100 CEOs Have More Saved Up for Retirement Than 41 Percent of U.S. Families Combined (1 Viewer)

[David_N]

What do you guys think of this? If you want my opinion, it's only possible thanks to the poor spending more then they save. If the private sector as a whole decides to net save, the gap has to be filled. Unfortunately, we live in a world where people believe, and this is what I gather from listening to people, that the gap can just be magically filled without government deficit spending. Well, nothing's perfect..
100 CEOs Have More Saved Up for Retirement Than 41 Percent of U.S. Families Combined - The Atlantic

And now, courtesy of the Center for Effective Government, a nonprofit, and the Institute for Policy Studies, a think tank, here is another: Together, 100 American CEOs have more saved up for retirement than 41 percent of American families combined.
Just look at this statistic: the 100 largest CEO retirement funds are worth a combined $4.9 billion. That’s equal to the entire retirement account savings of 41 percent of American families!

 

[OrphanSlug]

Re: 100 CEOs Have More Saved Up for Retirement Than 41 Percent of U.S. Families Combi

This is based on a report (linked below.)

The whole idea is various incentives and business practices that have changed whom based on income level (and how those that do) save for retirement.

The conclusion of the report suggests this condition is not because of "natural" economic function, but rather imbalanced and disproportional regulation and tax code. So it is less about "the poor spending more then they save" as a economic behavior fault but rather problematic economic distortions.

For instance. One distortion mentioned (and happens to the top action item mentioned in the conclusion) is dealing with unlimited savings tax deferral ability for those generally at the top income quintile (like CEOs,) but seeing corporate 401Ks limit employee contributions to their retirement plans. Some of that is a practical matter as the lower we go down the income quintile the bigger the percentage of that income is immediately needed for living. But, there are things the report suggests on capping tax deferral ability for the top income quintile. Not sure I completely agree with the idea but I get the thinking on trying to even the playing field, even if it means another distortion and probable consequences.

One item I do agree with is linking corporate tax benefit to the offering of retirement plans, of course the inverse being taking away various tax incentives when a corporation does not offer various means of retirement savings.

But another problematic area is the suggestion of State ran pension plans for the private sector. It would make private sector plans function like public sector union retirement plans, and ultimately shift how much liability was extended outward to future contributors. Effectively, a bunch of Social Security Trust fund like plans ran by the various States and with funding levels dependent on fiscal controls State to State.

Any "expansion to Social Security" ends up limited to taxation on the higher income quintiles. I am not convinced that taxing wealth even more really solves the problem.

Review for yourself...

http://foreffectivegov.org/files/two-retirements.pdf

 

[VanceMack]

Re: 100 CEOs Have More Saved Up for Retirement Than 41 Percent of U.S. Families Combi

I think those top 100 CEOs and their retirement planning should be held upward as a model for success...something for people to strive for. At the same time...people should be encouraged to overcome their own failings and the failings of their families and begin saving right away in preparation for their own future.

Fiscal penis envy is a tragic thing.

 

[Renae]

Re: 100 CEOs Have More Saved Up for Retirement Than 41 Percent of U.S. Families Combi

What do you guys think of this? If you want my opinion, it's only possible thanks to the poor spending more then they save. If the private sector as a whole decides to net save, the gap has to be filled. Unfortunately, we live in a world where people believe, and this is what I gather from listening to people, that the gap can just be magically filled without government deficit spending. Well, nothing's perfect..
100 CEOs Have More Saved Up for Retirement Than 41 Percent of U.S. Families Combined - The Atlantic

WHO GIVES A ****?

Did they steal it?

What's your solution, use the power of government to steal that money? To force the businesses to make unsmart choices because you have money envy?

 

[David_N]

Re: 100 CEOs Have More Saved Up for Retirement Than 41 Percent of U.S. Families Combi

WHO GIVES A ****?

Did they steal it illegally?

What's your solution, use the power of government to steal that money? To force the businesses to make unsmart choices because you have money envy?

What makes you think I want any of that? Everyone in the economy can't save 10% of their income on average, not without deficit spending filling the gap.

 

[David_N]

Re: 100 CEOs Have More Saved Up for Retirement Than 41 Percent of U.S. Families Combi

I think those top 100 CEOs and their retirement planning should be held upward as a model for success...something for people to strive for. At the same time...people should be encouraged to overcome their own failings and the failings of their families and begin saving right away in preparation for their own future.

