babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » labour and consumption   » Surprising stats regarding retirement savings.

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Surprising stats regarding retirement savings.
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 17 December 2001 11:48 AM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
According to an article in Saturday's Globe and Mail, high-income earners are least likely to have enough saved for retirement.

41% of those who make $75'000 or more don't have enough saved for retirement.

35% of those who make less than $10'000 don't have enough saved.

The best savers were those who make between $20'000 and $29'999. Only 22% of them didn't have enough saved.

I'd link to the article, but it's in the G&M. Their links never work. The article was written by Krista Foss, in case you would like to go hunting for it. The headline is "Freedom far off, retirement study finds."


From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 17 December 2001 12:22 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A key point here to remember, though:

quote:
As a result, 41 per cent of families whose employment incomes are $75,000 or more will not be able to generate two-thirds of that when their major breadwinner retires, according to Statistics Canada. One-quarter of families earning $20,000 to $40,000 will be in the same position.

The Statistics Canada formula on how much needs to be generated after retirement doesn't go unchallenged.

"At the risk of encouraging people to become complacent, this formula is simply too high for some, especially those expecting inheritances or who have off-balance-sheet assets such as interest in a business or rental property that may not be accounted for," Mr. Christianson said.


I’d be willing to wager that the people making $70K+/yr are going to inherit much more than the people making $20K/yr.

However, it adds credence to a pet theory of mine that states that no matter how much money you make, you never have enough.

There's a capitalism critique in there, but that isn't my department.


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 17 December 2001 12:30 PM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm not so sure it's as much a capitalism critique as it is a consumerism critique. I see the two as separate, though certainly related, animals.

Someone can be a capitalist but not a shopaholic, after all. Someone can be a capitalist but still believe that over-consumption is wasteful and counter-productive.


From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 17 December 2001 12:54 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Actually, Mediaboy, your right. Hence why critiques are not my department.

I know of people claiming 'poor' making almost six figures.


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 17 December 2001 06:31 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Another note - it's interesting to see how thoroughly the average working person has been conned into believing that there'll just be a big hole where the CPP's gonna be in something like 50 years.

So they're shovelling all this money into RRSPs and mutual funds and whatnot and the brokers are having a jolly old time scamming the hell out of the average person. Look up the management expense ratio for some of the mutuals offered to the average stiff and it's pretty amazing. Jim Stanford has a nice little section on this in his book, BTW.

What nobody seems to get is that the CPP is mandated by law to be paid for in any given year, whether out of general revenue or out of premiums. If premiums are insufficient, then general revenue must cover it.

The bullshi-I mean liars who spread horror stories about the CPP rely on a weasel-word definition of technical bankruptcy in the CPP in that if revenues fall short of expenditures, that IS technical insolvency of the fund. They ignore, of course, the fact that it's smushed in with other government spending since it's a cash cow for Paul Martin, like the EI fund.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
David Kyle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1530

posted 18 December 2001 10:18 AM      Profile for David Kyle     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I know of people claiming 'poor' making almost six figures.

I know of a couple of people in that situation. They are literally living from pay cheque to pay cheque. Their spending habits and money management skills are so poor, ie: nonexistent, they can't save any money.

From: canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trisha
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 387

posted 18 December 2001 06:05 PM      Profile for Trisha     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And those who just barely reached the five-figure mark have to be good budgeters or they can't survive. That's the only good thing about being poor, you learn to manage money.
From: Thunder Bay, Ontario | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca