USMCFLYR

Absolutely not. I see the contributions of my GS co-workers daily, and am proud of the accomplishments to keep the NAS the safest in the world. Of course my FERS retirement is lackluster compared to my military retirement.

Packrat

What he said. If you're 401k underperforms its a reflection of your investment acumen or the fact that you have a bad advisor. My guys have routinely gotten me between 5-15% a year while only losing 3-8% during the really bad recessions.

I realized early on that I didn't have the financial knowledge or time to adequately manage my money, so I got someone who did. You don't do your own dental work do you?

hindsight2020

This is all good and great but the average 401k balance as of 2013 is $133K for ages 60-64. AARP even posts the article stating that this is GREAT news. I must have missed the punchline, is this some kind of joke? Yeah that's great news... for the two years you can afford to live in retirement on 133K.

401(k) Balances Hit Record High ? $111,900 for Ages 50-54 ? AARP

Most people I know saving on 401ks have no pension available to them, so that's not the reason for underfunding. They simply can't afford to put 15-24K/yr in retirement savings on top of their life costs (cars, house, education and medical for the kids, a hobby to keep sane and entertainment) and emergency fund savings. I'm not defending their choices or otherwise debating what things should be, I'm just telling y'all what things ARE.

Look, I hear ya on the personal responsibility bit, but that rant isn't going to get these millions of workers into solvency, deficit which you and I are going to get stuck being taxed for in order to bridge. I rather see an alternative that doesn't involve paying it on the back-end via taxes in order to cover the deficit that said AARP article so moronically lauds as great news.

Tell you what, I'll meet you in the middle. I'll concede Johnny and Suzie are morons if you concede that the lower 50% of wage earners cannot self-fund a 50% peak income retirement while also living a more comfortable lifestyle than a welfare recipient stuck on a crime-ridden housing district. I propose the employer be required to offer a B-fund in lieu of a 401K and offer to manage the fund as a pool, instead of individual accounts, though the employee can choose to opt out. Also, legislate that B-funds cannot be discharged in bankruptcy, just like the individual dope cannot discharge student loan debt. What say you?

Packrat

I think your point is well taken: People who opt to spend their money on a "comfortable" lifestyle now instead of preparing for the future have only themselves to blame when their "golden age" income is strictly Social Security.

JamesNoBrakes

Although this is true and there most certainly should be penalties/tradeoffs for this, what do you do with a huge percentage of the population succumbs to this? We end up bearing the cost for their medicare, emergency care, food stamps, and so on. Are you going to let them starve or die off? Are only those that are born into money allowed to have kids? Not allowed to have kids until your 50s when you're financially solid? I think there are some hard questions surrounding this that many just don't want to ask. Hindsight seems at least interested in asking the questions. The main problem I have with these situations and many like them is that now we are sitting here with a huge population of people nearing retirement that can not retire, they must keep working. This generation has screwed it up for many more people. Regardless of if they have been "screwed" themselves or whether it's their fault completely, we are left with this situation. All the "well, they shouldn't live beyond their means" talk in the world won't fix it. What would fix this? What are the reasonable ways to address this? Have we created a class system where it's impossible for one to "move up" without sacrificing their entire life for just a few years at the end? We've watched pensions "go away" in most places, it turns out this was not really a sustainable endeavor. It's probably not because cit's physically impossible to have pensions, but likely because people can't resist raiding a bunch of money sitting somewhere in a fund. If money is not getting "used", it's not making as much money as it could. Then something goes wrong and it's all gone. What protections are there keeping the shareholders from doing things like that? Then government bails out said company minus the pension. So that is one more thing that is "ruined" for the current generations.

I believe regulated capitalism IS the way, but there are some parts that need more regulation than others, and when someone fails, there need to hold someone to their promises and have harsh consequences for someone that can't meet them. Golden parachutes need to stop and the money redistributed to the employees. Companies that fail need to actually fail and not be propped up just enough to drag the entire industry lower. We need companies that are responsible to their employees as well as their customers, rather than ones that just maximize shareholder stock and put those people above the before mentioned two.

The biggest thing that I see going on though is that "they" already came for your "stuff" in the private sector. They raided the funds. They inflated the top levels. They made the bottom levels sacrificial and get rid of them on a whim/treat them as they like. They removed the power from those levels with right to work and union busting. Now they are coming for the military benefits. You're not just fighting "them", but all the people that have been treated this way and don't have as much of a problem bringing you down to "their" level. Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but I don't see military/government service getting better benefits and pay in the long term. I see it continually shrinking relative to the private sector and inflation. Given how much businesses have "streamlined" their operations at the expense of everyone else, those same businesses and the people are demanding the same of government.

WARich

speechless....

OSAVIP

What does this topic have to do with social security, living within one's means, and all the other tangents in this discussion?

Here's what this is: I have a signed agreement for the "high three plan" as described in 2006 in lieu of "REDUX with a 30k buyout". I completed my end of the bargain. When adults agree to a deal, they should honor it. It doesn't surprise me to see this from congress, but it's not right.

Rant over.

Hrkdrivr

Mickey is a lot of things, but three things he ain't are clueless, selfish and/or a whiner. His point is similar to this:

And here's another little nugget from Congress and the DoD. The E-SERB.

15-year retirements, enlisted retention boards coming next year | Air Force Times | airforcetimes.com

So all the people who were not involuntarily retired in the 2010 and 2011 SERBs and who, by law, were exempt from another SERB for 5 years? Tough noogies. They will face the E-SERB in June if it happens. The DoD asked and Congress changed the law in the 2013 NDAA. There are people who met the 2013 SERB last week, whose results will be released in the spring who will have to meet another SERB in the summer.

We're all grown-ups and we made informed decisions. Then the folks on the other side of the table changed the rules. I shouldn't be surprised...

UAL T38 Phlyer

The Ant and the Grasshopper - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Ant and the Grasshopper, also known as The Grasshopper and the Ant (or Ants), is one of Aesop's Fables, providing an ambivalent moral lesson about the virtues of hard work and planning for the future. "

UAL T38 Phlyer

Actions that speak loudly, through words:

U.S. Senate: Senators Home

Directory of Representatives · House.gov

These sites are pretty easy to use, and you can email your Representative and Senators.

I told them what I thought of reducing retirees' benefits after the fact, and highlighted more pertinent cuts that could be made, without sacrificing combat capability, retention, or morale.