Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylvanfan
Look dude....I am trying to save for retirement. But to put aside 2 grand of the 4500 I take home every month plus support my wife and kid, live in a decent place, have a vehicle....it's just not that easy. I found that I can not save enough to have a lesser lifestyle than I currently have when I turn 60 and keep that life style for 30 years. My guess is that if I'm not making it work than all those other people with stuff that I sure as hell don't have like new homes, boats, cars, RV's, and way nicer crap than I have aren't going to make it either.
My point was that 80% of private companies no longer provide programs to help their employees create a pension for themselves. When you don't have the benefit of a pension you better be putting away about 40% of your take home pay, and for a lot of people with families that is hard to do. Even if you've been a cheapskate who did watch his money.
|
Look, I understand your point, and yes, it is difficult to save. Sometimes you've got to make choices between saving, and running the family.
I'm lucky, I'm relatively young, with no family, and work at a job where the company does some matching of RRSP contributions, but I don't understand how your example of a company not matching RRSP contributions is a reason to save less. I contribute enough that the company doesn't match any more of what I contribute, but I've increased what I contribute every year, and the fact that the company doesn't match any of it doesn't have much bearing on my decision.
I can understand that if you were to get twice the benefit when you retire you'd be willing to make a sacrafice now (ex. you'd go from $13000-16000/year if you got an extra $4000 from the company). But that scenario is pretty unrealistic.
I mean is a company really going to match just the last $3000? Probably not, which means you'd have already gotten that benefit without the extra $3000. In fact, based on what you say you contribute, and what you take home, I think getting a company to match >100% on that high of a percentage of your salary is way beyond any sort of matching plan I've ever heard of. If you did work for a company with any sort of matching then you'd likely be in the same postion I'm in, where any additional contributions aren't matched.
So is the extra $3000/year sacrafice worth not having to work longer? That's a presonal choice. You've got to do what you think is best for your family, and that's not for me to say anything about. Though for the record, I think choosing to work longer so you can provide a better quality of life for your family is a good choice.
The part that I thought was silly is that you were making the point that part of the reason you weren't increasing your savings becasue you weren't being given an incentive to. I think that's the reason/mentality behind why a lot of people who
can and should be putting more away for retirement (not people like yourself who are putting away what they can), are in the group that is not saving enough for retirement. Your point about how it'd be worth putting in an extra $3000 if you got another $4000 from your employer is the kind of thing I'd expect to come out of the mouth of one of those younger generation types who older folks are so fond of saying have a sense of entitlement, and are too concerned with living off of credit for stuff they can't afford. That's obviously not the postion you're in, but I think you illustrated the kind of thinking (though in this case not necessarily applicable to you) that is the reason people who can/should be saving more aren't.