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]I think this is just one example of what happens when there are a handful of people controlling the wealth and power. This article explains it very well.... [/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-richest-people-half-of-the-world



[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]This handful of the rich and powerful crank out their propaganda that elects their puppets that fall all over themselves giving the rich tax breaks, incentives and deregulations while squashing anything that they view as socialism by cutting all programs that help the 99% and by squashing anything that would promote real development.....as one person said they'd rather have thousands of walmart jobs than thousands of scholarships for engineering or science, I might add.[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Senator Tom Harkins tried to get legislation in for the retirement crisis facing this country..you can guess how well that went over.[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]http://www.harkin.senate.gov/documents/pdf/5011b69191eb4.pdf[/FONT]
 
It's true the rich keep getting richer, but that has always been true. I would like to see it change but I'm not going to wait for it to happen/

The rest of us can sit on our arses ( I like that word) and wait for the rich to see the light and share their riches with us or we can get up and do the best we can for ourselves. I don't believe the first group will ever have anything worthwhile.
 
Old Hipster said:
I find it, if nothing else, tacky and foolish to discuss finances, especially on-line and really I am not about to divulge whether or not I have any money squirreled away.
Click to expand...

I completely agree OH...ain't nobody's business but my own. BTW, who was that masked man?? :playful:
 
laughing-o.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top