MyRA Won’t Help The Retirement Savings Crisis

Flip flops in the sand during retirementSo you listened to the State Of The Union and heard President Obama muff the pronunciation of MyRA. Was that “My IRA?” Or was that “Myra,” like a woman’s name? I’m going with the latter.

There’s an excellent 2,100 word piece entitled, “Will MyRA Solve The Retirement Crisis?” on Daily Capital you may want to check out. In the post you’ll find several shocking statistics about retirement:

  • 48%, or 44.5 million workers,  worked for employers who did not offer a retirement plan as of 2011 (NIRS).
  • Approximately 45% of households, or 38 million households, have no retirement account assets (401k or otherwise).
  • The median value of retirement account balances is $3,000 for all working-age households and slightly higher ($12,000) for those near retirement age.
  • Less than 1 out of 10 eligible working age individuals voluntarily contribute to an IRA.

Even if these statistics are half true, we’ve got a big retirement problem on our hands! Social Security is not going to be nearly enough, especially since it’s underfunded in its current state.  (See: How Much Savings Should I Have By Age)

THE TWO GOOD THINGS ABOUT MYRA

Before I begin to discredit MyRA, let me first highlight two excellent points about the program:

1) Guaranteed Returns.  MyRA offers principal protection backed by the US government. I think a lot of people are afraid to invest because they are afraid of losing money after so many turbulent cycles. A guarantee should encourage more people to contribute, even if the returns are in the low single digits. MyRA is tied to the same variable rate as the Thrift Savings Plan.

2) High Income Limits For Contribution. One of the things that really bums me out about government policy is how low the income limits are for contributing to government promoted retirement plans e.g. $69,000 for the IRA if you are covered for a retirement plan at work. MyRA is available to any household that makes up to $191,000 per year, or $129,000 for single individuals. Such income levels no longer discriminate against individuals and households working in high cost areas such as San Francisco, New York City, and Los Angeles.

Beyond these two positives there’s not much else to get excited about unfortunately.

THE DISAPPOINTINGLY BAD THINGS ABOUT MyRA

1) You Can Only Grow MyRA to $15,000. $15,000 is better than a punch in the face, but $15,000 isn’t going to get you very far in retirement. The initial contribution can be as low as $25 and workers may contribute as little as $5 at a time through automatic deductions from their paycheck. Once you get to $15,000 you’ve got to then figure out how to invest the funds in a ROTH IRA conversion. Given the participants of MyRA will probably be some of the least savvy investors, it’s easy to see them buy something outside of their risk tolerance. Furthermore, think about how many people won’t convert their MyRA into a ROTH IRA due to the paper work, laziness, or confusion of the conversion. Red tape strikes again!

2) MyRA isn’t mandatory. When nobody is there to kick your ass to go work out, you’re probably not going to work out. The reason why the government withholds taxes throughout the year is because it knows we can’t be relied upon to pay our fair share. With MyRA being an optional adoption for employers, you’re not going to get close to a 100% participation rate because why should employers take on added paperwork and administrative costs? More importantly, if the government doesn’t force the employer or the employee to save, neither will. Consumers have no hope in saving for retirement because the average consumer spends almost everything he or she makes. The car commercials during the Super Bowl will make sure of that!

THE ONLY SOLUTION TO THE RETIREMENT CRISIS

When you think about Australia, what do you think? I think the Australian Open, outlaws from England, the Great Barrier Reef, Bondi Beach, vegemite, kangaroos, really friendly people, walkabouts, travelers, and some of the world’s wealthiest people. What do I mean “wealthiest people” since all you know about Australia is its huge pool of natural resources.

The reason why Australia leads the world in inheritance at $501,000 is due to their Superannuation system. The Superannuation system is a mandatory retirement savings system forced upon employers to pay 9.25% of an employee’s salaries and wages into a superannuation fund. The minimum obligation required by employers is set to increase to 12% by 2022.

Most superannuation is taxed at a flat rate of 15% at two main points: on contributions, and on earnings. Capital Gains Tax within the fund however is taxed at a rate of 10% if the assets are held for longer than 12 months. Compare these tax rates to the tax rates in America and the normal income tax rates in Australia which are much higher. Finally, you can’t touch the superannuation money until 55-60, depending on when you were born.

The average inheritance in America is 75% less than Australia at $180,000 because we are also the biggest consumers in the world who bathe in excess. Credit is too plentiful to allow for everybody to diligently max out their 401k’s and spend within their means.

