Posts Tagged ‘Social Security’

Save this!

Posted: 27 February 2017 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,

article66picture-1439487937

Setting aside enough of the surplus to support workers who have retired is one of the basic tasks any society faces.

Clearly, the United States is failing at that one simple task.

Yes, Americans do have Social Security. But, at an average monthly payment of $1,360 in 2017, it’s obviously not enough.

That’s why American workers are forced to have the freedom to come up with their own savings for retirement. And most are finding it difficult, if not impossible.

Overall, only one-third of American workers are saving anything in a workplace retirement account.

One reason is because, according to a recent study, only 2 out of 5 employees with access to 401(k)s and other defined-contribution retirement saving plans are actually using them. They simply aren’t being paid enough to buy what they need for themselves and their families and, at the same time, to put away money for retirement.

It’s no coincidence that the Census analysis found Americans with higher incomes were more likely to be socking money away for their old age. That dovetails with other data, such as the Federal Reserve’s annual survey on household finances, which found that almost 9 out of 10 Americans with more than $100,000 in annual income have a 401(k), compared with just four out of 10 earning less than $40,000.

The other reason is only 14 percent of companies actually offer these types of retirement plans, far lower than previous estimates.

The low percentage of employers that offer 401(k)s was especially noteworthy, [retirement specialist Arielle] O’Shea said, since previous estimates pegged the number at about 40 percent. “That is a significant problem,” she said.

Yes, indeed, that is a problem. Fourteen percent instead of 40 percent.*

The combined effect is that two-thirds of American workers are simply unable to save enough to fund their own retirements. They will have spent most of their lives working—and then they will struggle to stop working and enjoy their retirement.

Contrary to the advice of countless retirement specialists and politicians, who exhort American workers to tighten their belts and increase their savings, they’re not the ones who have failed. It’s a system that keeps workers’ pay in check and yet relies on their finding a way to accumulate individual savings—it’s that system that has failed American workers.

As I see it, the system that relies on individual decisions to save for retirement can’t be saved. Instead, it should be retired. And then replaced by the obvious alternative: transferring a portion of the growing surplus to workers when they retire. Such a system would be able to provide more generous benefits, starting at an earlier age—exactly what is need right now.

We can even give that system a name. Let’s call it Social Security 2.0.

 

*Now, it’s true, larger employers are more likely to offer 401(k)-style plans than smaller ones. So, 79 percent of Americans do in fact work at places that sponsor retirement plans. The problem is just 41 percent of those workers are making contributions to such a plan—more than 20 points lower than previous estimates.

1-8-mcfadden-vertical

Special mention

189819_600 189770

download

Special mention

189607_600 189703_600

mcfadden-4-12

Special mention

188331_600 188325_600

188149_600

Special mention

November 30, 2016 188054_600

Print

Special mention

4851187759_600

06SWITZERLAND-superJumbo

Sure, Swiss voters rejected a proposal to guarantee an income to all residents, whether or not they are employed.

But 23 percent did vote in favor of the idea, which itself is a victory given the full-scale campaign against the proposal—by mainstream economists and many others.

Critics have called the initiative “a Marxist dream”, warning of sky-high costs and people quitting their jobs in droves, to the detriment of the economy. “If you pay people to do nothing, they will do nothing,” said Charles Wyplosz, economics professor at the Geneva Graduate Institute.

And then there was the anti-immigrant argument by the right-wing Swiss People’s Party (SVP):

SVP spokeswoman Luis Stamm told the BBC: “Theoretically, if Switzerland were an island [basic income] would be possible.

“You could cut down on existing social payments and instead pay a certain amount of money to every individual.

“But with open borders it’s a total impossibility. If you would offer every individual a Swiss amount of money you would have billions of people who would try to move into Switzerland.”

Still, the idea of a guaranteed basic income continues to grow, with trials planned for the Canadian province of Ontario, Finland, and the Dutch city of Utrecht.

Interest in the United States is also increasing, although a proposal by the likes of Charles Murray is going to undermine what support the idea currently has among people who actually work for a living. That’s because Murray wants to use a guaranteed income not only to replace existing anti-poverty and corporate-welfare programs, but also to eliminate Social Security and Medicare.

The whole idea behind a guaranteed income is to decommodify areas of economic and social life, building on Social Security and Medicare, which are based on the idea that the larger community uses a portion of the surplus to take care of some of its members, outside commodity exchange. Murray (along with other conservatives who support a basic income) wants to do exactly the opposite: force people to use their basic income to purchase additional commodities, even after retirement.

That’s not a guaranteed basic income. That’s just more freedom to choose private commodities.