43% say they have less than $10k for retirement

Topspin

Verified User
43% say they have less than $10k for retirement
By Chavon Sutton, staff reporterMarch 9, 2010: 7:30 AM ET


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The percentage of American workers with virtually no retirement savings grew for the third straight year, according to a survey released Tuesday.

The percentage of workers who said they have less than $10,000 in savings grew to 43% in 2010, from 39% in 2009, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute's annual Retirement Confidence Survey. That excludes the value of primary homes and defined-benefit pension plans.

Rates provided by Bankrate.com. Workers who said they had less than $1,000 jumped to 27%, from 20% in 2009.

Confidence in ability to save enough for a comfortable retirement hovered at 16% of respondents, the second lowest point in the 20-year history of the survey.

A drop in the bucket
"Americans' attitudes toward retirement have clearly tracked the economy the last couple of years, and that seems to be the case in 2010," said Jack VanDerhei, EBRI's research director and co-author of the survey, in a statement.

The percentage of workers who said they have saved for retirement fell to 69%, from 75% in 2009.

While VanDerhei attributed the decline in current savings rates to job losses, mortgage problems and the suspension of corporate 401(k) matches in 2009, he said the economy isn't entirely to blame.

"In previous years, there were a whole lot of people who had nothing to begin with," said VanDerhei.

The gap between what Americans have saved and what they'd need for retirement is forcing workers to prolong their working years.

The ultimate guide to retirement
According to the survey, 24% of workers said they have postponed their planned retirement age in the past year, up from 14% in 2008.

But even as fears over health care costs and job prospects mount, the survey found that only 46% of workers have tried to calculate what they need for a comfortable standard of living in their golden years.

"People just don't want to think about this," said VanDerhei. "Everybody thinks they're too young to think about it, until suddenly they're too old to do anything about it."


0:00 /1:07401(k) match coming back?
In general, financial planners say that retirement savings, including Social Security benefits and pension, should be large enough to provide about 80% of pre-retirement income.

To reach that target, "most Americans need to be saving within the healthy range of 6% - 10% (of their salary)," said Beth McHugh, vice president of workplace investing for Fidelity Investments.

But the survey found that 54% of the workers with some form of savings said that they have less than $25,000 stowed away.

How Uncle Sam can help
Delaying retirement, though not ideal, is a good sign that people are finally facing reality.

"People have figured out that they don't have enough money," VanDerhei said. "Still, I'd rather they bite the bullet today, rather than take the chance that they'd have a job when they are 65."

The EBRI surveyed 1,153 U.S. workers and retirees, age 25 and older, in January.
 
I'll agree with Topper....this is truly scary stuff. I am not a rich man by any means but have planned for my retirement. What are these folks going to do....live off the government tit? That tit is going dry, IMO.
 
Its scary, with ss in the craper and the "lock box" having never been implimented.... they will have to stop providing ss benefits to those who have money, just to care for those who do not.
 
Wow. This is what Social Security has done for us... Too many people will rely on what was supposed to be an insurance. Gramma and Gramps stuffed into "homes" with other ancient relics to be forgotten rather than revered.

Ugh. Save money people.
 
I got just under a mil, and I'd be scared shitless if I got laid off and that's with an extra year salary. WTf are people thinking.
Oil industry is starting another round of huge layoffs.
 
Wow. This is what Social Security has done for us... Too many people will rely on what was supposed to be an insurance. Gramma and Gramps stuffed into "homes" with other ancient relics to be forgotten rather than revered.

Ugh. Save money people.

I dont blame SS, I blame the individuals.

I dont expect SS to be here for me... never have. Had Al Gore been elected and followed through on the "lock box" that everyone made fun of him for... We would be in a little better shape, but not much.

Thank GOd they never passed that deal where you can take your SS money and invest it in the market... Imagine where we would be...!
 
had they done it in the seventies or when the gov started stealing the funds we'd all get double the ss retirerment.
 
had they done it in the seventies or when the gov started stealing the funds we'd all get double the ss retirerment.

Thats the point, its speculative and sometimes we would be in good shape and others we would be bust...

Thats exactly what SS was designed to prevent.

The point is that we are not willing to allow the elderly to starve or live in the streets, so we need a program where there is a min, that we paid for ahead of time, so they do not become a burden on society!
 
I dont blame SS, I blame the individuals.

