Kansas Crimson

Retirement isn't going to happen for many.

A new survey from a global investment firm recently uncovered a rare point on which Republicans and Democrats seem to agree: America faces a retirement savings crisis.

Only about half of American households have retirement savings accounts. The Social Security program may soon run short of funds, and those benefits were never meant to cover the full costs of retirement.

In an August survey, BlackRock asked 1,000 registered voters for their thoughts on retirement security in America. The responses transcended party lines.

When the survey asked voters if they think there is a retirement savings crisis in this country, 93% of Republicans answered yes, joined by 86% of Democrats and 94% of independents.

Three-quarters of Republicans said they are concerned about “not being able to maintain their standard of living” in retirement, joined by three-quarters of Democrats and a slightly smaller share of independents.

The survey found broad bipartisan agreement on several other metrics of retirement security:

Republicans said they expect to need $2.1 million in savings to get through retirement, on average, compared with $2 million for Democrats and $3 million for independents.

Despite those lofty savings targets, roughly two-thirds of Democrats, Republicans and Independents in the survey report having less than $150,000 saved for retirement.

One quarter of Democrats and Republicans who responded to the survey said they have no emergency savings, along with 29% of independents.

The average Democrat and independent expects to retire at 64, the average Republican at 63.

BlackRock officials provided a detailed breakdown of survey responses by party affiliation in response to a request from USA TODAY. They said 45% of respondents were Democrats, 42% Republicans and 13% independents.

Retirement experts say retirement security is a universal concern, one that cuts across party lines, even in politically fractious times.

“Aging and preparing for a financially secure retirement is an ‘everybody’ issue and an ‘everybody’ opportunity. We’re all in this together,” said Catherine Collinson, CEO of the nonpartisan Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies.

Legislation on retirement security has also enjoyed “a long history of collaboration on both sides of the aisle,” Collinson said. She cited Secure Act 2.0 of 2022, which reaped bipartisan support. That measure rewrote many rules for retirement saving, with a goal of boosting retirement security.

The BlackRock survey provides fresh evidence of two major quandaries that face Americans who are in retirement or approaching it.

The first is a yawning gap between how much Americans save for retirement and how much they think they will need.

The second problem is a gap between when Americans expect to retire and when they actually retire. The average American retires at 62, according to two major retirement surveys. But the average over-50 worker expects to retire closer to 67.

Former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris have markedly different platforms on Social Security, a fund that is projected to run short in about a decade.

Harris pledges to “strengthen Social Security and Medicare for the long haul by making millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share in taxes.”

She would presumably follow the lead of President Joe Biden, who has vowed to raise new revenue by going after wealthy tax cheats and by raising tax rates on wealthy individuals and corporations.

Harris may also be alluding to the idea of extending the Social Security payroll tax to higher incomes, according to an analysis by Bankrate, the personal finance site. Workers don’t pay Social Security taxes on earnings above $168,600 in 2024.

Trump has “taken a more ambiguous stance” on Social Security, Bankrate reports, pledging to protect the benefits but not offering details on exactly how. Trump has made a case that economic growth and job creation would naturally boost payroll tax revenues, shoring up Social Security.

Sounds like something Arthur Laffer would say, he's never wrong. No one worries more about the retirement savings of the rubes more than trumpty dumpty. trump media stock is at an all time affordable price of $12.50 a share today. You rubes should jump on that shit while you can. But save some money for trumpty crypto, cuz that will take off like rocket fuel!

The Republican Party platform for 2024 includes a pledge to “fight for and protect Social Security and Medicare with no cuts, including no changes to the retirement age.”Trump has previously supported raising the American retirement age to 70.

I think you kids working until age 70 to protect my SS benefits is fair. Of course deporting all of those undocumented workers who are boosting SS revenue will hurt a bit, and so will the ensuing inflation, but those are minor issues.

He went to Wharton!

Election-year surveys consistently suggest older voters are paying attention to what the candidates say about Social Security.

In a series of polls this summer, AARP has found that voters over age 50 in battleground states are more likely to vote for candidates who “commit to protecting Social Security,” among other issues.

“What they’re looking for is an acknowledgement” from the candidates “that they’re going to do what they can do to preserve Social Security for future generations,” said John Hishta, senior vice president of AARP. “That is one unifying issue that cuts across party lines.”

An annual retirement survey from Transamerica suggests the threat to Social Security ranks among the top five retirement fears of middle-class Americans in 2024.

