Americans aren't happy with their retirement savings

[maat55]

Sorry, I missed your point initially. Yes, I agree that there are better ways to accomplish the goal of SS. The money going into that system could be used much more effectively and responsibly to help provide for retirees.

The reason I am so frustrated with this subject is that it is progressively getting worse and our generation is not stepping up to fix it properly. Too many people are reliant on them and will not sacrifice them for the future of this country.

I'm not advacating overnite removal, just an transition to privitization that spreads the sacrifice across all existing generations, while not passing an immoral unfair burden to the future generations. To me, these programs are more dangerous to freedom and prosperity than an apposing force.

[disneysteve]

A programs worthiness should not be based on its well intent, but upon its results. IMO, even the low wage earner can prepare better with his/her 15.3% than how the government is currently managing these programs(SS/medicare).

Sorry, I missed your point initially. Yes, I agree that there are better ways to accomplish the goal of SS. The money going into that system could be used much more effectively and responsibly to help provide for retirees.

[maat55]

I think this depends a lot on where you are on the payscale. For low income workers, SS will make up most if not all of their retirement income and really does create a safety net. When you are making next to nothing, it is pretty tough to set aside 15% for retirement savings like we all recommend so SS will keep these folks from living in poverty when they can no longer work. I think the bigger problem is when you move up the income ladder. Folks earning decent incomes shouldn't need SS to have a comfortable retirement but you are right that it becomes a deterrent to saving more. "I don't need to save more because SS will pay me XXX dollars per month." That's an entitlement mindset.

I've figured out approximately how much my wife and I need to have saved in order to retire. I have not included SS money in that calculation. Though I expect SS to still be there in some form, I'm not counting on it.

A programs worthiness should not be based on its well intent, but upon its results. IMO, even the low wage earner can prepare better with his/her 15.3% than how the government is currently managing these programs(SS/medicare).

These programs are dumbing down society, while horribly mismanaging the funds they collect. The worst part is that each generation is further robbed of freedom and personal prosperity maintaining these failed programs. I do not buy the claim that the poor need these programs because they will not do for themselves, They fail to save because these programs exist.

While I'm against any government intrusion into my personal business, forced privatization would be much better than what we have today.

[disneysteve]

IMO, Social Security is more an detriment to the saving process than an old age insurance. The big question that needs to be asked is: Am I saving enough if there is no SS in the future?

I think this depends a lot on where you are on the payscale. For low income workers, SS will make up most if not all of their retirement income and really does create a safety net. When you are making next to nothing, it is pretty tough to set aside 15% for retirement savings like we all recommend so SS will keep these folks from living in poverty when they can no longer work. I think the bigger problem is when you move up the income ladder. Folks earning decent incomes shouldn't need SS to have a comfortable retirement but you are right that it becomes a deterrent to saving more. "I don't need to save more because SS will pay me XXX dollars per month." That's an entitlement mindset.

I've figured out approximately how much my wife and I need to have saved in order to retire. I have not included SS money in that calculation. Though I expect SS to still be there in some form, I'm not counting on it.

[maat55]

IMO, Social Security is more an detriment to the saving process than an old age insurance. The big question that needs to be asked is: Am I saving enough if there is no SS in the future?

I have an personal vendetta against SS due to its moral hazard and massive lack of investment worthiness, but it also plays mommy to our society promoting personal irresposibility.

[jIM_Ohio]

When asked why they are behind in their retirement savings, 56 percent of the respondents said they have little or no money left for savings after meeting their regular expenses, and 56 percent of the respondents also said they started saving for retirement later in life.

Which means 56% are spending more than they can afford and 56% are too stupid to help themselves.

Its not the same 56%, so I conclude 2/3 of this country is either spending too much or too stupid to help themselves (or both LOL).

[bjl584]

I think I fall into the category of "confused, but not worried" ...

It's all so fuzzy and nebulous how much I'll need ... and different retirement calculators tell me widely different things. For now my strategy is just to contribute the maximum and think about it later.

A good rule of thumb is to save 20% of your income. That's a good place to start. This idea can then be expanded from there.

[jaine]

I think I fall into the category of "confused, but not worried" ...

It's all so fuzzy and nebulous how much I'll need ... and different retirement calculators tell me widely different things. For now my strategy is just to contribute the maximum and think about it later.

[bjl584]

There's really nothing in here that most of us already don't know, but the article caught my eye, so I decided to share.


News Headlines