Fiscal penis envy is a tragic thing.

Lmao, it's impossible for everyone to save without harming consumption. That sounds nice, if you're ok with government deficit spending so people have dollars to save

 

[David_N]

Re: 100 CEOs Have More Saved Up for Retirement Than 41 Percent of U.S. Families Combi

This is based on a report (linked below.)

The whole idea is various incentives and business practices that have changed whom based on income level (and how those that do) save for retirement.

The conclusion of the report suggests this condition is not because of "natural" economic function, but rather imbalanced and disproportional regulation and tax code. So it is less about "the poor spending more then they save" as a economic behavior fault but rather problematic economic distortions.

For instance. One distortion mentioned (and happens to the top action item mentioned in the conclusion) is dealing with unlimited savings tax deferral ability for those generally at the top income quintile (like CEOs,) but seeing corporate 401Ks limit employee contributions to their retirement plans. Some of that is a practical matter as the lower we go down the income quintile the bigger the percentage of that income is immediately needed for living. But, there are things the report suggests on capping tax deferral ability for the top income quintile. Not sure I completely agree with the idea but I get the thinking on trying to even the playing field, even if it means another distortion and probable consequences.

One item I do agree with is linking corporate tax benefit to the offering of retirement plans, of course the inverse being taking away various tax incentives when a corporation does not offer various means of retirement savings.

But another problematic area is the suggestion of State ran pension plans for the private sector. It would make private sector plans function like public sector union retirement plans, and ultimately shift how much liability was extended outward to future contributors. Effectively, a bunch of Social Security Trust fund like plans ran by the various States and with funding levels dependent on fiscal controls State to State.

Any "expansion to Social Security" ends up limited to taxation on the higher income quintiles. I am not convinced that taxing wealth even more really solves the problem.

Review for yourself...

http://foreffectivegov.org/files/two-retirements.pdf

Why does an expansion to social security equate to higher taxation on higher income Individuals? (Well, politicians are stupid, so that's probably true.) Damn, now I want to force politicians to read the seven deadly sins of economic policy..

 

[OrphanSlug]

Re: 100 CEOs Have More Saved Up for Retirement Than 41 Percent of U.S. Families Combi

Why does an expansion to social security equate to higher taxation on higher income Individuals? (Well, politicians are stupid, so that's probably true.) Damn, now I want to force politicians to read the seven deadly sins of economic policy..

Even the report says it. The usual proposals to handling Social Security (from dealing with expected solvency period to expansion like what we are talking about here) boils down to "Requiring the wealthiest to pay more for Social Security will pay for the increased benefits as well as the projected shortfall." That means higher taxation, in some way.

It is not me giving you my proposal here, it is me telling you what others usually suggest to handle anything Social Security.

 

[David_N]

Re: 100 CEOs Have More Saved Up for Retirement Than 41 Percent of U.S. Families Combi

Even the report says it. The usual proposals to handling Social Security (from dealing with expected solvency period to expansion like what we are talking about here) boils down to "Requiring the wealthiest to pay more for Social Security will pay for the increased benefits as well as the projected shortfall." That means higher taxation, in some way.

It is not me giving you my proposal here, it is me telling you what others usually suggest to handle anything Social Security.

And those proposals are based on the idea that the "trust fund" actually has dollars stored in a vault somewhere and that federal taxes are needed to fund spending. Even Greenspan admitted paying for social security is never an issue, it's all about real resources.

 

[David_N]

Re: 100 CEOs Have More Saved Up for Retirement Than 41 Percent of U.S. Families Combi

Even the report says it. The usual proposals to handling Social Security (from dealing with expected solvency period to expansion like what we are talking about here) boils down to "Requiring the wealthiest to pay more for Social Security will pay for the increased benefits as well as the projected shortfall." That means higher taxation, in some way.

It is not me giving you my proposal here, it is me telling you what others usually suggest to handle anything Social Security.

I guess the real issue is, voters think the government is like a household and the elected individuals have to appeal to these same ignorant people.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Re: 100 CEOs Have More Saved Up for Retirement Than 41 Percent of U.S. Families Combi

And those proposals are based on the idea that the "trust fund" actually has dollars stored in a vault somewhere and that federal taxes are needed to fund spending. Even Greenspan admitted paying for social security is never an issue, it's all about real resources.

