Economy
See other Economy Articles
Title: Most Americans have less than $1,000 in savings
Source:
Marketwatch
URL Source: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/mo ... ngs-2015-10-06?link=MW_popular
Published: Oct 7, 2015
Author: Quentin Fottrell
Post Date: 2015-10-07 16:47:24 by Willie Green
Keywords: None
Views: 1647
Comments: 20
Americans are living right on the edge — at least when it comes to financial planning. Approximately 62% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their savings accounts and 21% don’t even have a savings account, according to a new survey of more than 5,000 adults conducted this month by Google Consumer Survey for personal finance website GOBankingRates.com. “It’s worrisome that such a large percentage of Americans have so little set aside in a savings account,” says Cameron Huddleston, a personal finance analyst for the site. “They likely don’t have cash reserves to cover an emergency and will have to rely on credit, friends and family, or even their retirement accounts to cover unexpected expenses.” This is supported by a similar survey of 1,000 adults carried out earlier this year by personal finance site Bankrate.com, which also found that 62% of Americans have no emergency savings for things such as a $1,000 emergency room visit or a $500 car repair. Faced with an emergency, they say they would raise the money by reducing spending elsewhere (26%), borrowing from family and/or friends (16%) or using credit cards (12%). And among those who had savings prior to 2008, 57% said they’d used some or all of their savings in the Great Recession, according to a U.S. Federal Reserve survey of over 4,000 adults released last year. Of course, paltry savings-account rates don’t encourage people to save either. Read: Most Americans say their children will be worse off In the latest survey, 29% said they have savings above $1,000 and, of those who do have money in their savings account, the most common balance is $10,000 or more (14%), followed by 5% of adults surveyed who have saved between $5,000 and just shy of $10,000; 10% say they have saved $1,000 to just shy of $5,000. Just 9% of people say they keep only enough money in their savings accounts to meet the minimum balance requirements and avoid fees. But minimum balance requirements can vary widely and be hard to meet for some consumers. They can vary anywhere between $300 a month and $1,500 a month at some major banks. Some age groups are less likely to have savings than others. Some 31% of Generation X — who are roughly aged 35 to 54 for the purpose of this survey — while being older and presumably more experienced with money than their younger cohorts, actually report a savings account balance of zero, which is the highest percentage of all age groups. Around 29% of millennials — aged 18 to 34 — and 28% of baby boomers — aged 55 to 64 — said they have no money in their savings account. Baby boomers (17%) and seniors aged 65 and up (20%) have the most money saved of any age group while less than 10% of millennials and approximately 16% of Generation X have $10,000 or more saved. Poster Comment: The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.And over 20% don’t even have a savings account
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Willie Green (#0)
You're on a regular ultra libturd article posting spree today. A libtard isn't complete without your rich hating, Occupy loving... let's redistribute money "equally" bullshit.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Probably because they have new cars, multiple phones, super big TV, cable, internet, eat out everyday, buy shit just cause everyone else[keep up with jones]. It seems everywhere I go people have brand new everything but have no money to spend on emergency or necessities. Its hard for me to feel sorry for poor financial management. Just because everyone else has one don't mean you have to have one too! I have pulled up to rent houses where the car was worth more than the house and the wheels were more expensive than all the furniture in the house which is being rented from rentacenter. People are poor because they are stupid. Yes there are some that have had a life changing problem. Usually medical but can be divorce.
People are poor because very intelligent people evilly fleece them.
And the tech savvy keep buying the stuff
There's some of that yes. Even Zero called out his own demoncrat liberal followers when they complained they had to actually PAY something for Obamacare. He said "you have a cell phone? Cable TV?...you can afford our rates." Which I will add was the GOP argument when telling people they did not need Obamacare but pay for their own insurance:) So yes, if the point is there are no savings because those things which are necessary cost a lot, then the article has merit. However, if people are given in to consumerism and buy things which cost more than they make or takes all their money, then they dig their own hole. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
People are poor because very intelligent people evilly fleece them. It would be nice to say yes the rich screws the little guy. Yes it does happen but the biggest issue is government that is controlled by the rich who get to screw the little guy. Im sure you think well thats what I just said but what allows the rich to screw the little guy is big government. If progressives and stupid people would stop voting for more government then the rich would have less power over the people. Im not opposed taxing the rich but all they are going to do is make a loophole and then you are back to where we were before except now we have more government and the rich are still rich and now even more powerful then they were to begin with. Its the chicken or the egg theory. I say its big overbear government. Look what happen when they tried to soak the rich with an "income tax"! Well hell now everyone is taxed and government ballooned into an uncontrollably beast controlled by the rich and power. We still have poor people. I would say 80% of the people got that way because they are stupid and lazy. When I hear how government is going to solve something I just shake my head going its about to get much worse and its going cost me more money and more rights. You can guaranty that the sun will rise east, taxes must be paid, rich will always get away with it and there will always be at least 10% poor because they can't help themselves.
