Skip to main content

Pension security.

It was mentioned in the Democratic Platform in 2008; yet, no efforts have made to make it a reality for all working Americans. Even though pension security is not a “hot” political issue as of late, I believe that it will become a major issue within the coming years, as the population will slowly start to age and as a larger number of Americans begin to realize that the current system of employer sponsored 401(k)s have been a free-market disaster.

Here are some startling facts about the state of 401(k)s in the United States:

• A 2008 study performed by Deloitte Consulting (before the market crash) found that only 13% of employers thought that 401(k)s would provide a secure retirement for their workers.

• According to SmartMoney magazine (November, 2009 issue) nearly 90% of the country’s 401(k) plans are watched over by people who do not need any special qualifications or investing experience.

• From the end of 2007 to the end of March, 2009 the average 401(k) balance fell 31% according to Fidelity Investments.

• As of the year 2011, the average 401(k) balance of an American worker was $71,500, much lower than is needed to live comfortably in retirement.

• Nearly half of income put into a 401(k) can be eat up through extremely high (and more than likely undisclosed fees) over a 30 year time span, according to 60 Minutes (“The 401(k) Fallout,” April 19, 2009).

It is obvious that something needs to be done about retirement and pension security in America. The deregulated, unprofessional mess of the current 401(k) system needs to be replaced with something much more secure, much more transparent, and something that is protected from market failures. There are two main ways that we can overhaul the current system and promote retirement security.

Number One: We need a government-backed retirement plan that is non-invested and guarantees a steady stream of benefits, post-retirement. To ensure that the plan is financially stable, the government should mandate that at least half of the benefits provided by this program be pre-funded or saved up by the worker and that another 25% of the benefits be funded by the business that the employee retired from. Finally, the government would fund the last 25% through regular tax revenue. In the case of small businesses, the government could heavily subsidize the amount of benefits that need to be paid out. This would provide a stable stream of income for all workers in retirement and would not be exposed to the sketchy investing practices on Wall Street.

Number Two: Any employer-sponsored retirement plan that is privately invested needs to be tightly regulated by the government. I believe that we should create a new government agency to oversee invested pensions and retirement accounts. This new agency would maintain oversight on the security of all invested pension plans, whether defined benefit or defined contribution. Certain guidelines would be set for invested plans such as a limit on excessive fees, a rating system on different types of investments, and the banning of any “risky” investment strategies.

I believe that if these two proposals became law, that America would be on a much more sustainable track in terms of retirement security and investing. If we care about the future retirement security of all Americans, young and old, I believe that we need to demand that Congress (especially the Democrats in Congress) and President Obama take a tougher stand on this issue and fulfill the promise in the ’08 Democratic Platform regarding retirement security. It might not be the most “popular” issue, but it is still a very important one.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm curious (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    My husband and I don't have a 401k as we can't afford it.

    We don't have cable. We don't have credit cards. We don't have a house or car payment. We live paycheck to paycheck. Where are we supposed to come up with the money for this if it's mandated? I mean, we could pay it, but living in the car is not my idea of how to get ahead in the world.

    The idea is nice, but we already have a mandated system and it's called Social Security. Why not just shore that up and make it run better?

  •  What retirement? "They" don't want me to have (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Mine although I'm paying 4 it. Work until death 4 moldy crumbs because evil 1% have the best govt that money can buy. People voted 2 screw themselves & their children taking us w/them.

    Tipped & rec'ed

    The radical Republican party is the party of oppression, fear, loathing and above all more money and power for the people who robbed us.

    by a2nite on Sat Mar 17, 2012 at 11:35:53 AM PDT

  •  I have a retirement plan. It's called "death." (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I had a 401k once, but I had to gobble it up over the course of a couple of years of unemployment and near unemployment at the onset of the recession.

    This was before unemployment benefits were extended.  There was only about 20k in it anyway; and of course a ton of that was eaten up by early withdrawal penalties.

    Now at 51 it seems a little late to start retirement planning over again, even if I could afford it.

    At this rate, pretty soon they really will be turning us all into Soylent Green.

    If the founding fathers thought corporations were people why didn't they just say so?

    by Notthemayor on Sat Mar 17, 2012 at 03:45:24 PM PDT

    •  They won't even let you die if you want to, it's (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BusyinCA, chimene

      against the law.  They want you to grow old and starve to death so it will be as painful as possible.  We live in one the worst "developed" countries in the world to grow old in.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site