The government should wield a big stick and put into law that every company who employs at least one person provide at least one type of retirement savings plan at a low cost or no cost for administration. While the government is at it, they might as well institute my tax rates based on work ethic proposal to reward diligent people, regardless of how smart they are.

Without making MyRA or any retirement savings plan mandatory for employers or employees, we’re going to still have the same old retirement crisis talk a generation from now. We just can’t trust people to do what’s financially best for themselves over the long run. I know Financial Samurai readers will be fine, but we just can’t think of ourselves because eventually there will be massive social unrest.

Readers, do you think there should be a mandatory employer or employee contribution of wages into a retirement fund beyond Social Security? Why doesn’t the government make it law for everybody to save more since we all know how poorly so many people handle their finances? Australia, Singapore, and Hong Kong are model countries for prosperity. Why not just follow their lead?

Regards,

Sam

 

Sam started Financial Samurai in 2009 during the depths of the financial crisis as a way to make sense of chaos. After 13 years working on Wall Street, Sam decided to retire in 2012 to utilize everything he learned in business school to focus on online entrepreneurship.

You can sign up to receive his articles via email or by RSS. Sam also sends out a private quarterly newsletter with information on where he's investing his money and more sensitive information.

Subscribe To Private Newsletter

Comments

  1. Austin says

    “Readers, do you think there should be a mandatory employer or employee contribution of wages into a retirement fund?” FICA.

    Yellen can taper and the treasury will graciously allow 95% of the population to pick up where she leaves off. It just might work.

    • says

      FICA of course! Brilliant response.

      It’s interesting how I don’t even think of FICA and Social Security as a viable option for me 30 years from now given it’s underfunded and amorphous. It sure would be nice to see an actual dollar figure Social Security retirement account that is growing with each pay check contribution wouldn’t it?

      I’m sure I’m not the only one who isn’t expecting Social Security to be there, or be nearly enough.

      So the question is: Do we raise FICA taxes for the good of us all?

      • Austin says

        Forcibly expanding bond market participation would be a wise, and uniquely American, way to allow the Federal Reserve to unwind in an environment of rising rates and in the face of insolvent social safety nets. An implicit bail-in which places a portion of the burden on employers. By reforming immigration we could (i) increase the potential market size which would allow us to extend this solution a great deal into the future and (ii) bring down wage costs enough to make this plan palatable among businesses. Plus, it’s a lot better than the 50% confiscation of retirement accounts Poland recently executed.

        The big problem I see is that this really is not a populist solution because the burden for carrying the government will largely be carried by the bottom 95%. As well, these retirement vehicles will not provide returns which beat inflation. I really believe that the ideas I discussed above could be embraced by both Republicans and Democrats and be fairly easily sold to the general population. When that three prong litmus test is met you know that 95% of the population is going to get screwed. But, it’s a pretty decent short term solution that doesn’t require explicit socialism.

        • says

          It doesn’t sound like a bad idea to replace the the Fed bond buying program by forcing the public to take its place to keep rates low and save for retirement.

          When you talk immigration reform, what are you exactly asking for?

          • Austin says

            Open borders. Weak, tired and huddled masses. Unskilled labor from South and Central America. Asian entrepreneurs and PHD algo quants for. Cheap Indo-Paki engineers for Facebook. Without decent immigration policies Google might not be an American company. If we want to avoid becoming Japan and keep the entitlement pyramid scheme intact we’ll not only need to increase our savings rate but we have to make sure our population growth isn’t overtaken by our death rate.

            The only thing that really pisses me off is that the Feds hang an exit tax over you if you renounce citizenship and if you try to bank abroad they’ll nail you to the floor with FATCA. It’s like Hotel California.

  2. says

    I think it would be a great idea to make it mandatory to save for retirement. I know that the folks out there who have strong opinions about the role of government in their lives would probably hate it, but for the vast majority of people who are basically ambivalent or ignorant about saving for retirement- for those people I think it would be an excellent idea. Obviously you could not single those people out so it would have to be mandatory for all. Will it ever happen in the US? I can’t see it happening in the near future. I think there would be some very loud voices howling about government interference in their lives and the removal of their right to NOT save for retirement that would drown out the voices of logic.

