The "Greenspam" EffectA Suze
Orman
exclusive I know I talked a lot about Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan in my
previous
column, but I want to revisit some of the issues he
raised recently, because they are at the core of why you may need to rethink your
approach to retirement.
In late February, Chairman Greenspan went up to Capitol Hill for one of his scheduled
visits to discuss the state of the U.S. economy. Before he left, he grabbed headlines
from Portland, Oregon to Portland, Maine, by suggesting that rather than raise taxes
to generate the money to pay off our gargantuan federal debt, we should consider
reducing benefits the government pays to its citizens. And the benefit he has in
mind? Oh, merely Social Security. Your Social Security. That comment unleashed a
torrent of debate and worry; hell hath no fury like the threat of retirement benefits
being scaled back.
The chairman's barrage of statements - Greenspamming if you ask me - was not solely
intended to spark debate in Congress. No, I'm pretty sure it was also intended to
start getting the rest of us accustomed to the harsh reality that the government may
not deliver what we thought it had promised to us when we reach retirement age.
Don't be foolish and think this issue is a non-starter that won't ever come into
play. My friends, it has already come into play. How many of you are aware that if
you were born after 1937 you no longer get full Social Security benefits at 65? In
fact, for those of you born in 1960 or later, you do not receive your full benefits
until you are 67. Let's be clear about what that means to you really. Assume that
before they made those changes a few years ago, you were to receive a $1,500 monthly
Social Security check at 65. But now, since you will not get that payout until you
are 67, we're talking about $36,000 in foregone benefits. That's lost income, pure
and simple. Then consider the "hidden" cost in lost investment potential that comes
with those two years of vanished payments. Say you didn't need the $1,500 a month to
live on and planned to invest it all. Well, if we assume the $1,500 a month over
those two years was to go into a broad market index fund and earn a moderate 8
percent average annual rate of return, you would have $38,900 after the two years.
Then let's say at that point (when you become eligible for benefits) you decided to
take your $38,900 and simply invest it for income. At 5 percent, that is an extra
$162 a month. Or maybe you're one of the lucky ones who don't need that extra income
in your 60s and 70s, so you took the $38,900 and kept it invested for another 20
years (we're figuring you get to enjoy a terrific and long retirement). Guess what?
That hypothetical $1,500 a month you couldn't collect from 65 to 67 ends up costing
you a mere $181,311. That's how much you would have if you had been paid the $1,500 a
month during that two-year stretch and then had grown that sum at an 8 percent
average annual rate of return for 20 years. So if you think that $36,000 is only a modest
reduction in your benefits, you've just bought the ticket the government sold you.
And I bet a lot of you were not even aware of the purchase, were you?
Broken Promises Can Break Your Retirement Back!
I don't mention this to scare you or depress you. Far from it. My point is that there
is a very good chance the government is going to continue to nick away at the promise
of Social Security benefits. Something's gotta give so we don't bankrupt the entire
system, or run up colossal debts that will kill our economy.
That's life, my friends. The question is what you are going to do about it. Don't
worry, this isn't the part of the article where I send you off to an online
calculator that will tell you exactly how much you need to save right now so you can
meet your income needs 20, 30, or 40 years from now. Puh-leeze. I can't stand those
calculators; all they do is cause heart attacks by making us feel that the only way
we will ever be able to retire is to rob a bank.
That said, I do believe you need to face up to the reality that you, and you alone,
are going to be the one responsible for supporting yourself during your retirement
years. Even if you are currently employed at a company that promises great retirement
benefits, I want you to be very careful. Scores of companies are breaking the
promises they have made and actually reducing benefits for retirees. How are they
doing this? Simply by increasing the retiree's share of health insurance costs.
Bottom line: The smartest approach to your retirement is to do the preparation so you
can be as self-sufficient as possible. < Prev Next >Next Article: Change the Prescription of Your Retirement Glasses! Main: The Sane Retirement Plan
| |
| | Retirement Planning on Yahoo! Finance | |
 |
|
Can You Afford Your Children?
|
|
| By Suze Orman |
|
| · |
Is Your Kid's Greatest Financial Fear Having to Afford You? |
| · |
The Janet Jackson Financial Affair |
| · |
The Four Secrets to Affording Your Kids |
|
Next: April 19, 2004
Add
a reminder to my Yahoo! Calendar |
|
|
|
|
| Tax
Savings Stategies |
|
| · |
Tax Deductions Are Not as Valuable as in the Past |
| · |
Popular Stupid Tax Strategies |
|
| Debt-Defying
Moves |
|
| · |
Getting Smart with the Money You Don't Have! |
| · |
Do You Know the Score? |
| · |
How to Master the FICO Game |
|
| Greenspan's
Call to ARMs
|
|
| · |
Why Greenspan and Lenders Like Adjustables |
| · |
Adjustable Rate Mortgages: A Smart Option if You Plan to Be on the Move |
| · |
Fixed Rate Mortgages: Perfect if You're Staying Put |
|
|
|
|