Here's how much you should have saved for retirement at age 30, 50 or 60 — are you at risk of falling behind?
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
Wall Street Journal
a few seconds ago
- Wall Street Journal
Travel-Industry Outlook Stabilizes as Higher-Income Americans Pack Their Bags
The travel industry is gearing up for a more positive backdrop for the rest of the year as higher-income Americans increasingly hit the road, analysts said. Airlines and hotels said trends improved throughout the second quarter, while booking websites noted an uptick in travel demand since the start of July.
New York Times
a few seconds ago
- New York Times
Trump Warns of Economic Disaster if Court Strikes Down Tariffs
The Trump administration's top lawyers urged a federal court this week to uphold its sweeping global tariffs or risk 'financial ruin,' warning that the United States could slip into an economic depression if an adverse ruling forces the government to refund billions of dollars in duties. While experts broadly disputed that a losing verdict would trigger a calamity of that magnitude, many said the government's extraordinary assertions underscored the risks looming over President Trump, who has widened the scope of his punishing trade war even while its legal basis remains unsettled. At the heart of the wrangling is a 1977 law that empowers the president to impose trade embargoes and sanctions in response to economic emergencies. The word tariff appears nowhere in that statute, but Mr. Trump has nonetheless invoked its powers as the basis for his withering levies, including the steep taxes he imposed on imports from more than 90 countries on Aug. 7. For Mr. Trump, the worst-case scenario would be a resounding defeat at the hands of the Supreme Court, which is likely to take up one of the pending cases. If the justices rule overwhelmingly against the president, the decision could halt tariff collections while triggering 'a significant wave of claims' from businesses demanding refunds, said Andrew Morris, a senior litigation counsel at the New Civil Liberties Alliance. The legal group has represented businesses in tariff lawsuits. The mechanics of that process — from how it would work, to whom would be eligible to reclaim the money — would depend on the scope of any court decision. Still, a loss could undercut one of Mr. Trump's primary reasons for imposing tariffs in the first place, choking off a source of revenue that the president says is already making America 'rich.' The prospect has spooked Mr. Trump, who took to social media last week to warn it would be 'impossible to ever recover, or pay back, these massive sums of money,' if a court ruled against him, adding that a loss could trigger a 'GREAT DEPRESSION!' Mr. Trump's top lawyers formalized those arguments in a filing on Monday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which is considering a legal challenge initially brought by small businesses and states. In a letter signed by D. John Sauer, the U.S. solicitor general, the government said that a ruling against tariffs would undermine the president on foreign policy, jeopardize his recent trade deals and damage the U.S. economy. The letter echoed Mr. Trump in cautioning that such a loss would leave the government in 'financial ruin,' and carry a '1929-style result,' a reference to the depression. It added that such a disruption could see Americans 'forced from their homes' while leaving Social Security and Medicare 'threatened' financially. Many budget experts raised significant objections to the Trump administration's claims about the potential loss of tariff revenue, with has helped to generate about $152 billion in customs duties through July, according to the Treasury Department. Economists say the U.S. government long has operated with a substantial debt, and the loss of tariff revenue would be unlikely to cause a catastrophic economic downturn. Those import taxes also do not directly affect Social Security and Medicare. Payroll taxes fund those entitlements, with Medicare receiving additional support through other sources, such as premiums. 'Tariff money is not a game changer with a $2 trillion deficit and a $7 trillion budget,' said Jessica Riedl, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, who said the result of refunds would not be a 'budgetary earthquake.' Ted Murphy, the co-leader of the trade practice at the law firm Sidley Austin, said the administration's claims were 'remarkable' in seeking to advance the idea that the 'ends justify the means.' By Mr. Murphy's reading, Mr. Trump and his advisers had argued he should win the case because 'what he's achieved is so good, and the consequences of taking it away are so bad, the courts should look beyond the legality of the matter.' For now, at least, the Trump administration's plea to the courts illustrated the stakes for the president's trade strategy, which hinges on his ability to impose or threaten tariffs on a whim, and without the need to obtain the approval of Congress. Mr. Trump has used these rates as carrot and stick to induce favorable trade deals and punish nations that fail to acquiesce — or, in some cases, to accomplish political objectives well outside the remit of trade. A ruling against him could neuter that primary source of leverage, leaving Mr. Trump with only limited options to impose duties on his own. The White House did not respond to a request for comment. 'I think the more deals we've done, the more money coming in, it gets harder and harder for SCOTUS to rule against us,' said Scott Bessent, the Treasury secretary, in an appearance Tuesday on Fox Business, using an acronym to refer to the Supreme Court. The Trump administration lost the first round of arguments at the Court of International Trade, where a panel of judges determined in May that the president did not have 'unbounded authority' to issue tariffs under the 1977 International Economic Emergency Powers Act, known as I.E.E.P.A. The administration quickly appealed, and in oral arguments this month, Brett A. Shumate, an assistant attorney general, maintained that the law allowed the president 'to take extraordinary action' to regulate trade, which Mr. Trump had interpreted to mean tariffs. But Mr. Shumate also told the judges that they could not second guess Mr. Trump in his declaration of a national emergency. At times, the judges appeared skeptical about some of the arguments, which trade experts later interpreted as a poor sign for the president. The administration has already asked the appellate court to pause any decision that might invalidate its tariffs, which would buy the government time to seek emergency relief at the Supreme Court. In their letter Monday, lawyers for the government specifically called attention to the agreements that Mr. Trump has brokered recently with major trading partners, including those in the European Union, some of which had also committed to investing in the United States. Mr. Sauer, the solicitor general, said a verdict against the president may result in the 'forced dissolution' of those deals, which would be 'ruinous' for the economy, given that foreign leaders had 'committed' to pay trillions of dollars to the United States. 'There is no substitute for the tariffs and deals that President Trump has made,' he wrote along with Mr. Shumate. The small businesses that sued the government responded on Tuesday. Lawyers for those firms, including VOS Selections, a wine importer in New York, told the court that the president did indeed have other powers to achieve his trade goals — and could, for example, 'submit agreements for congressional approval.' Michael Lowell, who is chair of the regulatory enforcement group at the law firm Reed Smith, described the administration's strategy and pacing as deliberate. He said it showed that Mr. Trump hoped to 'move far enough, fast enough,' on tariffs, potentially dissuading the Supreme Court from unwinding them because doing so would prove too damaging. In the meantime, the president has continued to brag about the revenue tariffs have raised. 'Trillions of Dollars are being taken in on Tariffs," Mr. Trump said on Tuesday, overstating the amount, adding it 'has been incredible for our Country, its Stock Market, its General Wealth, and just about everything else.'
Epoch Times
a few seconds ago
- Epoch Times
Trump Adding Alternative Assets to Retirement Accounts: What to Know
President Donald Trump signed an executive order last week allowing alternative assets, such as cryptocurrencies and private equity, in 401(k) retirement plans. Industry experts say the White House decision could alter the composition of Americans' retirement portfolios, broadening the types of assets investors can hold and the options financial institutions can offer to their clients in the $9 trillion retirement market.