  3. says

    People in the US value their freedom too much to give up their freedom to spend everything they have and then whine about it later. While I think it would be a good thing overall to force people (or their employers) to save money for retirement, the immediate political backlash is probably too great of a hurdle.

  4. says

    I don’t think the myRA is meant as a “solution” to the retirement savings problem, but merely a piece of the puzzle. It clearly seems aimed at lower income individuals ($25 to open, $5 min contribution, $15,000 account max) who might not be saving for retirement because they’re scared of losing what little money they have to the swings of the market. I guess we’ll see how it plays out, but it can’t hurt to offer another option IMO.

    I think the gov’t probably should mandate contributions into a retirement account of some kind, but I can only imagine the pushback to it after some of the reactions to now having to carry health insurance.

    Whether gov’t mandated or not, I think more employers should automatically enroll employees into a 401k plan upon hire. At least then they don’t have the excuse of “I don’t have time” or “I don’t know how to set it up!”

    • says

      It’s hard to imagine someone with a sub $30,000 a year income and no more than several thousand in cash savings if even contribute to a MyRA. It would be much more logical to keep the money liquid, since the earnings power isn’t large to take any of those unfortunate life events that always hits us.

      No, MyRA needs to be made mandatory to work. Things compound over time, but life always gets in the way. There’s always an excuse why one can’t save.

      • says

        Sam,
        Could one of the reasons that people can’t save x%/month potentially be predicated upon the fact that they already are vis-a-vis Social Security?
        After all, that’s 12.4% (6.2% from employer and back to 6.2% from employees) that people are forced to put aside due to the legislation.

        The difference between SS and myRA would merely be that people actually have SOME control over which funds/investments they are in, although it’s very limited.

        Could it work, sure. But tell the person earning $8/hr that they now have to contribute another 5% or so to a myRA account and start hearing a lot of noise.

    • says

      Jay, I still don’t see what the difference is between the myRA account and a traditional IRA/Roth/Brokerage account?

      After all, if you go with most of the firms, there isn’t any larger of a minimum amount to open the account. I literally opened up a brokerage account with $10, and because I was planning on putting $15/month (at the time), into the account Fidelity said I could invest in any of their mutual funds without the typical $2,500 limit imposed to get into the funds. Note that ANYBODY can do the same thing since I have a young nephew that has done this as well.

  5. David Roderick says

    I agree with you, Sam. Another country that does well by its citizens is Holland. Same basic set-up as Australia requiring funds like Social Security plus funds required by a person’s employer. Together they make a substantial nest egg, just like a Defined Benefit Plan for government employees.

    Having worked for 20 years in the Public Sector, and then 20 years in the Private Sector with my own company, I found that the real benefit of the Public Sector is in their retirement package. In most cases, there is no way that the private sector can compete with government benefits. In fact, I stopped hiring anyone from the pubic sector when I had my own company because they would always bitch and whine that I didn’t match their former benefits of working for the government.

    Now that we have lost most of the Defined Benefit Plans in private industry to the 401K, it’s time for the US to take on a similar plan as Australia and Holland. One of the other great things about Australia is they have a minimum wage of $16.88 an hour. I can’t tell you what an incredible benefit this would be for all of those presently working in the service sector (47% of working population) in the USA for $12 or less per hour. I just signed up to be a campground host for this summer and most of the concessionaires for the National Forest (or National Parks) pay minimum wage.

    • El Guapo says

      David,
      I like your post and it is spot on. As a current Federal Employee, I agree that the retirement package can’t be beat. I ran some calcs and figured that I would have to make 10-15% more in the private sector to make up for the lack of a pension. It is still something that I am thinking about though, because I am early in my career and don’t want to become a dinosaur. By that I mean that I am afraid that if I spend too much time in gov’t at the beginning of my career, I won’t be marketable in the private sector.

    • says

      Well said. And excellent thoughts coming from someone with 20 years in the private sector, and another 20 years in the public sector!

      The public sector employees with pensions are the TRUE winners. A $30,000 a year pension for life is worth a million bucks. How many private sector employees can say this.

      “In fact, I stopped hiring anyone from the pubic sector when I had my own company because they would always bitch and whine that I didn’t match their former benefits of working for the government.”

      More fascinating insight.

    • mysticaltyger says

      My BF just got back from Australia. Their minimum wage is $16 an hour and the prices for everything are higher. $5 coffees, etc. Other folks on the web who’ve lived in or visited Australia have said the same. People in Australia don’t eat out like Americans because of the high cost, etc. I don’t see how raising the minimum wage so high really fixes anything.