“Our research finds that millions of Americans – tens of millions of Americans – are at risk of not being able to finance a secure retirement,” Collinson said. “And Social Security is the No. 1 issue on people’s minds.”

According to Transamerica research, the top priorities listed by middle-class Americans for the president and Congress are to fix Social Security’s funding shortfalls, to make health care and prescription drugs more affordable, and to ensure that all workers can save for retirement at work.

Wealthy Americans share many of the same fears about retirement. In a 2023 report, Transamerica found that retirement security rises with income – but only to a point. Even among Americans with more than $200,000 in household income, the report found, only 42% said they are “very confident” they can maintain a comfortable lifestyle in retirement.

And if you get really hard up I can put in a good word with Joaquin and maybe you could get on his potato harvest crew. I met one guy who works for him that is in his early 70's. You are never too old to work. I think Dollar General is hiring too.

i’m counting on the vance’s and psych’s of the world to keep having babies so they can subsidize my retirement

i feel pretty good about it.

Somewhat-obliquely related is the inevitable moment at which Mr and Mrs Don’t-Tread-on-Me rely on the federal gubmint as, among other things, their insurer of last resort. As a result, of course, of a problem that Kevin and Karen DToM deny exists.

on a more serious note, i kinda feel like i’m already retired

being self-employed is fantastic…wish we woulda done this sooner

KUTradition wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 2:11 pm on a more serious note, i kinda feel like i’m already retired

being self-employed is fantastic…wish we woulda done this sooner

self employment is terrific. However, I'm certain I could make more money elsewhere. But the freedom and flexibility is such that I'm not sure I can ever go back to a regular job. If I'd stayed near Seattle I'd be making somewhere in the neighborhood of 175- 230 a year easily, if not more. I wouldn't go back to that for anything though.

Long ago I figured I'd probably have to work well beyond traditional retirement time so I figure I'll just keep picking along at things I can do on my own...when my body says no more construction I'll either have enough employees to be an office duck again or I'll move on to other self employed ventures.

TDub wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 7:37 pm

KUTradition wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 2:11 pm on a more serious note, i kinda feel like i’m already retired

being self-employed is fantastic…wish we woulda done this sooner

self employment is terrific. However, I'm certain I could make more money elsewhere. But the freedom and flexibility is such that I'm not sure I can ever go back to a regular job. If I'd stayed near Seattle I'd be making somewhere in the neighborhood of 175- 230 a year easily, if not more. I wouldn't go back to that for anything though.

Long ago I figured I'd probably have to work well beyond traditional retirement time so I figure I'll just keep picking along at things I can do on my own...when my body says no more construction I'll either have enough employees to be an office duck again or I'll move on to other self employed ventures.

the wife and i just spent two weeks in the Black Hills, and didn’t have to ask anyone’s permission

that seems like such a simple thing when i type it out, but the freedom is awesome

KUTradition wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 2:09 pm i’m counting on the vance’s and psych’s of the world to keep having babies so they can subsidize my retirement

I'll do my best on the procreation front, but you may want to check in with Overlander for investment advice. He makes great investments - great ones - the best, actually. He has the most money of anyone out there, believe me. The most.

obsess much?

KUTradition wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2024 10:37 am obsess much?

No shit.

So some Republicans and democrats agree with a problem... that's rare. But can they agree on a solution? It is obvious what would help

KUTradition wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2024 10:37 am obsess much?

Just trying to give props where they are due. Greatness is in such short supply these days.

randylahey wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2024 11:17 am So some Republicans and democrats agree with a problem... that's rare. But can they agree on a solution? It is obvious what would help

Neither party is interested in a solution. The failure is by design.

JKLivin wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2024 11:48 am

randylahey wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2024 11:17 am So some Republicans and democrats agree with a problem... that's rare. But can they agree on a solution? It is obvious what would help

Neither party is interested in a solution. The failure is by design.

This is patently and provably wrong. Ever heard of “Republicans claim that Government doesn’t work, get elected and prove it”? One party did not allow actual bipartisan legislation to come to a vote. Multiple times; same party.

zsn wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2024 11:56 am

JKLivin wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2024 11:48 am

randylahey wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2024 11:17 am So some Republicans and democrats agree with a problem... that's rare. But can they agree on a solution? It is obvious what would help

Neither party is interested in a solution. The failure is by design.

