‘Transformative’ retirement reform package passes the House and heads to the Senate (1 Viewer)

[CaughtInThe]

I realize this isn't as important as TFG's infrastructure week but...



Wait, this is really important stuff to millions of future Americans (and some current ones)...





"Proponents note Secure 2.0 will give retirees — who are living longer than previous generations — more flexibility as they manage a longer retirement.

For one thing, it gives workers more options for “catch-up" contributions as they near retirement, up to $10,000 per year. Another key provision gradually raises the age for taking mandatory distributions from 401(k) plans or IRAs to 75 from 72.

Some lawmakers want to take things even further with required minimum distributions. “My goal is to get rid of it completely,” Brady said of the age restrictions on distributions during an appearance at the Bipartisan Policy Center Solutions Summit streamed on Yahoo Finance in 2020.

On Monday, Neely also highlighted provisions that will makes annuities or other lifetime income options more accessible which, she said, "can be really really helpful in rounding out your retirement."

A recent study found that one in three adults have less than $5,000 in retirement savings and nearly half (46%) have taken no steps to prepare for the likelihood that they could outlive their savings."

MSN

 

[Gaius46]

I realize this isn't as important as TFG's infrastructure week but...



Wait, this is really important stuff to millions of future Americans (and some current ones)...





"Proponents note Secure 2.0 will give retirees — who are living longer than previous generations — more flexibility as they manage a longer retirement.

For one thing, it gives workers more options for “catch-up" contributions as they near retirement, up to $10,000 per year. Another key provision gradually raises the age for taking mandatory distributions from 401(k) plans or IRAs to 75 from 72.

Some lawmakers want to take things even further with required minimum distributions. “My goal is to get rid of it completely,” Brady said of the age restrictions on distributions during an appearance at the Bipartisan Policy Center Solutions Summit streamed on Yahoo Finance in 2020.

On Monday, Neely also highlighted provisions that will makes annuities or other lifetime income options more accessible which, she said, "can be really really helpful in rounding out your retirement."

A recent study found that one in three adults have less than $5,000 in retirement savings and nearly half (46%) have taken no steps to prepare for the likelihood that they could outlive their savings."

MSN

“Catching up” near retirement is actually pretty worthless as all you get is the tax benefit and little yo mo benefit from long term capital appreciation.

Not saying it’s a bad thing but you really need to start putting retirement money aside when you’re young not when you’re 50.

 

[BirdinHand]

Solid, bipartisan legislation.

 

[CaughtInThe]

“Catching up” near retirement is actually pretty worthless as all you get is the tax benefit and little yo mo benefit from long term capital appreciation.

Not saying it’s a bad thing but you really need to start putting retirement money aside when you’re young not when you’re 50.

that's only part of the bill.


and no matter WHEN you realize you're behind and you start saving more, well, that's a good thing.

 

[Integrityrespec]

“Catching up” near retirement is actually pretty worthless as all you get is the tax benefit and little yo mo benefit from long term capital appreciation.

Not saying it’s a bad thing but you really need to start putting retirement money aside when you’re young not when you’re 50.

So they answer is? If someone put off contributing to their retirement fund, or has no retirement fund at all, they still need an option to try to make as much preparation as they can regardless of wether they have 5, 10, or 30 years left to do so. If Congress really wanted to help ensure seniors would have access to a retirement fund they need to provide it by legislating it as part of a benefits package to all american workers. Some sort of matching fund contribution by employers would be a good idea. Yes, I realize many small businesses would have a hard time with this and therefore the mandatory amount would have to be low and based on what could reasonably be done. Any funding would beat no funding. Wise people make some contributions and preferably contributions to several types of funds to diversify and protect them down the road. All American workers should be required to contribute to an employment based retirement fund based on their incomes. That and social security would be a good start. As they make more money, investment into stocks, mutual funds, bonds would also help to grow a protected retirement income.

 

[Greenbeard]

So they answer is? If someone put off contributing to their retirement fund, or has no retirement fund at all, they still need an option to try to make as much preparation as they can regardless of wether they have 5, 10, or 30 years left to do so. If Congress really wanted to help ensure seniors would have access to a retirement fund they need to provide it by legislating it as part of a benefits package to all american workers. Some sort of matching fund contribution by employers would be a good idea. Yes, I realize many small businesses would have a hard time with this and therefore the mandatory amount would have to be low and based on what could reasonably be done. Any funding would beat no funding. Wise people make some contributions and preferably contributions to several types of funds to diversify and protect them down the road. All American workers should be required to contribute to an employment based retirement fund based on their incomes. That and social security would be a good start. As they make more money, investment into stocks, mutual funds, bonds would also help to grow a protected retirement income.

An employer mandate and an individual mandate?

 

[Peacenik]

It's a good idea. I hope it passes the Senate. President Biden would sign it. Trump would have vetoed it.

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

It's a good idea. I hope it passes the Senate. President Biden would sign it. Trump would have vetoed it.

Every thread on every subject. "But Trump"
He lives in your head rent free. LOL

 

[Gaius46]

that's only part of the bill.


and no matter WHEN you realize you're behind and you start saving more, well, that's a good thing.

I don't disagree. Just pointing out that benefit decreases over time. Late is better than never not as good as early.

 

[Gaius46]

So they answer is? If someone put off contributing to their retirement fund, or has no retirement fund at all, they still need an option to try to make as much preparation as they can regardless of wether they have 5, 10, or 30 years left to do so. If Congress really wanted to help ensure seniors would have access to a retirement fund they need to provide it by legislating it as part of a benefits package to all american workers. Some sort of matching fund contribution by employers would be a good idea. Yes, I realize many small businesses would have a hard time with this and therefore the mandatory amount would have to be low and based on what could reasonably be done. Any funding would beat no funding. Wise people make some contributions and preferably contributions to several types of funds to diversify and protect them down the road. All American workers should be required to contribute to an employment based retirement fund based on their incomes. That and social security would be a good start. As they make more money, investment into stocks, mutual funds, bonds would also help to grow a protected retirement income.

The answer is to start saving early. I don't know that I like the idea of government mandating it but certainly putting rules in place to make it as attractive an option as possible, above and beyond just saving money, to entice people to save is a good thing.

 

[vanceen]

Sounds good based on what I read here.

The 401k was one of the best ideas ever. The government loses a little in current tax revenue, but that small loss turns into a huge amount of money through compound interest. And when that huge amount gets spent, it's taxed at the marginal rate.

 

[CaughtInThe]

The answer is to start saving early. I don't know that I like the idea of government mandating it but certainly putting rules in place to make it as attractive an option as possible, above and beyond just saving money, to entice people to save is a good thing.

some people have medical problems that don't allow them to save.

 

[Gaius46]

some people have medical problems that don't allow them to save.

Certainly. But that alone cannot explain the current abysmal retirement savings rate.