Spain is Doomed; Youth Unemployment Hits 51%

[MadImmortalMan]

Is anyone moving away?

Did you take a Grumbler pill this morning?

No. 

I mean nobody is seriously abandoning their state-run pensions.

[Jacob]

Is anyone moving away?

The existence of RRSPs (in Canada) and 401Ks or WD40s or IRAs (or is that UDFs?) or whatever the tax deductible retirement plans are called in the US shows that a move has already happened.

[MadImmortalMan]

Is anyone moving away?

The existence of RRSPs (in Canada) and 401Ks or WD40s or IRAs (or is that UDFs?) or whatever the tax deductible retirement plans are called in the US shows that a move has already happened.

Those were added in addition to SSA. They didn't replace it.

[Jacob]

Is anyone moving away?

The existence of RRSPs (in Canada) and 401Ks or WD40s or IRAs (or is that UDFs?) or whatever the tax deductible retirement plans are called in the US shows that a move has already happened.

Those were added in addition to SSA. They didn't replace it.

But now people are arguing that they are sufficient and we should get rid of SSA. Hence "move away."

[crazy canuck]

I mean nobody is seriously abandoning their state-run pensions.

My concern is that people may not have that option the way some politicians are talking.  If old age intitlements are reduced sufficiently people who dont have the means for the knowledge to do so may be forced into becoming investors.

[Neil]

Is anyone moving away?

The existence of RRSPs (in Canada) and 401Ks or WD40s or IRAs (or is that UDFs?) or whatever the tax deductible retirement plans are called in the US shows that a move has already happened.

Given that those were adopted as an alternative to employer-paid pensions, I don't think that quite holds up.  The public pension was always a minimum standard, and the RRSP and 401k was just a matter of transfering the remainder of retirement income from the relatively reliable employer to the certain doom that is the market.

[Sheilbh]

Btw does anyone know where the idea of moving away from state pensions originated?

Chile.  Copied in a few Latin American countries.  Furiously yearned for by libertarians in the US.

Ironically pension reform was a big issue in Chile's last election because the system's only now moving from a theory to practice, people have been contributing for 20-30 years.  Unfortunately it's not really worked so both right and left-wing candidates were running on the need for substantial reform that are moving towards a state pension.

I believe all the other Latin American countries who tried Chilean style reforms have also moved back from them.  Argentina with did so with her unique sense of drama and flair

[Strix]

Is anyone moving away?

The existence of RRSPs (in Canada) and 401Ks or WD40s or IRAs (or is that UDFs?) or whatever the tax deductible retirement plans are called in the US shows that a move has already happened.

Given that those were adopted as an alternative to employer-paid pensions, I don't think that quite holds up.  The public pension was always a minimum standard, and the RRSP and 401k was just a matter of transfering the remainder of retirement income from the relatively reliable employer to the certain doom that is the market.

Please tell that to Prince Cuomo. He and his advisors feel that a 401K is a perfectly acceptable alternative leading to replacement for a public pension.

[MadImmortalMan]

Please tell that to Prince Cuomo. He and his advisors feel that a 401K is a perfectly acceptable alternative leading to replacement for a public pension.

We're talking about social benefits here, not your employee pension. In your case, he's probably right.

[Neil]

Is anyone moving away?

The existence of RRSPs (in Canada) and 401Ks or WD40s or IRAs (or is that UDFs?) or whatever the tax deductible retirement plans are called in the US shows that a move has already happened.

Given that those were adopted as an alternative to employer-paid pensions, I don't think that quite holds up.  The public pension was always a minimum standard, and the RRSP and 401k was just a matter of transfering the remainder of retirement income from the relatively reliable employer to the certain doom that is the market.

Please tell that to Prince Cuomo. He and his advisors feel that a 401K is a perfectly acceptable alternative leading to replacement for a public pension.

Well, at least that would put public employees and private ones in the same boat.

[Strix]

Please tell that to Prince Cuomo. He and his advisors feel that a 401K is a perfectly acceptable alternative leading to replacement for a public pension.

We're talking about social benefits here, not your employee pension. In your case, he's probably right.

In that case, 401K would probably be the best way to go, at least in the US. Politicians are unable to leave Social Security funds alone. Taking their ability to "borrow" from the public pension fund will make for a brighter financial future for those involved.

[Admiral Yi]

Given that those were adopted as an alternative to employer-paid pensions, I don't think that quite holds up.  The public pension was always a minimum standard, and the RRSP and 401k was just a matter of transfering the remainder of retirement income from the relatively reliable employer to the certain doom that is the market.

Where do you think those pension funds invest their money?

[Strix]

Is anyone moving away?

The existence of RRSPs (in Canada) and 401Ks or WD40s or IRAs (or is that UDFs?) or whatever the tax deductible retirement plans are called in the US shows that a move has already happened.

Given that those were adopted as an alternative to employer-paid pensions, I don't think that quite holds up.  The public pension was always a minimum standard, and the RRSP and 401k was just a matter of transfering the remainder of retirement income from the relatively reliable employer to the certain doom that is the market.

Please tell that to Prince Cuomo. He and his advisors feel that a 401K is a perfectly acceptable alternative leading to replacement for a public pension.

Well, at least that would put public employees and private ones in the same boat.

But I prefer Berkut in his little dinghy screaming at me from a distance about my benefits.

[Neil]

Given that those were adopted as an alternative to employer-paid pensions, I don't think that quite holds up.  The public pension was always a minimum standard, and the RRSP and 401k was just a matter of transfering the remainder of retirement income from the relatively reliable employer to the certain doom that is the market.

Where do you think those pension funds invest their money?

Doesn't much matter, as the employer is on the hook no matter where they invest it.

[alfred russel]

But now people are arguing that they are sufficient and we should get rid of SSA. Hence "move away."

I think they should be for different things. SSA imo is to guarantee a minimum level of income so that someone can subsist. Retirement savings vehicles are so that people can put away money for a more comfortable retirement.

I'd argue that both are bloated. SSA has payment caps that are quite high from where they started (though certainly most people aren't hitting the caps), while you can put away a lot in tax advantaged vehicles for retirement.

The two most popular are the 401k (through an employer) which has a cap of $17,000 a year (excluding an employer match) while the IRA (done by an individual) has a cap of $5,000 a year. If you assume an employer match of $3k, that means a married couple could put away $50k a year. At a certain point we've moved from giving working class people a chance to save for a comfortable retirement to helping upper class folks avoid taxes.