
Three Quarters of Americans Aren’t Putting Enough into Their 401(k)s - hrrobins
https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/retirement-savings-inadequate-401k
======
ggm
Paul Keating (Australian Labor party) instituted national savings for
superannuation with a mandatory contributions scheme set to rise ultimately to
15%. Its stuck on 9% because the moaning about ring-fencing money for future
savings struck home with the voters. (it was due to rise to 12.5%)

In practice, the Australian pensions scheme is a bit buggered, half the
population will be on government pension and the other half will be tricking
things to get juuust below the pension threshold to get benefits cards, and
access to medical help, but living life on the hog from the income on the
super. (there is a mandatory 4% drawdown rate)

Significant numbers of people in Australia do have >$1.5m in savings, but far
more don't and most are under $400,000 which means they are unable to sustain
an adequate post-retirement income without government help.

Low wage earners forgo in % terms far more of their income than they can
afford to mandatory super. So if you are in the bottom quartile, this super
scheme enforces lifetime poverty when its likely you were always going to be
on the pension, and could have used the net present value of the money to
better effect.

People like me? I contributed to a scheme which paid above normal, and I made
extra payments to the ceiling, and I have not been low paid since my
dishwashing days in the 1970s and I'm going to be fine.

In _principle_ this 401(k) thing is true. In _practice_ it depends where you
sit in the lifetime income profile, and your age and future expectations. it
is probably better to save, but if you don't earn enough, and can secure
government aid in retirement (in australia, the UK, Much of Europe, New
Zealand) it is much less clear.

High income earners? Sure. Save more.