    • JW says

      Seconded!

      Personal finance education is severely lacking in schools and it needs to NOT be a single class in high school but a theme or multi-year series of classes that talk about the importance (i.e., literal save-your-life need) of personal savings, how to checking accounts work, the benefits and dangers of credit (e.g., personal loans, car loans, credit cards, student loans), mortgages, insurance, wills. And the courses should also cover finance and investing concepts like budgeting, the power of compounding interest, benefits of earning equity in home ownership, difference between stock investments and bond investments, etc.

      A big part of the problem is education and awareness. Almost everyone learns to drive a car at age 15/16 because there is a National milestone that marks this point in a childs growth. The same should be true with personal finance.

      While I agree that forcing savings solves much of the problem with less effort, the option of less effort isn’t always the best. Increasing the comfort level of the government taking care of everyone minimizes the obligation of self responsibility, which can drive more risky or less productive behavior/decision making.

  6. Ace says

    Well….. I think the intention of “MyRA” is good; getting more low income (and less sophisticated) citizens to increase their wealth.

    What is really needed is a comprehensive rework of the US retirement system. But this is a non starter politically (for a number of reasons).

    The MyRA plan could be modified and extended, perhaps into something more useful. This would require congressional action and so nothing useful will get done.

  7. says

    I’m conflicted about the idea of a mandatory retirement plan. We do have one already in Social Security, so I suppose there is precedent.

    I’d prefer the kind of paternalistic libertarianism that the authors of Nudge propose: simply set the default towards retirement savings. For example, the default is that, once you start a job that pays into the Social Security system, 5% of gross salary goes into a traditional IRA that a government agency opens at no cost to you. It also increases your contribution at 2% a year, capping at 20%. You can opt out, but that means getting off your butt, so most people will do nothing, and end up saving more.

  8. Fatchance says

    I was drinking my way through Australia not too long ago and first heard about Superannuation. I love that program. I would love to see the US offer that to younger generations. I thought about SN for about a month and could find no real flaws in the theory, unlike our huge SS ponzi scheme.

    The Australian Government does not manage your money like SS. And please name one thing our national government manages efficiently? I like the fact that you your SN money is managed by private companies.

    The more you make, the more is put into SN. If you are a hard working employee and make more money, you have more money in retirement. Unlike SS where the amount put in over your lifetime does not grow past a certain monthly payout limit.

    Every single person I talked to in Australia was way better prepared for retirement through the SN program than 95 of the people I know in the states.

    Yes, it is government mandated, but so is SS. It is just a much better program.

    • says

      Just think. We can drink like the Aussies, travel the world like the Aussies, enjoy life like the Aussies and retire with a boatload of cash.

      Maybe that’s why they are always so happy?

  9. El Guapo says

    Sam,
    Good post. I wish Social Security was what you describe, but I have a feeling I won’t get crap.
    As a federal employee, we are told that our retirement is 3 part: TSP, FERS, and FICA. Too bad 1/3 of it is just getting flushed down the toilet. Hopefully FERS stays intact.
    As for the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), I don’t understand what you are saying about MyRA being tied to the same variable rate at the TSP. Are you talking about the G fund? There are several funds within the TSP, including lifecycle funds. In general I like the TSP because I can get a lifecycle fund with very low overhead and get nice diversification without having to be a professional investor. For those readers unfamiliar with the TSP, it is basically a 401k for gov’t employees. Most civil servants get up to 5% matching.

    As for the rest of your post, I think that we have to move toward mandatory individual accounts. If we don’t, those of us who work hard will just have to carry the burden by having tons of elderly people on welfare systems because they chose not to plan ahead.

    • David M says

      If you get to keep your FICA $ in your own account, were are the $ going to come from to pay the people that have already retired?

      • says

        Exactly, and therein lies the difference between us and Australia.

        It would MAKE SENSE to own our own FICA accounts. But b/c we don’t, the government MISMANAGES the crap out of our money, which is why there is an estimated 30% shortfall currently.

        • David M says

          How does government mismanage SS retirement $?

          The money comes in and it goes back out to retires. What is happening is people are living longer and thus retires are getting pai out MUCH more than anyone ever imagined.

          Does government waste other $ absolutely. Is there substantial waste, abuse and or fraud in the social security disability program – ABSOLUTELY!