Close, damn close. It is all about allocation of funding and issuance of Intergovernmental Debt.

I guess the real issue is, voters think the government is like a household and the elected individuals have to appeal to these same ignorant people.

It is a problem I agree, but not as applicable to this discussion on income quintile retirement saving disparity. Any change to Social Security for this subject is a very small part of the overall picture.

 

[David_N]

Re: 100 CEOs Have More Saved Up for Retirement Than 41 Percent of U.S. Families Combi

Close, damn close. It is all about allocation of funding and issuance of Intergovernmental Debt.



It is a problem I agree, but not as applicable to this discussion on income quintile retirement saving disparity. Any change to Social Security for this subject is a very small part of the overall picture.

Funding isn't an issue. Unless we limit ourselves based on stupidity.
Here's what I really want to discuss: The only reason we can save is government deficit spending. Just imagine a scenario where we decimate spending, "balance the budget," and yell at poor people for "not saving." Well, people already can barely afford to save anything, which is why we have social security..

 

[Renae]

Re: 100 CEOs Have More Saved Up for Retirement Than 41 Percent of U.S. Families Combi

Funding isn't an issue. Unless we limit ourselves based on stupidity.
Here's what I really want to discuss: The only reason we can save is government deficit spending. Just imagine a scenario where we decimate spending, "balance the budget," and yell at poor people for "not saving." Well, people already can barely afford to save anything, which is why we have social security..

WTF are you on about?

 

[David_N]

Re: 100 CEOs Have More Saved Up for Retirement Than 41 Percent of U.S. Families Combi

WTF are you on about?

Let me ask you: how do we citizens acquire dollars? I'm sure you're going to say we "earn them." Ok, how did the people who pay us get the dollars? Where did the private sector get the dollars in the first place?

 

[Fletch]

Re: 100 CEOs Have More Saved Up for Retirement Than 41 Percent of U.S. Families Combi

What makes you think I want any of that? Everyone in the economy can't save 10% of their income on average, not without deficit spending filling the gap.

Why do you say that? Just because people save doesn't mean that money disappears.

 

[Absentglare]

Re: 100 CEOs Have More Saved Up for Retirement Than 41 Percent of U.S. Families Combi

What do you guys think of this? If you want my opinion, it's only possible thanks to the poor spending more then they save. If the private sector as a whole decides to net save, the gap has to be filled. Unfortunately, we live in a world where people believe, and this is what I gather from listening to people, that the gap can just be magically filled without government deficit spending. Well, nothing's perfect..
100 CEOs Have More Saved Up for Retirement Than 41 Percent of U.S. Families Combined - The Atlantic

I'm surprised it's not more like 90%, though i guess they're only including retirement.

 

[Fletch]

Re: 100 CEOs Have More Saved Up for Retirement Than 41 Percent of U.S. Families Combi

Let me ask you: how do we citizens acquire dollars?

That depends. Liberals acquire dollars by stealing it from their neighbors. The productive members of society actually go out and earn it.

 

[David_N]

Re: 100 CEOs Have More Saved Up for Retirement Than 41 Percent of U.S. Families Combi

Why do you say that? Just because people save doesn't mean that money disappears.

Money saved isn't used in the economy.

 

[Absentglare]

Re: 100 CEOs Have More Saved Up for Retirement Than 41 Percent of U.S. Families Combi

I guess the real issue is, voters think the government is like a household and the elected individuals have to appeal to these same ignorant people.

"Deficits are considered to represent sinful profligate spending at the expense of future generations who will be left with a smaller endowment of invested capital.

This fallacy seems to stem from a false analogy to borrowing by individuals. Current reality is almost the exact opposite. Deficits add to the net disposable income of individuals, to the extent that government disbursements that constitute income to recipients exceed that abstracted from disposable income in taxes, fees, and other charges. This added purchasing power, when spent, provides markets for private production, inducing producers to invest in additional plant capacity, which will form part of the real heritage left to the future. This is in addition to whatever public investment takes place in infrastructure, education, research, and the like. Larger deficits, sufficient to recycle savings out of a growing gross domestic product (GDP) in excess of what can be recycled by profit-seeking private investment, are not an economic sin but an economic necessity. Deficits in excess of a gap growing as a result of the maximum feasible growth in real output might indeed cause problems, but we are nowhere near that level."

