Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Recall who she is ? She is the person who told Congress that Americans couldn't save and that Americans wanted the government to take their money and invest it for them. She is the one who wants government to manage retirement accounts for all Americans.
And here's the last paragraph from her article linked in the OP:
"My plan calls for a way out that would create guaranteed retirement accounts on top of Social Security. "
Then I go back to look at this "report" and it's from "The New School" which is her think tank.
Then I went looking for stats from other sources.
Here's one that has a breakdown by age group. This is more reliable because younger workers have smaller balances so to average that is not fair to those nearing retirement.
So with that..I'm done here. That author of the OP article is but a shill for the government.
With $18 trillion in retirement accounts I can easily see why there is a push for Government takeover.
She is one of the regular speakers to Congress when they start talking about SS, retirement, pensions, etc. with her 401K pension reform that will "guarantee all Americans an adequate retirement income" if you just hand over all your current retirement money to the government.
So here's the post I made early on about the author of this article..a think tank economist who doesn't like 401K accounts.
FWIW the link to her site no longer contains any info and that happened in just a few weeks.
There were some pretty extremist statements there like "guaranteed adequate retirement income for all Americans" like I posted above.
Her site has been whitewashed since I posted the link and I found this on her site:
"teresaghilarducci.org expired on 07/24/2012 and is pending renewal or deletion"
The obvious solution is to make yearly retirement fund contributions mandatory at a level/percentage that the government will decide, and to impose a penalty on anyone not meeting the minimum yearly requirements. Of course the minimum requirement should be much higher for people making over $250,000 a year and will be distributed in a more equitable and fair manner - again to be determined by the government. Keep in mind that the consequence of not meeting the minimum requirement would obviously be a penalty and NOT a tax ... or should we call it a tax and NOT a penalty? Who knows and who cares? because you'll have to pass it to find out what's in it anyway.
The obvious solution is to make yearly retirement contributions mandatory at a level/percentage that the government will mandate, and to impose a penalty on anyone not meeting the minimum yearly requirements. Of course the minimum requirement should be much higher for people making over $250,000 a year. Keep in mind that the consequence of not meeting the minimum requirement would obviously be a penalty and NOT a tax ... or should we call it a tax and NOT a penalty? Who knows and who cares? because you'll have to pass it to find out what's in it anyway.
Company's have changed the way employees get into contributing to 401K accounts.
It used to be that one had to opt in and many didn't.
Now new employees are automatically enrolled and a min is deducted and put into a conservative fund.
Now employees have to opt out which again, many don't bother.
Since the demise of company pensions, it's really up to individuals to save. Many still aren't doing that and the last wave of those entering retirement with pensions is happening now. Soon you will start seeing retirees that don't have pensions, little in a 401K and will be soley dependent on SS.
So here's the post I made early on about the author of this article..a think tank economist who doesn't like 401K accounts.
FWIW the link to her site no longer contains any info and that happened in just a few weeks.
There were some pretty extremist statements there like "guaranteed adequate retirement income for all Americans" like I posted above.
Her site has been whitewashed since I posted the link and I found this on her site:
"teresaghilarducci.org expired on 07/24/2012 and is pending renewal or deletion"
Ok I just want to be clear that when discussing savings or income using "averages" and not medians can be misleading.
An average can be increased by a few very high numbers. Let's use this data set as an example.
Quick note here -- don't confuse 401k accounts and 403b accounts. The latter are offered widely, especially for the employees of non-profits. Although they are hardly foolproof, they do usually offer much wider choices of investment types and much lower fees.
I agree with the general sentiment of those who think the scheme of replacing defined-benefit pans with defined-contribution plans has resulted in a lot of people being seriously hurt, and that we need to come up with another way of helping people finance their retirement.
To quote from the article linked in the OP:
It is now more than 30 years since the 401(k)/Individual Retirement Account model appeared on the scene. This do-it-yourself pension system has failed. It has failed because it expects individuals without investment expertise to reap the same results as professional investors and money managers. What results would you expect if you were asked to pull your own teeth or do your own electrical wiring?
So here's the post I made early on about the author of this article..a think tank economist who doesn't like 401K accounts.
FWIW the link to her site no longer contains any info and that happened in just a few weeks.
There were some pretty extremist statements there like "guaranteed adequate retirement income for all Americans" like I posted above.
Her site has been whitewashed since I posted the link and I found this on her site:
"teresaghilarducci.org expired on 07/24/2012 and is pending renewal or deletion"
It also needs to be pointed out while $30,000 is minuscule, $250,000 is not enough for a 60 year old to have in a retirement account.
Those averages should be much, much, much, higher. If an individual person makes say $40,000 a year, they'd need at $800,000 to $1,000,000 to replace that income. $250,000 is paltry for a retirement account.
The 401k isn't even working according to Fidelity.
American's savings rate has been on a decline since the 80's.
A "consumer nation" spends, not saves.
As our personal debt grew, our personal savings fell.
My real income has been falling for 30 years, so ne lookez pas chez moi.
Company's have changed the way employees get into contributing to 401K accounts.
It used to be that one had to opt in and many didn't.
Now new employees are automatically enrolled and a min is deducted and put into a conservative fund.
Now employees have to opt out which again, many don't bother.
Since the demise of company pensions, it's really up to individuals to save. Many still aren't doing that and the last wave of those entering retirement with pensions is happening now. Soon you will start seeing retirees that don't have pensions, little in a 401K and will be soley dependent on SS.
If a min wage employer automatically enrolled me in a 401(k) I would give them an earful.
It also needs to be pointed out while $30,000 is minuscule, $250,000 is not enough for a 60 year old to have in a retirement account.
Those averages should be much, much, much, higher. If an individual person makes say $40,000 a year, they'd need at $800,000 to $1,000,000 to replace that income. $250,000 is paltry for a retirement account.
The 401k isn't even working according to Fidelity.
Your 60 year old today just may have a pension and the 401K is then considered a supplement.
I have a pension so my 401K is a supplement. They started phasing pensions out at my company in the mid 90's. I'd guess that anyone 40 or younger will need the 401K as their main source of retirement income.
I also follow some commodities and their trends.
This guy tracks farm commodities and has some good articles. I ignore his gold ones though. Ned W. Schmidt | Safehaven.com
And I also follow government crisis for that quick buck. Baxter was a winner when the flu pandemic hit and the government bought all those vaccines
OSI Systems is the naked scanner maker who is also a buddy of Obama (only this company had solid earnings).
I told a couple of folks at work what I was doing ("never let a good crisis go to waste") and they just laughed at me then
I'm still in OSI because now they are going global with their naked scanners.
Just fyi, I remember reading that the government had a warehouse full of those vaccines and could not even give them away, so history may not repeat itself. Smart move, though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