      • El Guapo says

        Yea, the pension is the great part. You have to spend the better part of a career with the gov to make it a siginificant part of an overall retirement plan, but it is much better than a 5% 401k match by itself.

            • David M says

              This is in reply to ” you mean you can get BOTH at Max?”

              I’ll answer your question this way, if you get a $30,000 us government pension, or you do not get a us government pension as you work for ABC company; if your salaries were the same, the same ss benefit. A government pension has no effect on social security $ received. The federal government employee pays in the same percent of his/her salary as a person that works for ABC company.

  10. says

    I haven’t even heard about MyRA. Thanks for all the info. I personally believe our generation is going to be forced to work well into retirement. I can speculate all day long but it will be interesting to see what happens with the shrinking job numbers and the increase in individuals who need jobs.

        • mysticaltyger says

          Just open an IRA with a good mutual fund company like Vanguard, Fidelity, or T. Rowe Price and contribute regularly. If people have to work until they drop, it’s almost always because they did not make saving a priority, not because they did not make enough money. I have seen it first hand with folks I know.

  11. Shiphouse says

    I wonder how many people realize that not only is 6.2 percent of your paycheck docked for social security but employers have to match that tax as well. Where does all of this money go!!! I am all for a mandatory superannuation fund but the government will have their hands all over this money. It is a shame when our country has the most asset management talent in the world that manages the bulk of swf and superannuation money yet our government for political reasons will not take advantage of this talent for the good of its people and nation. (Posted from iPhone – sorry for typos)

    • says

      It goes into a government slush fund to mismanage, that’s where it goes.

      I don’t think many people know we pay 6.2% and have another 6.2% match by employers. Where does it all go indeed.

      • Eddie says

        Social Security could work well if the money was only spent on retirement and disability insurance… Sam, take a look at the Railroad Retirement System. It functions almost exactly like SS but only railroad employees contribute and the money only ever goes to what it was meant for. No shortfall in funding predicted in the foreseeable future and the fund is growing.

      • Shiphouse says

        It is a travesty. A portion (really the whole thing but lets not be crazy) of our SS contrubutions should be segregated directly to us, ie private ss accounts. Our generation 25-40 year olds, should be less worried about occupying the engine and more worried about occupying the broke transmission. As a demographic we are failing to protect ourselves and future. It is appalling and infuriating. Personally I am afraid of investing in my 401k past a certain level in fear of the government taking the money at some point in time. That is the antithesis in which this nation was founded.

  12. says

    I don’t think it has a chance to pass Congress! I like the concept until I put my owner’s hat on and then I resist the cost of it. I would rather see a mandatory contribution by the employee similar to Social Security. There is no easy answer!

  13. Young Investor says

    Hi,

    I’ve been investing for a long time now. I’ve been maxing out my 401k and investing after-tax income privately as well. A return to school means that I won’t be making as much as I was, so my savings will have to lessen for a while (but not completely stop).

    My question is this: what’s do you think is a good balance to strive for between saving money in retirement type accounts like 401k’s and IRA’s (tax advantaged, but can’t touch for a long time) vs. saving it privately, like in private investments (not tax advantaged, but I can cash out whenever I want)? For instance, I’m thinking of the scenario in which I want to tap into my savings to make a major purchase (for example, buy a house) or in case of emergencies.

    Ideally, I’d be able to max out the retirement accounts and then put whatever’s leftover into private investments, but in the short term I won’t be able to do that.

    Any thoughts?

    • says

      Decide what’s more important to you. I’m a big believer in buying your primary resident so id be saving for the downpayment at a 80% allocation and 20% to tax advantages accounts. Maybe even more fora house bc you are in a low income tax bracket as a student.

  14. Vincent says

    Being Australian, I do have some idea of the benefits of superannuation are. The problem at the moment is that for the older generation (those born before 1960) there is a significant moral hazard in that they can access super at 55, burn through it on cars and cruises till they turn 65 and then become a burden on the state by accessing a non contributory Age Pension. The means testing on the Pension means that it’s in their interest to use their retirement assets to extract more money from the government.

    It’s not really providing for retirement so much as providing tax free extravagances. And it isn’t saving the Government any money because they face a double cost of tax concessions while still have to pay out the Pension anyway.