This is patently and provably wrong. Ever heard of “Republicans claim that Government doesn’t work, get elected and prove it”? One party did not allow actual bipartisan legislation to come to a vote. Multiple times; same party.

You’re leaving out he important part: backloading legitimate bills with lots of pork and social engineering b.s. A long-standing Dim strategy.

JKLivin wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2024 11:59 am

zsn wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2024 11:56 am

JKLivin wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2024 11:48 am

Neither party is interested in a solution. The failure is by design.

This is patently and provably wrong. Ever heard of “Republicans claim that Government doesn’t work, get elected and prove it”? One party did not allow actual bipartisan legislation to come to a vote. Multiple times; same party.

You’re leaving out he important part: backloading legitimate bills with lots of pork and social engineering b.s. A long-standing Dim strategy.

That is not a problem unique to the Dem party.

Here's a list.

Here are five of the possible changes to Social Security — and how they would work:

Raise the retirement age

In their latest budget proposal, House Republicans suggest increasing the retirement age for future retirees.

The retirement age, which determines when people can claim full Social Security benefits, was last increased by a 1983 law that gradually raised it from 65 to 67 over a period of 22 years.

Even though both Trump and Harris oppose raising the retirement age, Biggs says the public may need to brace for this to happen, as it’s one of the most obvious levers Congress could use to address the funding issue.

House Republicans emphasize that people who are in or near retirement wouldn’t be affected. Still, the public backlash to the idea of working longer would likely be enormous.

The budget proposal from House Republicans doesn't specify a new retirement age, but gradually raising it to 69 is one of the most common suggestions in Social Security reform discussions. Unfortunately, increasing the retirement age to 69 would only fix about 20% to 30% of the looming shortfall.

“The funding gap is a lot bigger than people think it is, so you would need the retirement age, plus a whole range of other things” to close the gap, Biggs says.

End federal taxes on Social Security

In campaign speeches, Trump has been promoting a plan to eliminate federal income taxes on Social Security benefits, which are currently paid by about 40% of beneficiaries — those who have more than $25,000 of combined income. “To help seniors on fixed incomes who are suffering the ravages of inflation, there will be no tax on Social Security,” he said at an August rally in North Carolina.

Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., has a bill that would do exactly this, but he’s introduced it six times and it hasn’t gone anywhere. The bill also discourages Congress from levying higher taxes to come up with revenues.

Social Security benefits haven’t always been taxed. The tax was created in 1983 and expanded in 1993. However, opponents of Trump’s idea say it would be reckless to end the taxation without making other changes to offset the loss of revenues.

While most of the major proposed changes to Social Security revolve around shoring up the trust funds, ending income taxes on benefits would do the opposite. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, this move would increase deficits by $1.6 trillion to $1.8 trillion through 2035 and increase Social Security’s 75-year shortfall by 25%.

Separately, a group of Democratic lawmakers have signed on to a bill that would end federal income taxes on benefits, but it’s part of a larger proposal that would also significantly increase how much of someone's wages are subject to Social Security taxes in a year.

Trump's pledge is part of a set of tax-cutting promises that also includes ending taxes on tips and ending taxes on overtime.

Raise taxes on high earners

Over the years, Democratic lawmakers and left-leaning groups have put forward multiple proposals to strengthen Social Security by raising taxes on high earners.

The bill that has seen the most support is the Social Security 2100 Act, which more than 200 House Democrats gave their support to after it was introduced in 2021. Among other changes, the bill would expand Social Security payroll taxes to include income above $400,000.

"Right now, the cap on Social Security contributions means a CEO making $10 million a year would only pay into Social Security for the first week of the year," Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., said at a Sept. 11 hearing. "A schoolteacher or nurse, however, pays into the program with every single paycheck. That’s not fair."

Under the current system, only the first $168,600 of an individual's earnings are subject to the Social Security payroll tax, which is 6.2% of wages for the individual and another 6.2% for their employer.

The Democrats’ plan would create a “type of a doughnut hole,” Aaron Cirksena, founder and CEO of MDRN Capital, explains. “You're taxed up to $168,600, then there isn't tax from $168,600 to $400,000, but then from $400,000 and anything above — or up to whatever limit they choose — is getting taxed again.”

Enacting the Social Security 2100 Act would move the projected depletion date back by about 32 years, according to a 2023 analysis by Stephen Goss, chief actuary at the Social Security Administration.

