So you think that a treasuries option should be mandated for all plans? I don't hate that. I'll never use it but I don't hate it.
Sure, whatever. As I wrote before, if money-market funds are effed, your Treasuries are in trouble too. Society is collapsing by that point.
Payments or contribution levels? If payments, why would you want to reduce payments for those that need it most? Win For Life scratch offs are not a good hedge against a future of Friskies dinners.
Nah, keep it a flat tax on payroll, just get rid of the upper limit (no means testing, everyone gets S.S. regardless of income) and set the same taxes on tax capital gains. I am sure he means contributions.
As I near retirement age I think we should increase SS bennies. I am going to put economically challenged SuperDave on that, because he obviously has some great ideas.
Given the miniscule return on money market funds, might as well cash out if you are that worried about safety. Bond funds and AAA rated insured tax-free munis are very safe and give a better return than money markets. What isthat old rule of thumb, something like 100-age=% in stocks, rest in bonds? I think it was recently updated to 120-age=.... I recently quit my job and should be retiring in Latin America or Southeast Asia in the next few months. May even buy into a Dive shop. My financial adviser and I completely redid my portfolio, changing it from moderately aggressive to early retirement conservative/guaranteed income. Here's hoping for a return to high interest rates.
Your timing is better than that of those people who didn't like stocks at Dow 8000 and now are getting into the market at Dow 16,000.
I took the long term view and did not sell after the crash and lock in a loss. I actually put more in then. If the market was really low when I decided to I quit, I probably would have stayed another couple of years until the rebound. I am only 40, so although I no longer wished to continue my career, I could have easily done so if finances so dictated. And for all of you who like the idea of pensions and defined benefits, those are great if the employer can afford it and if you stay at the job your whole life. My last employer had defined benefit. The employer put in about 6% and I put in about 6%. However even though the employer contribution was for my retirement, by not staying with that employer until retirement, I would forfeit half of my "account", their contribution. Had I had control of both contributions I would be leaving with more than double the amount of retirement funds from that job by getting the entire contribution and having had put it in higher paying investments. I am not necessarily knocking them. My employer has done a good job at funding retirement, managing the funds well, and not overpromising benefits. So those employees who stay until retirement will be take care of. No Detroit/San Jose issues here. But those who do not go the distance get screwed versus what they would have had in a self directed 401K with matching. Basically the people who leave early are subsidizing the people who stay. Great for some, bad for others.
Three people getting married??!!! Well, you can't say we weren't warned that letting Teh Ghey's marry each other would lead to this kind of thing. Next thing you know, someone's gonna want to marry a shoe...
Surely the employer contribution was intended to be an inducement to stay rather than an entitlement, however?
Mebbe. But the reality of the traditional pension system is as he wrote, a wealth transfer from the mobile/restless worker to the company man. My parents fit into the former group, so I know how the good old days played out. They didn't have diddly for retirement.
that's possible. in the case of my dad he got fired three weeks before qualifying for his 20 year pension... a common occurrence if fact in that wonderfully paternalistic company.
Sears did that to the woman who lived next door to us when I was growing up. As well as to a friend's dad a couple blocks away. They would also give favored employees (i.e. Those who worked long enough to retire) their pension in a lump sum rather than in monthly payments. The courts, eventually, did not smile upon them.
Everything about Sears blows. My dad with the sparkling credit only had an issue with one store - Sears. Said he paid late. He paid the entire amount due & never patronized them again.
So a few changes (I did a search on social security, this is the first thread that popped up, sorry for the bump). https://www.marketwatch.com/story/t...ly-help-people-save-for-retirement-2019-12-17 https://www.economist.com/united-states/2020/01/18/americas-pensions-system-is-now-less-of-a-mess
The people I know who study retirement issues say that this provision is aimed at the wealthy -- to permit them to defer taxes, thereby increasing the size of their estate. It's not aimed at the average worker, because nobody believes there will be many "working stiffs" who not only have a full-time job after age 70 1/2, but who are able to put money away on the side. Most savings/investment legislation is directed at the fortunate few, particularly if sponsored by Republicans. But of course you knew that.