I actually agree with this. I would blame congress. They need to do more around 401k and pensions.
EIther that or call SS a true retirement program and make it based on income and make the tax based on that.
401K were never meant to replace pensions but we don’t mandate pensions in this country.
Pensions are not always the golden ticket. When the company goes under, your pension might be a bag of empty promises. Why have taxpayers bailed out the UAW pensions?
My dad was a teamster. His buddy retired 2 years before him. In that time UPS did not guarantee the pension. The teamsters filed bankruptcy and he lost half of his pension check. My dad gets 50% of his check from the teamsters pension plan and 50% from UPS.
There are plenty of companies that don’t survive long term.
The solution for pensions is to require them be fully funded. Then the problem is the market tanks and companies can’t afford to make up the losses in one year. Then the market recovers and they are overfunded and the company can’t get that over funding back out.
I’d prefer a 401K with a healthy company match. I get 8% into my 401K from the company. Also, congress needs to increase the limits.
How long ago was that?
Sounds similar to what happened to my dad.
2007-2009 time frame. My dad retired in 2010 (i think) after UPS guaranteed the pension. Anyone prior to this time were left SOL by the teamsters. My dad intentionally worked an extra year to wait out the new contract that UPS guaranteed the pension.
OK, way later than my dad.
He drove semi and was a member of Teamsters, the company he drove for went bankrupt and his pension was shot. But this was back in the 80’s
Because it’s not sustainable and they keep adding people who are eligible.
They also recently bailed out the teamsters with over $30 billion that we can’t afford.
I would like to see matches required by law with limit increases. Make it a viable program.
My kid knows he won’t have a pension and is fine with that, he opened a Roth IRA when he was 19, is putting 10% of his gross in his 401K and the company matches half that. They need to raise the contribution limits and maybe let parents and grandparents open and fund IRA’s for kids to give them a head start.
I don’t.
Anytime something is required by law it takes away competition, and that hurts things in the long run.
as JD Vanace said, it’s time we declare was on the companies.
Mandates almost always come with unintended consequences.
You can offer incentives, but mandates rarely work.
That sounds like regulation on business. I say let companies compete, if they offer an agressive 401k match that will attract more talent.
Agreed, when you over regulate it becomes a race to the middle.
Most don’t. Sometimes, you need a regulation to get them to do the right thing. Otherwise we end up paying for it in the end. I don’t believe in subsidizing large company profits.
90% of companies over 100 people offer some form of defined contribution plan.
By Aimee Picchi
Edited By Alain Sherter
August 21, 2023 / 5:16 PM EDT / MoneyWatch
Fewer than half of American workers qualify for a retirement plan through their job
You effed up that link brother.