On LIFETIME WELFARE most likely....why should they save when they know they have FREE MONEY coming in to pay for EVERYTHING!
If you work for someone else and they match on a 401K, take the free money, but otherwise keep feeding the Roth IRAs and fixed annuities like Fidelity.
and 80% have less than 3 days of food in their house.
This probably hasn’t changed in 50 years.
No one bothers to tell these people that social Security was not meant to be a retirement plan.
But they would rather have that 60 inch TV.
I must be in the evil 5% being I am pretty sure I have a bit more than $1000.00 sitting around.
And many here wonder why the idea of cutting future SS and medicare is so unpopular with so many.
Set Americans free and many more will have something to set aside.
There's an incredible difference between those lucky enough to have a retirement plan and those who don't," says Jack VanDerhei, the institute's research director and co-author of the 2014 Retirement Confidence Survey. "What's really striking is that 73% of those without a retirement plan, such as an IRA, 401(k) or 403(b), have less than $1,000 in savings and investments."First I object to the word "lucky" It isn't luck that these people have retirement plans. It is a conscious CHOICE for spending every penny you have now on immediate gratification vs. long term saving
And I don't find it striking at all that those without retirement plans have less than $1000. What you're seeing here is deliberate live for the moment lifestyle just a consequence of the immediate gratification group. Criminals and junkies represent the extreme of this philosophy; ignore the future and do what you want today without ever a thought for the consequences. Those without savings have this same philosophy, just not taking quite so far.
LET 'EM F*****G STARVE. I didn't save and work my a$$ off my entire life to support a bunch of lazy good for nothings.
I’m reading “Total Money Makeover” by Ramsey. He said a study found that only 3% of 65+ can afford to retire.
I’ve all but given up on retirement unless I win the lottery. I’m twenty-seven, and by the time I hit sixty-five, I’ll probably need government permission to retire (and will only get it if I flat-out can’t work anymore) and I’ll have to fork over fifty percent or more of my savings as a tax for “no longer contributing to the public good”...among other things.
I don’t think things are all that dire. A lot of people with nothing in retirement own homes. They’ll be able to sell their home and downsize significantly. They’ll live with their children. Or they’ll live on their own with assistance from their children. Most of these folks will be just fine.
Good thing all their Social Security contributions have been safely put away in the government "lockbox".
/extreme sarc
Ticking time bomb. Social Security should have been privatized two decades ago and we would not have this looming disaster.
Union retirees will be the new rich. Work until 55 and then collect Defined Benefits until into their 90’s - talk about fuzzy math, it simply cannot be sustained.
Add to that the explosive growth in welfare programs funneling money from areas government was designed to address, roads and bridges. Roads and bridges are failing as all the money to maintain them has been diverted necessitating another giant tax looming on the horizon.
Add the socialist regulations and inflation will soon accelerate.
Things will get worse until serious conservative reforms are implemented and government is reduced by 25%.
Just a generation ago, a lot of people intensively prepared for their retirement. Two reasons.
The first was what we know today for sure, that government cannot be trusted to do squat for our benefit.
The second, now tragically, was that a generation ago, they *could* sock away money for their retirement, because the government wasn’t as actively trying to ruin the economy.