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