Don't even get me started on Obummercare. Another get rich scheme for the rich.
No, if the government were removed, the rich would not have LESS power, they would have ALL the power. There was no government to speak of in feudal times or on the plantation, only the master. And the guy with the gold has the means to hire the men to make himself master. Slavery and serfdom arose in the absence of effective government. It was government that ended those things, and those things are incomparably worse than having to pay high taxes and deal with a high handed and unresponsive government. Big government is annoying and intrusive and takes a third of your money. The lord of the manor and the master of the plantation rapes whatever woman he pleases and takes your children away from you to sell then, and tortures you if you step out of line. Government ended that. You want to tilt at windmills and dream of a day when FINALLY we can get rid of government and just let everybody be? Dream on. But when you get rid of government, everybody isn't let be. Then the rich buy followers, and play Game of Thrones with each other, and with the bodies and lives of whomever they please. Conservatives always say they're rooted in history. Then they forget WHY there was a French Revolution, or an English Civil War, or the abolition of slavery and serfdom. Big government did not impose those conditions. The absence of government allowed very rich people to impose them and BECOME the government, all unto themselves. This is the problem with the conservative argument - it is blinkered and not based in history. Experimenting with chucking government means going BACK to what WAS before government rose. And what was, was brutal and inhumane. The bulk of humanity knows that, or senses it. We're never, ever going back. If conservatism means forgetting how the slave plantation got there and who ran it. forgetting about serfdom and the prima nocte of the rich lord, when being wealthy meant being the government, nobody else is going to forget it. Conservatives appear to desire to dismantle the social safety net and trust the rich. No. They cannot be trusted. Behind most great fortunes are great crimes, and revolutions established governments to moderate the abuses of the rich who ruled from time immemorial. We're never going back to that. And if all conservatives can do is dream of the day when the poor will be made to starve as their "just deserts" for whatever crime of slothfulness they are supposed to have committed, then that is all the conservatives will ever do: dream. Dream and bitch and moan on the outside, without power, because people who are that blind and insensitive to other people cannot be, and will never be, trusted with power. Conservatives who want to win have to moderate it. Conservatives who just want to be mean bastards on the margins are free to do that: be mean bastards, on the margins, looking in, forever. Because the rest of us are not having it. When conservatives grow up emotionally and stop dreaming of being bullies to the weak, then maybe they will come to their senses and have some productive contribution to make. But as it is, they self- eliminate by being mean bastards with no sense of actual history as it was really lived.
I did not say removed. We need government. We just don't need it everywhere for everything. Big government demands large sums of money and power and guess who they will get it from? Slavery came out of government and was approved by government to be legal. Government has been the issue for every economic crash. Wars are fought because government gets too big. Its the same old argument. Its either we need total centralize all powerful government or no government at all. Best answer is we need just enough government to keep chaos at bay and not one dollar/right more.
Yep. And you have the Emperor Obama and the DRats (who contorlled Congress for most of Obama's administration), with some help from the REPs, to thank for that. Just check out how much money the Obamas started with compared to what they will have when he leaves office. And let's not even talk about the poor, broke Clintons. Just about very elected official leaves office an order of magnitude or more wealthy than when they started - except for the likes of the Kerrys and Kennedys of this world. And how about that Pelosi gal? How do yo like dem apples? Facts are pesrsistent, pesky things. Guess who is in that 1% territory? HINT: The guys and gals that make the laws and their benefactors. Guess when the system will change? HINT: John Lennon has the answer. Or was that Bob Dylan? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
People are poor because they cannot run the treadmill forever. When you begin walking the "treadmill" you start out slow, increasing speed, eventually falling into a rhythm in line with their capabilities. They spend nearly all that they earn, as it is a hand to mouth existence. When they begin to slow down with age, and fatigue, they are shoved aside. What they have saved even if it matches their previous years income, buys 75% of what it did. In a few years, it purchases about 1/2. By the time they are in their 70's most are just lucky enough to eat, pay their bills and stay warm. The really lucky ones, or as Rush Republicans would say, the smart diligent ones, went to work for government on some level, or didn't have children and/or had two incomes for 40 years.
You mean the ones that have been stupid enough to have 20-40% of the money from their hard work taken away from them by Gobbermint and given to the 1/2 of the U.S. population who are "less lucky" or "less diligent"? You mean the ones that finance Gobbermint's spending largess by their toil while still providing for themself. Those morons....er....I mean lucky ones....er....I mean diligent ones? BTW, I am still paying federal and state incomes taxes and providing for myself and family at 70 years old and haven't taken a cent of Medicare and likely never will. BTW, barring health diasters and/or financial/economic collapse we should maintain our status for the balance of our life and still have something left in our estate for my daughter and her family (oh, BTW, we had children). So what am I? Lucky? Diligent? Smart? Stupid? Privileged? Or just a hard working, responsible person that has a great wife and who, like her, worked to get graduate degrees? If you measure your success in terms of dollars in for work out a number of years ago I would have called us hard working, responsible people - today I might call people like us stupid. If you measure success by the distance between your financial/economic position from where you started to where you are then we are definitely hard working, responsible, smart and somewhat lucky people that started with very lttle in life and no "connections" whatsoever. Yet I know I will get response from leftists loons that somehow my wife and I didn't build that for ourself. That we were handed something in life. That we had some kind of privilege. That we could not have advanced our lot in life without the aid of Big Brother. That our successes in life came at the expense of others who did not achieve what we did. That somehow we are responsible for others inability improve themself because if we had less they would have more. That's what progressivism is all about - BS. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
NO, you weren't handed something. YES, you did well. There is not room enough in your work world for everyone, no matter how well educated, no matter the energy they bring to a job. The truth is, the vast majority are living hand to mouth. It is a reality, and usually through no fault of their own.
Yes. No. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
How about we pass a law that they cannot have more when they leave office, than what they started with? If they have more, confiscate it, put them in front of a firing squad. You are right. Look at Bob Dole. After the War, he was elected to be a county attorney, then got elected to Congress, then got elected to the Senate. Never had any other type of vocation. But when he retired, he was a multi millionaire. Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
You have me confused with a progressive. My only point is that one is crazy to think that those who are beneficiaries of the law will act to rewrite the laws to their detriment. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
True enough. I suppose there really is no solution to our problem. Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
Not to the problem of corruption among the powerful. This seems to be in the DNA of the human species. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
OK. So what is the solution to corruption among the powerful? Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
Heaven. That ain't one here on Earth, or anywhere else were people may ebentual travel. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
#2. To: Willie Green (#0)
#3. To: Justified (#2)
People are poor because they are stupid.
#4. To: Willie Green (#0)
The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
because it's just so darn cool....
#5. To: Justified (#2)
Probably because they have new cars, multiple phones, super big TV, cable, internet, eat out everyday,
#6. To: Vicomte13 (#3)
People are poor because they are stupid.
#7. To: redleghunter (#5)
#8. To: Justified (#6)
#9. To: Vicomte13 (#8)
#10. To: Willie Green, All (#1)
The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
#11. To: Willie Green (#0)
#12. To: jeremiad, Willie Green (#11)
The really lucky ones, or as Rush Republicans would say, the smart diligent ones, went to work for government on some level, or didn't have children and/or had two incomes for 40 years.
#13. To: SOSO (#12)
#14. To: jeremiad (#13)
The truth is, the vast majority are living hand to mouth. It is a reality, and usually through no fault of their own.
#15. To: SOSO (#10)
" check out how much money the Obamas started with compared to what they will have when he leaves office. And let's not even talk about the poor, broke Clintons. Just about very elected official leaves office an order of magnitude or more wealthy than when they started "
#16. To: Stoner (#15)
How about we pass a law that they cannot have more when they leave office, than what they started with? If they have more, confiscate it, put them in front of a firing squad.
#17. To: SOSO (#16)
" one is crazy to think that those who are beneficiaries of the law will act to rewrite the laws to their detriment. "
#18. To: Stoner (#17)
I suppose there really is no solution to our problem.
#19. To: SOSO (#18)
" Not to the problem of corruption among the powerful. "
#20. To: Stoner (#19)
OK. So what is the solution to corruption among the powerful?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]