The retirement crisis - yet another study

[Jack Jones]

Not necessarily. I'm simply thinking of direct payments to everyone.

To me, that falls under hidden/stealthy ways to redistribute wealth. We're not going to be taxing each citizen $40,000 in order to provide $40,000 to their neighbor. The "wealthy" will be taxed at a higher rate, of course.

I'm not following you (I can miss the obvious sometimes, though).

My point was that although a Citizen's Dividend might seem fair to all citizens because all citizens get paid, it's not fair to the wealthy because they will largely be called upon to pay for the program. That's why it seems like a hidden/stealthy way to redistribute wealth to me.

[Jack Jones]

My point was that although a Citizen's Dividend might seem fair to all citizens because all citizens get paid, it's not fair to the wealthy because they will largely be called upon to pay for the program. That's why it seems like a hidden/stealthy way to redistribute wealth to me.

Ah. OK.

I was thinking that the payments would be financed via T-bond/T-bill purchase, which doesn't seem stealthy to me.

Hmm, yeah perhaps they would be.

I always assume that taxpayers end up paying for everything, but I guess that's not always the case. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Tyler]

I feel like they buried the lede. Reading the study they're referencing, 40% of people across all ages under 55 believe they will never retire. Why save for retirement if you believe it's impossible? In fact, when seen in the context of maintaining an emergency fund rather than thinking about retirement, I wager that a good portion of the people with under $25k in savings see themselves as perfectly financially responsible.

Financial attitudes have really changed. The lack of savings is just a symptom of a larger malaise.

[Tyler]

I think she means to aim to be as wealthy as the average person, rather than much more wealthy or much less wealthy. Getting too wealthy makes you a target. May as well spend it and have fun.

Financial nihilism is not a plan. IMHO, those who plan ahead will always be afforded more options than those who do not.

[moda0306]

Well we can all imagine a citizen's dividend and who will fund it, but until then, let's be clear... it's not the "wealthy" that fund Social Security... it's mid-to-high income wage/salary or self-employed income earners. In my experience, the vast majority of the time, these people aren't really all that "wealthy," and to the extend some are, their wealth is hardly responsible for much tax burden.

A "wealthy" person can live a relatively tax-free life.

A working "high-income-earner" can't.

[Maddy]

Remember Obama's statement--something to the effect of "You didn't build that?" He was referring to people who have built successful businesses, but I can easily see the same philosophy being applied to the acquisition of wealth generally. Dovetails nicely with the whole white privilege idea.

[moda0306]

I'm sort of of the opinion that someone with a paid off house, $24k in SS income, Medicare, and $25k in savings isn't in as much of a "crisis" as the financial media would have us believe.

I could easily make that work.

[farjean2]

I'm sort of of the opinion that someone with a paid off house, $24k in SS income, Medicare, and $25k in savings isn't in as much of a "crisis" as the financial media would have us believe.

I could easily make that work.

And if you need long term care you may have to get rid of most of that $25k so you can qualify for medicaid and have the taxpayers pick up nearly all the tab.

[I Shrugged]

Well we can all imagine a citizen's dividend and who will fund it, but until then, let's be clear... it's not the "wealthy" that fund Social Security... it's mid-to-high income wage/salary or self-employed income earners. In my experience, the vast majority of the time, these people aren't really all that "wealthy," and to the extend some are, their wealth is hardly responsible for much tax burden.

A "wealthy" person can live a relatively tax-free life.

A working "high-income-earner" can't.

You are correct.
What does that tell you about the US govt, elections, democracy, tax simplification, etc etc?

It tells me it is all democracy theater.

[Maddy]

Is it crazy to think that with a paid-off house you could hire some nice young person to provide you just enough help to allow you to stay permanently in your home in exchange for the deed when you die? (No nursing homes for me, thank you.)

[ochotona]

Is it crazy to think that with a paid-off house you could hire some nice young person to provide you just enough help to allow you to stay permanently in your home in exchange for the deed when you die? (No nursing homes for me, thank you.)

Good idea.

[farjean2]

Is it crazy to think that with a paid-off house you could hire some nice young person to provide you just enough help to allow you to stay permanently in your home in exchange for the deed when you die? (No nursing homes for me, thank you.)

Probably is. Have you seen those commercials for Visiting Angels? What do you think you have to pay those folks? My sister works for an agency like that and it doesn't sound cheap though she doesn't get to pocket much of the money.

This is one of the reasons I've had plans to retire in the Philippines where my wife is from, even though on my last few trips over there I didn't feel so comfortable. In America, with everything done legally, you'd have to pay a lot of money to have people take care of you like that. And in the Philippines I think they would even have compassion for you while they were doing it. Just my observation.

[Maddy]

Another variation that I've always kept in the back of my mind: Years ago, a couple I know bought a piece of rural property from an older gentleman. He retained a life estate and had a contract with the buyers that allowed them to occupy the property and treat it as their own so long as he could continue living in his home situated in one corner of the property. My friends now own the property free and clear, and the gentleman died, happily, in his own home. He continued to work the property alongside my friends up until the day he died.

[AnotherSwede]

You do realize that, one way or another, the people on this board and others like them, who saved diligently for a lifetime will be called on [at gunpoint] to bail these people out? It may be hidden/stealth, but you will do it.

I finally realized this and went in part-time retirement.
I don't even dare paying off the mortgage when government signals debt is good.

