With private pensions largely disappearing and the long-term solvency of Social Security in question, paying for the bulk of retirement now sits squarely on the shoulders of many of today's workers. However, many policymakers and financial experts continue to report that workers are saving far too little and far too late. Three recent studies attempt to provide some insight into the problem. Collectively, they suggest that while some pro-saving government policies may not be helping most workers reach their retirement targets, the savers who are meeting their goals may not be reliant on those incentives anyway.
Retirement savings lag and policies may not be helping
Retirement savings may be lagging in part because many workers underestimate how much money they will need to live comfortably once they stop working, according to a new study by LIMRA, a financial services industry organization. Their survey found that pre-retirees between the ages of 55-70 believe, on average, they will need less than two-thirds of their current income once they stop working. However, the LIMRA study says that financial experts typically recommend workers should plan to live on 70 to 80 percent of their current income in retirement. But unfortunately, tax policies intended to encourage saving may not be improving the situation, according to a new study by Harvard University. To encourage workers to save more, the U.S. government spends more than $100 billion a year in tax incentives for workers investing in accounts such as 401(k)s and IRAs. However, the Harvard study questions whether this money has actually spurred more savings. Since U.S. data is "inadequate," according to the study, the researchers looked at data from Denmark to draw their conclusions. They found that although government subsidies encourage workers to put money in tax-advantaged funds, the incentives did not produce an overall increase in savings.