In theory, Democrats could also try to extend the solvency of Social Security by increasing the payroll tax rate for everyone, but that path looks less likely at the moment. (Harris has maintained Biden’s pledge that the government will not raise taxes on anyone earning less than $400,000.)

Payroll taxes would have to be increased from 12.4% to 15.7% on workers at all income levels to continue paying full benefits, according to a report from the Social Security trustees.

Reduce cost of living adjustments (COLAs)

Social Security benefits are adjusted annually based on a government index called the CPI-W, which tracks monthly price changes in goods and services for urban wage earners and clerical workers. Basically, the COLA — cost-of-living adjustment — boosts Social Security payments every year so they can keep up with inflation.

Democrats including President Joe Biden support switching to a more generous COLA formula based on a different inflation tracker, the CPI-E. Meanwhile, some conservatives want to reduce COLAs to ease the Social Security funding deficit.

Unlike increasing the retirement age, which would make an impact in the future, reducing COLAs would have a near-immediate effect as the change would affect current and future beneficiaries.

Reducing COLAs by half a percentage point would make up about 29% of the long-term funding gap, Biggs says.

“[Democrats] claim that we should pay higher COLAs,” Biggs says. “At the end of the day, though, when this thing is going broke, I won't be surprised if we end up reducing COLAs.”

Cirksena adds that Congress could also opt to reduce the COLA by tying it to the chain-weighted CPI index, an inflation measure that accounts for shifts in consumer behavior and tends to grow slower than the CPI-W. This change would amount to an estimated 0.25 percentage point reduction in the calculated inflation rate, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and that would translate to a lower COLA for Social Security beneficiaries.

Means testing

A means test is a government assessment used to determine an individual's eligibility for a specific program as well as the level of assistance they should receive.

No such test exists for Social Security, which pays benefits to older Americans based on their earnings history.

Cirksena says he wouldn't be surprised to eventually see Democrats show support for some sort of means testing, which could involve reducing benefits for people with higher incomes or net worths. For now, though, most Democrats seem to prefer to increase taxes instead of means testing benefits or cutting payments to the wealthy.

In the past, Republicans, including former President George W. Bush and former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, have supported reducing benefits for people with greater means, Biggs says.

However, the idea has faded out of the political discussion on the right in more recent years, especially with Trump’s promises not to cut benefits.

A couple of these are pretty easy really.

Raise the cap on high earners. Given all of the other tax breaks that are available to high earners, moving the cap on SS taxes is a small price to pay.

Means testing, seriously if you have over $3M in the bank when you retire and no mortgages, the extra $4K a month you might receive from SS really doesn't move the needle much when compared to the income generated by your investments. Sure the monthly walking around/weed money would be nice, but not needed for survival.

Then there is controversial one. Death with dignity. Allow people at end of life with terminal diseases access to physician aided life ending treatments to opt out of spending down everything in a care facility and leaving Medicare with huge bills as well.

Seriously, I won't miss the money. And it would be better to live in a society where everyone has a chance to retire, especially the rubes. Their economic anxiety is making the world a less safe place.

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2024 12:04 pm

JKLivin wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2024 11:59 am

zsn wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2024 11:56 am

This is patently and provably wrong. Ever heard of “Republicans claim that Government doesn’t work, get elected and prove it”? One party did not allow actual bipartisan legislation to come to a vote. Multiple times; same party.

You’re leaving out he important part: backloading legitimate bills with lots of pork and social engineering b.s. A long-standing Dim strategy.

That is not a problem unique to the Dem party.

But blocking bills that would help solve problems and not help the cult leader’s demagoguery is uniquely Republican.

zsn wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2024 1:30 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2024 12:04 pm

JKLivin wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2024 11:59 am

You’re leaving out he important part: backloading legitimate bills with lots of pork and social engineering b.s. A long-standing Dim strategy.

That is not a problem unique to the Dem party.

But blocking bills that would help solve problems and not help the cult leader’s demagoguery is uniquely Republican.

Again, this is disingenuous and a misrepresentation of what has been proposed. That works on people who are dumb enough to think Giggles knows what she’s talking about, but not the majority of us.

One of the biggest issues with retirement is inflation. The money people saved doesn't go as far as they thought it would while saving. One of the biggest causes of inflation? Wasteful government spending. They don't operate within a fixed budget, and it's destroying the value of the dollar, leading to raising prices.

Both parties accomplish this together. Not sure why anyone is trying to blame One party