this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2023
328 points (99.7% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7321 readers
121 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I blame the removal of pensions and replacement with inadequate 401k plans.
Social security was never meant to be a retirement plan.
Maybe it should be. Decoupling retirement and Wall Street would probably let us take a more honest look at the costs and benefits of for profit corporations in our society.
We need regulations (laws) to make them viable for retirement.
A forced match plus a 10% pay paid for by the employer.
Most people just can’t save enough in a 401k to make it solid retirement program. You’re capped at little under 20k a year. I may mine every year.
I wouldn’t even mind a national pension plan or something similar.
The current system isn’t viable for many reasons.
My mom is retired but she has two pensions and social equity plus some other income. She’s in a rare spot that she’s very comfortable in retirement.
The amounts have changed. For 2023, the current 401K maximum is $22,500, and if you are 50 or older, $30,000.
For 2023, the total contributions you make each year to all of your traditional IRAs and Roth IRAs can't be more than: $6,500 ($7,500 if you're age 50 or older), or. If less, your taxable compensation for the year.
Cutting the budget to come up with an extra $28,000 is the hard part.
I’m not eligible for a Roth and I don’t get a tax deduction for an Ira. I do roll over my 401k into an Ira when I go to a new employer.
The amount change ever year but they really don’t amount to a good retirement.
agreed. retirement and healthcare should not be tied to employment. Want a snazzier retirement. Fine that is 401k/ira material. Retirement plus health insurance should be enough to pay for a retirment home private room where you won't be molested (i.e. - pays enough that folks don't want to lose their job)
Actually, it kind of literally was. Though it's frustrating how common it is for people to share that misconception.
AFAIK it literally wasn't. It was meant to be "one leg" of a "three-legged stool". One leg was Social Securty, one leg was company pensions, and the third leg was personal retirement savings.
The thing is. Not every company had pensions. And almost none do today. The concept of personal retirement savings is not something that has ever been reliable adequate or common throughout most of human history. Both are literally the reason Social Security was enacted. It is literally a retirement syatem/social safety net. To make sure that the elderly do not starve die or fall to homelessness in their old age.
Check out question 4 on this page on the actual Social Security Administration website.
I don't blame anyone for thinking that it isn't though. Fascists/capitalists in the United States have spent decades upon decades. Honestly nearly the last 100 years trying to destroy/raid the fund for their own benefit. And gaslighting everyone else.
Or more accurately, social security should be a proper national pension plan. Fund it by increasing contribution rates and uncapping contributions.
I stick with my underpaid government job solely for my state pension. At 55, I can start to get 70% of my final salary guaranteed, with annual COLA adjustments. I may not be rich in retirement, but I can get by.
401k works fine if you actually use it. A big problem is people didn't contribute, where pensions generally had mandatory contributions. Also letting people borrow on them was a bad idea.
And borrowing on them is just a bad idea. At least in the case of my 401k, there's no early payoff, you don't make interest off it while it's borrowed, it really can hurt in the long term unless the loan amount is very small.
I looked out of curiosity because I want to buy a house somewhere in the next 5 years, and immediately ruled out any consideration of borrowing off 401k.