Given the source of this “study” (Heritage Foundation) and the outlet echoing it to the larger media (WSJ), the content and conclusions of this study merit extreme skepticism.
Retire with less than $100,000 saved? No sweat?
That can work, provided:
- current payout formulas for Social Security aren’t drastically cut
- current tax exemptions on Social Secrity aren’t drastically cut
- retirement begins with a new car that can last another 30 years
- Medicare coverage for expensive healthcare and prescriptions is not cut
- no massive casualty events occur (flood, hurricane, tornado) that require rebuilding and an uncovered deductable
Part of the purpose of recommending the accumulation of larger nest eggs is to provide a margin of error for significant financial / political upheavals that can drastically alter expenses in “real” dollars and disaster type scenarios that cannot be predicted specifically but can be planned for generically.
Part of the goal of retirement isn’t just to barely get by for 20-30 years after exiting the working ranks but to be able to spend those 20-30 years without sweating cash flow month-to-month or winding up having to eat dog food after one medical or weather disaster.
Entering retirement with less than $100,000 in the bank and trusting the friendly folks at the Heritage Foundation have my back economically / politically and will help preserve the programs that would make it possible?
Uhhhh… Not only no. Hell no.
WTH
Of course, my post title is sarcasm.
intercst
Easy enough to prove/disprove:
Require all participants in Heritage to retire on $100k and no other assets. Either they agree to it or not. What will they do? LOL !!!
I figured as such. Just wanted to highlight the incredibly obvious. This is the same think tank now echoing talking points from Putin.
WTH
Not that it matters, but I can’t find any reference to the Heritage Foundation.
This seems to be a study put out by Northwestern Mutual Life.
Who wrote the article:
Mr. Biggs is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
The writer is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a center-right think tank that likes to chum up research that supports their existing world view. (That’s what they’re for, obviously.)
I was especially amused about the part where spending by 65-90 year olds drops by 40% of pre-retirement spending. As though the spending of a 65 year old, a 77 year old, and a 90 year old are even close to each other. Um, travel for one, home health care for another, with lines crossing in the middle someplace.
Anyway, no, not Heritage. American Enterprise. Different words, probably the same flavor ice cream.
Moreover, required them to conscript in the Ukrainian military. They may not need even $100 K then.
Pete
This article is 100% accurate.
They just forgot to mention that it only pertains to people living in Burundi.
Not that it matters, but I can’t find any reference to the Heritage Foundation.
Duh. You’re right. Not sure how that wire got crossed. Same concern though. The writer works for The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, and seems to be attempting to encourage the masses to live closer to a financial cliff and not sweat it. His goal is to tamp down opposition to policies that woud actually cut the very programs he is citing as effective cushions to keep people from living in a cardboard box under a bridge in their retirement.
WTH
Could it be that, if the masses save, rather than spend, that hurts “JC” profits? As we know, (according to Jack Kemp) the “JCs” are entitled to have all the money, so discouraging spending denies the “JCs” their right to the money you earned.
Steve
Deny ALL legislators (fed, state, local) the authority to save more than $100k in total retirement assets. Take any amounts OVER that amount–because they are (obviously !!) being FAR overpaid to have accrued such a tremendous sum–and give it to me (not in govt !!). They don’t need more because Biggs proved they do not need it. Hard to argue with facts, so the facts are being applied to them. Oh, they don’t LIKE it? Then let’s require Biggs to retire with $100k–which he says is sufficient to last the rest of his lifetime. If he won’t, then it is the equivalent of a wannabe who claimed that ONLY HE could cut healthcare costs…
The Heritage Foundation swims in a fishbowl looking to feed the ejits.