- William Vickrey

Vickrey, William. 1996. 15 Fatal Fallacies of Financial Fundamentalism

 

[David_N]

Re: 100 CEOs Have More Saved Up for Retirement Than 41 Percent of U.S. Families Combi

That depends. Liberals acquire dollars by stealing it from their neighbors. The productive members of society actually go out and earn it.

And where does the private sector acquire the dollars?

 

[OrphanSlug]

Re: 100 CEOs Have More Saved Up for Retirement Than 41 Percent of U.S. Families Combi

Funding isn't an issue. Unless we limit ourselves based on stupidity.
Here's what I really want to discuss: The only reason we can save is government deficit spending. Just imagine a scenario where we decimate spending, "balance the budget," and yell at poor people for "not saving." Well, people already can barely afford to save anything, which is why we have social security..

I am not here to argue MMT with anyone, but we do limit ourselves debt wise (in every possible way.) Social Security only has enough Intergovernmental Debt issued to handle deposits on a given day, not a penny more. We issue a certain amount of debt by auction all the time right up to the next debt ceiling.

Agree with these principles or not in economic debate terms is another thread... but we do limit debt issuance.

 

[David_N]

Re: 100 CEOs Have More Saved Up for Retirement Than 41 Percent of U.S. Families Combi

I am not here to argue MMT with anyone, but we do limit ourselves debt wise (in every possible way.) Social Security only has enough Intergovernmental Debt issued to handle deposits on a given day, not a penny more. We issue a certain amount of debt by auction all the time right up to the next debt ceiling.

Agree with these principles or not in economic debate terms is another thread... but we do limit debt issuance.

If it came down to it, we have methods to make sure whatever we need to get spent is spent. Change a couple of outdated things and all of this nonsense goes away. You know this though. Hell, the real purpose of t-securities is to manage reserves.

 

[gdgyva]

Re: 100 CEOs Have More Saved Up for Retirement Than 41 Percent of U.S. Families Combi

What do you guys think of this? If you want my opinion, it's only possible thanks to the poor spending more then they save. If the private sector as a whole decides to net save, the gap has to be filled. Unfortunately, we live in a world where people believe, and this is what I gather from listening to people, that the gap can just be magically filled without government deficit spending. Well, nothing's perfect..
100 CEOs Have More Saved Up for Retirement Than 41 Percent of U.S. Families Combined - The Atlantic

let me tell you about "average " americans

they dont save, because, well, they dont want to

we offer a 401k with a match....like most companies do

care to guess the % of employees that take advantage of it?

now remember....my employees averaged 77k in 2015....well more than most companies

i have diligently worked with the company overseeing the 401k to keep our expenses for the funds as low as possible (most are less than 1% per year....not bad for a small company)....and we keep everything easy to understand....

and yet, i cant seem to get participation over 28-29% of my employees

the owner and i have talked about it ad nauseum....and we just dont get it

it doesnt surprise me when i see statistics about savings anymore....

it just doesnt....everyone seems to want to live for now, and screw tomorrow

 

[Fletch]

Re: 100 CEOs Have More Saved Up for Retirement Than 41 Percent of U.S. Families Combi

Money saved isn't used in the economy.

Of course it is. Unless by saving you mean burying it in mason jars in the back yard. Savings is a form of investing. Plus, if I save 10% of my income now, the idea is to SPEND it later. You act as if that 10% just vanishes. It doesn't.

As for why the poor don't save, it might have something to do with banks paying virtually nothing to savers. And as to the deficits, we have no savings now and we have deficits, so outside of you just trying to stir up more leftist class envy, I see no point to your OP.

 

[Absentglare]

Of course it is. Unless by saving you mean burying it in mason jars in the back yard. Savings is a form of investing. Plus, if I save 10% of my income now, the idea is to SPEND it later. You act as if that 10% just vanishes. It doesn't.

As for why the poor don't save, it might have something to do with banks paying virtually nothing to savers. And as to the deficits, we have no savings now and we have deficits, so outside of you just trying to stir up more leftist class envy, I see no point to your OP.

No it isn't.

You're appealing to thoroughly debunked gold standard ideology.