    It’s weighted against those on low incomes (who would only access the pension anyway) and those on higher incomes would choose to save regardless of the concessions because they’re the ones who stand to lose the most in terms of lifestyle on retirement…

    Something like Luxembourg’s system which is a great defined benefit scheme (8% employee, 8% employer and 8% government funded up to a max of 71% career average salary at 2% accrual per year) is much fairer in terms of its treatment of everyone.

    Did I mention the tax concessions are far more generous to higher income earners?

    Rant over.

    • says

      Fascinating! What is this “non contributory Age Pensio” you speak of? Free money the government must pay even though a citizen didnt pay for it? What is the max you can get?

      Can I as an American move to Australia at 65 and start freeloading?

      • David M says

        You can move to America at that age and start freeloading. People bring in older relatives into America PROMISING to support them – when they do not they get $$$ from the US government and also from states.

      • Vincent says

        It’s means tested and unlike social security, it’s not linked to your income, and you don’t pay contributions to receive it. As long as you meet residency requirements (10 years continuous residence), you get it as long as you live in in Australia. If you live overseas while you claim it, it’s proportionate in 25ths of the full rate per year of working life in Australia. The full rate for a couple is around AU$32000 (US$28553), and the pension age is 65 for most people retiring today. If you have superannuation, the rate normally goes down after a cut off, so people have an incentive to spend it in order to milk more money from the government. Too many people here think they’re entitled to it because they’ve paid taxes, but we haven’t paid a cent for it directly, so…

  15. says

    Interesting idea for sure! I see some possible problems though, like: Sequence risk, nebulous and largely unregulated fees, and the risks involved with folks with little or no money management experience receiving a large sum of money when they hit retirement age. Like you stated, “We just can’t trust people to do what’s financially best for themselves over the long run”.

    As far as your question should there be mandatory employer contributions beyond Social Security, I’d have to think long and hard about that. Speaking as someone who has been a self-employed small business owner my whole life, I can tell you that after already matching 7.65% of all my employees’ wages (6.2% FICA + 1.45% Medicare) I would be concerned that adding to effective real cost of payroll would put downward pressure on wages.

    As an aside, I have offered a SIMPLE plan before, with mixed results.

  16. says

    Well, we already have a mandatory retirement savings program called Social Security. It’s far from a perfect system, but it’s also not quite as broken as it’s often made out to be. I would rather see some tweaks to make that program a little better than introducing a whole new one.

    As for myRA, it’s definitely got its weaknesses and like you say it won’t solve all our issues. But if it causes more people to start saving for retirement than currently are, then it’s at least progress.

  17. says

    Fascinating! And gosh that’s pathetic our US stats are that terrible! Australia has it right- have a mandatory retirement savings element. Most people do not have enough discipline. And are definitely lazy.

    That’s a joke about the 15k cap and mandatory conversion on MyRA. Nobody is gonna do that. I agree wih your two benefits. At least it’s not entirely a bad plan, but they definitely could have done better. Thanks for the insights!

  18. says

    The superannuation sounds good. I wouldn’t mind a bit higher tax if that mean I don’t have to worry about retirement. The comment from the Australian is interesting too. I guess no system is perfect.
    MyRA cap at $15,000? That’s not even going to pay for a year in retirement. I guess it’ll at least get people started and then they can invest in Roth IRA or something like that. I need to look into the detail more.

  19. wisbech says

    The other system I like is Singapore MPF. It is a bit like Aussie Super, but both more draconian and more flexible. Forced saving of 20% of income, and the funds are government controlled (GIC I think, Singapore’s SWF) and so investment return is mediocre (lots of investment in local infrastucture with bond type returns)

    There’s then a list of approved stuff you can withdraw the money for, with caveat that enough must be left in to guarantee minimum income in retirement. OFf the top of my head:

    – retirement income
    – downpayment on owner-occupied property
    – Certain education expenses (both self and family)
    – Certain medical expenses (both self & family)

    Stuff that the Singapore government thinks is worthy for their citizens to spend money on. So, basically, the Singapore nanny state mandates that you build up a rainy day/ retirement fund.

  20. mysticaltyger says

    I agree, Sam. The inner libertarian in me HATES to force people to save….but I know several Baby Boomers who did not save enough (one of whom I warned incessantly about saving over 20 years ago) who are now broke and struggling now. A good chunk of the population will just never save anything and another chunk will save only as an afterthought. That leaves 1/3 of the population, at most, who will save a decent amount for old age, but even many of them will still be at least moderately reliant on Social Security.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *