Here's how much you should have saved for retirement at age 30, 50 or 60 — are you at risk of falling behind?
Most Americans are worried about money, especially when it comes to retirement.
A 2025 survey by Capital One and The Decision Lab found that 77% of U.S. adults feel anxious about their personal finances. A separate Allianz Life survey reveals that 64% of adults fear outliving their savings more than death itself.
Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how
I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 5 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast)
Nervous about the stock market in 2025? Find out how you can access this $1B private real estate fund (with as little as $10)
One way to deal with this anxiety is to check whether your retirement savings are on track depending on your age and income.
Analysts at financial giant T. Rowe Price published retirement savings benchmarks to aim for depending on age and salary. Having ballpark figures to aim for at different periods in life can help you understand whether you're on track or behind and motivate you to take action.
Here's a closer look at the figures suggested by the T. Rowe Price team.
Your 30s are a critical time to start building momentum with your savings. On one hand, your income is probably accelerating as you start to make strides in your career. On the other hand, this is also a period that involves some of your biggest expenses, such as buying a house or starting a family. For example, the median age of a first-time homebuyer is 38, according to the National Association of Realtors.
These big-ticket expenses could make it difficult to save any of your income. However, you also have the luxury of time, which means you have multiple decades of saving, investing and compounding wealth to look forward to, so your money still has plenty of time left to grow.
T. Rowe Price suggests having 1x to 1.5x your annual income saved by your mid-to-late 30s to stay on track for retirement. That means if you earn $70,000 each year, you need at least $70,000 to $105,000 saved in financial assets to be on track for a comfortable retirement.
The average 50-year-old probably has a more established career, a lower mortgage and adult children that don't need as much financial assistance. In general, this is a great time to double down on your savings and investments to get to your retirement goal as early as possible.
T. Rowe Price suggests that if you have anywhere between 3.5x to 5.5x your annual income saved in your 50s, you're on track to retire comfortably. That means if your annual income is $100,000, you need up to $550,000 saved in total assets.
Read more: Want an extra $1,300,000 when you retire? Dave Ramsey says — and that 'anyone' can do it
The team also suggests ramping up your yearly savings rate to 15% of your income or more.
'We found that 15% of income per year (including any employer contributions) is an appropriate savings level for many people, but higher earners should likely aim beyond 15%,' says the report. While it may be difficult to save 15% earlier in your career, it becomes more achievable, and necessary, as your income increases.
The average retirement age for men is 64 and for women it's 63, according to a study by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. However, you may decide to leave work earlier or later than the average age depending on how much wealth you've managed to accumulate by your 60s.
According to T. Rowe Price, the average 60-something needs between 7.5x to 13.5x their annual salary in net assets to retire comfortably. This means if you're earning $120,000 you may need up to $1.62 million saved in total wealth to consider leaving the workforce.
Keep in mind that these benchmarks are general rules of thumb based on a 4% withdrawal per year in retirement. Your target could be very different from T. Rowe Price's suggestions depending on your retirement goals. If you plan to move somewhere with a different cost of living or expect to increase your spending in retirement, your savings goal may differ significantly.
If you're behind on your retirement savings, T. Rowe suggests the following to catch up:
Take advantage of the full company match in your workplace retirement plan, if they offer one
Increase your savings rate over time
Make catch-up contributions to your workplace retirement plan or IRA, if you're over age 50
Here are 5 'must have' items that Americans (almost) always overpay for — and very quickly regret. How many are hurting you?
Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — here are the alternative assets they're banking on instead
Robert Kiyosaki warns of a 'Greater Depression' coming to the US — with millions of Americans going poor. But he says these 2 'easy-money' assets will bring in 'great wealth'. How to get in now
This is how American car dealers use the '4-square method' to make big profits off you — and how you can ensure you pay a fair price for all your vehicle costs
Like what you read? Join 200,000+ readers and get the best of Moneywise straight to your inbox every week.
This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
32 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Bankruptcy Was Good for 23andMe
Sometimes a public company has a controlling shareholder who wants to take it private by buying out all of the other shareholders, and that's always messy. 1 The controlling shareholder will to some extent be negotiating with herself: She will want to buy the company for a low price, but the company's shareholders will want to get a high price, but she's the controlling shareholder and can vote for the low price. There are standard solutions to the problem, but they are only partial solutions: In the past few months, I have written a few times about 23andMe Holding Co. as an illustration of these problems. 23andMe is a publicly traded genetic testing company that was once worth about $6 billion, but it has now fallen on hard times. Its founder, Anne Wojcicki, owns about 49% of the voting power of the stock, making her effectively a controlling shareholder. She offered to buy all the stock she didn't own, to take the company private and fix its problems 'outside of the short term pressures of the public markets.' But the board of directors, whose job was to find an 'actionable proposal that is in the best interests of the non-affiliated shareholders,' didn't think her offer was good enough.
Business Insider
32 minutes ago
- Business Insider
What A-list economists are saying about Trump's tax bill as Musk rebels against it
Elon Musk has departed his role as a "special government employee" in Trump's White House — and he's using his time outside the administration to hammer the GOP spending bill that's a cornerstone of the president's agenda. "This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination," Musk wrote on X earlier this week. Trump responded by saying Musk's criticism of the legislation is "disappointing." President Trump's tax bill will likely face a vote in the Senate in the coming weeks after passing the House in May. It would reduce the tax rates of lower-income workers, particularly those earning less than $107,200, and eliminate taxes on tips, social security, and overtime. The bill would also cut spending on social programs like Medicaid and SNAP benefits, which provide food assistance to low-income Americans. Like Musk, investors and economists are seemingly concerned that the bill will cause the national debt to balloon and further widen the US budget deficit. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said this week that it would grow the deficit by $2.4 trillion over the next decade . Trump and his allies have pushed back, arguing that higher economic growth from lower taxes would help boost government revenue. Here's what top economists are saying about the bill. Phillip L. Swagel, director of the Congressional Budget Office Despite the lower tax rates for low earners, Swagel said in a May 20 letter that the bill would negatively impact poorer Americans. "CBO estimates that household resources would decrease by an amount equal to about 2 percent of income in the lowest decile (tenth) of the income distribution in 2027 and 4 percent in 2033, mainly as a result of losses of in-kind transfers, such as Medicaid and SNAP," he wrote. "By contrast, resources would increase by an amount equal to 4 percent for households in the highest decile in 2027 and 2 percent in 2033, mainly because of reductions in the taxes they owe." William McBride, chief economist at the Tax Foundation McBride, along with several colleagues at the non-partisan Tax Foundation think tank, said in a May 23 report that while the bill would support economic growth, it wouldn't be enough to offset the revenue loss from tax cuts. "Our preliminary analysis finds the tax provisions included in the House-passed bill would increase long-run GDP by 0.8 percent," the report said. "The bill's tax and spending changes would increase the 10-year budget deficit by $2.6 trillion from 2025 through 2034 on a conventional basis before added interest costs. On a dynamic basis, accounting for economic growth, the deficit would increase by $1.7 trillion over ten years before interest costs." It continued: "The bill's tax provisions alone would reduce federal tax revenue by $4.1 trillion from 2025 through 2034 on a conventional basis before added interest costs. On a dynamic basis, accounting for economic growth, the revenue reduction would fall by nearly 22 percent to $3.2 trillion over 10 years before added interest costs." 6 Nobel Laureates Six Nobel Prize-winning economists — including Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, Peter Diamond, Paul Krugman, Oliver Hart, and Joseph Stiglitz — said in a June 2 letter that the bill would worsen wealth inequality in the US. "The combination of cuts to key safety net programs like Medicaid and SNAP and tax cuts disproportionately benefiting higher-income households means that the House budget constitutes an extremely large upward redistribution of income. Given how much this bill adds to the U.S. debt, it is shocking that it still imposes absolute losses on the bottom 40% of U.S households," the letter said. "The House bill addresses none of the nation's key economic challenges usefully and exacerbates many of them," it added. Ken Rogoff, professor of economics at Harvard University Rogoff, former chief economist at the IMF, cast doubt on the notion that the bill would boost growth in a piece for Project Syndicate this week. "Trump and his acolytes argue that his "big, beautiful bill" will supercharge economic growth, generating enough revenue to make up for sweeping tax cuts. But history offers little support for such claims," he wrote. "While both Democratic-led spending sprees and Republican-backed tax cuts have fueled the growth of US debt over the past two decades, tax reductions have accounted for the lion's share of the increase. Moreover, the notion that tax cuts pay for themselves was already discredited in the 1980s, when President Ronald Reagan's tax cuts led to soaring deficits rather than self-sustaining growth." He added: "Will America's rising debt ultimately trigger a full-blown crisis? Perhaps, but a continued upward drift in long-term interest rates is more likely." Desmond Lachman, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute Lachman, a former IMF official who currently works for a conservative-leaning think tank, said in a June 4 post that rising bond yields, a declining dollar, and appreciating gold prices could be harbingers of an economic crisis brought on by Trump-driven policy volatility. Trump's tax bill is adding to investors' fears due to its inflationary implications. But one of its clauses undermines confidence in the reliability of the returns on Treasurys, he said. "That bill includes a clause that has to be sending shivers down foreign investors' spines. According to Section 899, the US Treasury can impose additional taxes of up to 20 percent on income earned by foreign entities from countries that enact taxes deemed 'unfair' to US interests."
New York Times
32 minutes ago
- New York Times
Live Updates: Trump-Musk Alliance Dissolves as They Hurl Personal Attacks
Pinned President Trump and Elon Musk's alliance dissolved into open acrimony on Thursday, as the two men hurled personal attacks at each other after the billionaire had unleashed broadsides against the president's signature domestic policy bill. While meeting with Friedrich Merz, Germany's new chancellor, in the Oval Office, Mr. Trump broke days of uncharacteristic silence and unloaded on Mr. Musk, who until last week was a top presidential adviser. 'I'm very disappointed in Elon,' Mr. Trump said. 'I've helped Elon a lot.' As the president criticized Mr. Musk, the billionaire responded in real time on X, the social media platform he owns. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,' Mr. Musk wrote. 'Such ingratitude,' he added, taking credit for Mr. Trump's election in a way that he never has before. Mr. Musk had been careful in recent days to train his ire on Republicans in Congress, not Mr. Trump himself. But he discarded that caution on Thursday, ridiculing the president in a pattern familiar to the many previous Trump advisers who have fallen by the wayside. What started as simply a fight over the domestic policy bill sharply escalated in just a few hours. Within minutes of one another, Mr. Trump was making fun of Mr. Musk's unwillingness to wear makeup to cover a recent black eye, and Mr. Musk was raising questions about Mr. Trump's competency as president. The public break comes after a remarkable partnership between the two men. Mr. Musk deployed hundreds of millions of dollars to support Mr. Trump's 2024 presidential campaign. After Mr. Trump won, he gave Mr. Musk free rein to slash the federal work force. And just last week, Mr. Trump gave Mr. Musk a personal send-off in the Oval Office. The president praised Mr. Musk as 'one of the greatest business leaders and innovators the world has ever produced' and gave him a golden key emblazoned with the White House insignia. Mr. Musk promised to remain a 'friend and adviser to the president.' But now Mr. Musk, who has left his temporary role, has turned into the most prominent critic of a top presidential priority. Mr. Musk has lashed out against the far-reaching policy bill in numerous posts on X. He has called it a 'disgusting abomination,' argued that the bill would undo all the work he did to cut government spending and hinted that he would target Republican members of Congress who backed the legislation in next year's midterm elections. Mr. Trump on Thursday said Mr. Musk's criticism of the bill was entirely self-interested, saying he only opposed the legislation after Republicans took out the electric vehicle mandate, which would benefit Tesla, Mr. Musk's electric vehicle company. (Mr. Musk has previously called for an end to those subsidies.) The president also downplayed Mr. Musk's financial support for him during the campaign, arguing he would have won Pennsylvania without Mr. Musk, who poured much of his money and time into the critical battleground state. Mr. Musk also on Thursday rebutted Mr. Trump's statement that Mr. Musk 'knew the inner workings of the bill better than anybody sitting here.' 'False, this bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it!' Mr. Musk wrote, sharing a video of Mr. Trump saying he was disappointed in Mr. Musk.