I dont expect SS to be here for me... never have. Had Al Gore been elected and followed through on the "lock box" that everyone made fun of him for... We would be in a little better shape, but not much.

Thank GOd they never passed that deal where you can take your SS money and invest it in the market... Imagine where we would be...!
We'd all be ahead. First because it was solely a tiny portion that could be invested, second because it would only be allowed to be invested in specific safer investments that were not as hard hit. Currently that money is "invested" directly into the general funds with a constant and certain negative return and associated debt to the nation.

Mainly we'd be ahead because there would be money we could actually pass on. I'd prefer insurance to be insurance and mandatory savings to be savings. People should be allowed to pass on what they have been forced to give for their retirement to their children.
 
We'd all be ahead. First because it was solely a tiny portion that could be invested, second because it would only be allowed to be invested in specific safer investments that were not as hard hit. Currently that money is "invested" directly into the general funds with a constant and certain negative return and associated debt to the nation.

Mainly we'd be ahead because there would be money we could actually pass on. I'd prefer insurance to be insurance and mandatory savings to be savings. People should be allowed to pass on what they have been forced to give for their retirement to their children.

That is a good point about being able to pass it on.

I also belive that the money should not go into the general funds.
 
...

Thank GOd they never passed that deal where you can take your SS money and invest it in the market... Imagine where we would be...!

Jarod just where the hell do you thing the government gets the money? Do you think they just create it out of thin air? The private sector is the source of money; the government can only tax- it can never create wealth.
 
I wrote this three years ago for my employees. No lib-tard can address the points made.

Have you ever calculated how much you would have in retirement funds if you had invested all of your social security taxes, incrementally as you have paid them, in a safe investment portfolio, such as municipal bonds (5-6%, almost no risk), or corporate real estate (7%, slight risk). After 45 years of working most people would be millionaires. And if they die the day after they retire, their spouses or children get to fight over the money.

The only difference between you, with your mortgage, college bills, and retirement worries, vs. the old money people living in mansions, is that their grandparents had enough money in the bank to set them up in a comfortable lifestyle. These people perpetuate their wealth by adding to the principle to keep up with inflation and living off the interest. The current social security system virtually assures that this will never happen to the middle and lower classes. Since we are forced to pay so much taxes, we can't afford to retire!

Say at age 20 you make $20,000/yr ($1667/mo) and pay 6.2% of your income into a fund matched by your employer, and continue this practice until you retire at age 65. After 45 years in a slight risk investment (and with a 45 year term it is almost inconceivable that a "slight risk" investment would have any risk), earning 7%, you would have $783,802 dollars in the bank. (Let's forget inflation here because we will assume that your raises would at least keep up with inflation.) By continuing your 7% investment, never touching the principle, you would be able to draw $4572 in interest per month upon retirement. That's 2.74 times your pre-retirement income. A low risk, 5% investment would earn you almost twice your pre-retirement income.

And the numbers simply multiply with income. Under this scenario, a retired couple would have over $1.5 million in the bank and earn over $100,000 per year in interest.

Compare that with the paltry amount given back by the government in social security. But here is the real rub: after you die, all your principle can be given to your children and grandchildren, basically setting them with "old money". Comparatively, your social security “investment” evaporates, and some people die unable to pay for a decent funeral.

The Republican plan is to transition from the system that we have now to full privatization over several decades, to allow support of the retired and retiring who have been duped all these years. You and I won’t see full privatization, but maybe our grandchildren will.

This is the truth that Democrats don't want you to know. By throwing crumbs, rich liberals like Kennedy and Edwards will continue to be supported by poor people. After all, a retired couple living on 100 large doesn’t really care about the cost of prescription drugs, universal health care, or the current question of social security. They are unlikely to vote for a Democrat.

Do the math. Be smart about your life decisions. See more at http://calculator.socialsecurity.org/.
 
Its scary, with ss in the craper and the "lock box" having never been implimented.... they will have to stop providing ss benefits to those who have money, just to care for those who do not.

That would be the way you leftwing socialists do it....

The other side says "fuckem'....they reap what they sow...if they were always on the poor side, they stay on the poor side....if they were middle class and didn't manage to save anything for the future...they can join the poor at retirement....
 
once all the boomers die will SSI be back in business? I figure by time i collect at age 70 the boomers will all be dead and the younger boom generations can fund me.
 
Back
Top