Not working and not saving and not paying off the mortgage really is a simple, low-cost and low-risk approach.
Especially if you happen to die before retirement age.

[Libertarian666]

You do realize that, one way or another, the people on this board and others like them, who saved diligently for a lifetime will be called on [at gunpoint] to bail these people out? It may be hidden/stealth, but you will do it.

I finally realized this and went in part-time retirement.
I don't even dare paying off the mortgage when government signals debt is good.

Not working and not saving and not paying off the mortgage really is a simple, low-cost and low-risk approach.
Especially if you happen to die before retirement age.

Absolutely. And of course if you are unfortunate enough to live to retirement age, you can always fix that problem very simply.

[AnotherSwede]

Absolutely. And of course if you are unfortunate enough to live to retirement age, you can always fix that problem very simply.

Yes, just keep working.

But as Pugchief wrote a democratic trade off will be reached, between retirement age and retirement standard for those who havent saved or worked much.

[Libertarian666]

Absolutely. And of course if you are unfortunate enough to live to retirement age, you can always fix that problem very simply.

Yes, just keep working.

But as Pugchief wrote a democratic trade off will be reached, between retirement age and retirement standard for those who havent saved or worked much.

No, I was thinking of a more universally applicable solution: suicide.

[ochotona]

Another solution... Mooching off of relatives. I have been on the giving end of that.

[AnotherSwede]

Absolutely. And of course if you are unfortunate enough to live to retirement age, you can always fix that problem very simply.

Yes, just keep working.

But as Pugchief wrote a democratic trade off will be reached, between retirement age and retirement standard for those who havent saved or worked much.

No, I was thinking of a more universally applicable solution: suicide.

It didn't pass me by ,,, I choosed being an optimist.

But really, saving is for if you can't/won't work and society can't/won't provide. That is not an easy probability calculation done on individual basis.

If you don't like to work but has to - you will.
If there is any surplus in society it will be distributed, true in a democracy as long as a majority is economically irresponsible.
So what you are really insuring against is if you can't work (very old or very disabled) and there is no surplus in society. I don't think the markets will be very healthy in this case and your retirement might end with a quick drop and sudden stop anyway.

Saving could also be for, possibly, having more later by delaying gratification. This means you have a surplus now. Chosing to spend that surplus now or not even earning the surplus by working less is a preference, not an error.

[Libertarian666]

Yes, just keep working.

But as Pugchief wrote a democratic trade off will be reached, between retirement age and retirement standard for those who havent saved or worked much.

No, I was thinking of a more universally applicable solution: suicide.

It didn't pass me by ,,, I choosed being an optimist.

But really, saving is for if you can't/won't work and society can't/won't provide. That is not an easy probability calculation done on individual basis.

If you don't like to work but has to - you will.
If there is any surplus in society it will be distributed, true in a democracy as long as a majority is economically irresponsible.
So what you are really insuring against is if you can't work (very old or very disabled) and there is no surplus in society. I don't think the markets will be very healthy in this case and your retirement might end with a quick drop and sudden stop anyway.

Saving could also be for, possibly, having more later by delaying gratification. This means you have a surplus now. Chosing to spend that surplus now or not even earning the surplus by working less is a preference, not an error.

No, what you are insuring against by saving is more than that: it is being reduced to a minimal standard of living. Of course, the tradeoff is that you have something to steal.

[AnotherSwede]

No, what you are insuring against by saving is more than that: it is being reduced to a minimal standard of living. Of course, the tradeoff is that you have something to steal.

This still implies you can't compete in the work market.

Also, my country pretends to be a welfare state. Benefits for sickness, unemployment and retirement depends on previous tax payments.

If everything develops as promised I will do just fine. If not ... redistribution by force or stealth is a possibility.

[Libertarian666]

No, what you are insuring against by saving is more than that: it is being reduced to a minimal standard of living. Of course, the tradeoff is that you have something to steal.

This still implies you can't compete in the work market.

Also, my country pretends to be a welfare state. Benefits for sickness, unemployment and retirement depends on previous tax payments.

If everything develops as promised I will do just fine. If not ... redistribution by force or stealth is a possibility.

I have saved enough not to have to work, although I could almost certainly get a job if I needed one, considering how many cold approaches I'm getting from recruiters without even trying.

Actually I am still working, but on my own projects, not as an employee.

[AnotherSwede]

I have saved enough not to have to work

Congratulations. I decided that that wasn't possible for a salary worker in my country (maybe if I was 10y older and benefited fully from the asset booms), and the soccer pro career worked out as well as my rock star career.

I am convinced, given my circumstances, this approach leads to least amount of work days for the rest of my life.

[vnatale]

Almost one-quarter of workers said they and their spouse combined have less than $1,000 saved for retirement, according to a report from the Employee Benefit Research Institute. Nearly half of everyone surveyed said they had less than $25,000.
Sure, $25,000 can sound like a lot. But it's a reasonable goal to have that much stashed away by the time you're 30 years old.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/21/retirem ... index.html

My emphasis.

You do realize that, one way or another, the people on this board and others like them, who saved diligently for a lifetime will be called on [at gunpoint] to bail these people out? It may be hidden/stealth, but you will do it.

Was this "angry voter" you??!!!

Vinny

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/eliza ... vi-BBZj89W

[WiseOne]

Wow, I must have been having a bad day.

But it's kinda looking like that's where we're going, isn't it?