April 28, 2024

Bucks Blog: Why It’s Hard to Build Emergency Savings

Despite improvement in the economy, more than a fourth of Americans have no emergency savings. And those who do manage to sock away some money in basic savings accounts get abysmal interest on their funds and sometimes have to pay excessive fees.

Half of Americans have less than three months of expenses saved up, and just a quarter have six months saved, which is the typical recommendation for emergency financial reserves, according to a report from the financial Web site Bankrate.com. The survey by Princeton Survey Research Associates International queried 1,004 adults from June 6 to 9 using landlines and cellphones. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Meanwhile, in a separate report, the Consumer Federation of America finds that statement or passbook savings accounts, the main place where lower- and moderate-income consumers put their savings to cover unexpected expenses like car repairs or dental bills, are very stingy with their interest rates and sometimes hit customers with extra fees. The accounts are used by about three-fifths of households nationally, the report found.

The federation’s report is based on an analysis of information about traditional savings accounts from the Federal Reserve Board’s 2010 Survey of Consumer Finances, and research on the Web sites of 150 banks, including the 50 largest as measured by the number of branches, as well as the 10 largest credit unions. The Federal Reserve data was analyzed for the federation by Catherine Montalto, a family economics professor at Ohio State University.

The federation’s report found that 17 percent of banks reviewed paid just 0.01 percent interest or less, or no more than 10 cents annually, on a $1,000 balance. Just 4 percent of the banks pay more than 0.25 percent on basic savings accounts. Interest rates on such accounts, in short, are “ridiculously low,” said Stephen Brobeck, the federation’s executive director, during a telephone briefing.

What’s more, the accounts may hit customers with significant fees that wipe out even the negligible interest they earn. For instance, in a sample of about two dozen banks, some banks charge fees from $1 to $12 if the account is inactive for as little as six months. While most banks don’t charge the fees unless the balance drops below a minimum balance (sometimes as low as $50), one online bank charges a $10 fee after six months of inactivity, regardless of the balance.

The inactivity fees are especially burdensome for savers who have built their account to a certain level as an emergency cushion and then just let it sit until needed, said Mr. Brobeck. “A consumer who wants to park funds but doesn’t make additional deposits and doesn’t have any emergencies could get whacked with these fees,” he said.

Some banks also penalize customers for excessive withdrawals. Federal regulations limit withdrawals from a savings account to six per month. But a significant number of banks — half of the large banks in the study — limit withdrawals to three a month and charge fees for each withdrawal over the limit. The fees vary widely, from 50 cents to $15 at large and medium banks and 50 cents to $10 at small banks.

The Bankrate report found that while the savings numbers are slightly better than before the recession, when just 39 percent had three months of expenses in the bank, they are still troubling, said Greg McBride, senior financial analyst at Bankrate.

The main culprit appears to be stagnating wages, he said; people have shed debt since the recession, but they still don’t have much excess cash.

It’s true that interest rates don’t offer much incentive to save, but Mr. McBride said an emergency fund was not meant to earn big investment returns. Rather, it’s just what it should be: a safe stash of cash for unexpected expenses.

The best way to build an emergency fund, he suggested, is to arrange for automatic transfers from a checking account into a savings account.

By arranging for automatic transfers, most savings accounts waive monthly service fees, Mr. Brobeck of the consumer federation said.

Do you have an emergency fund? Is it kept in a typical savings account?

A version of this article appeared in print on 06/29/2013, on page B4 of the NewYork edition with the headline: Slim Savings,
Earning Little.

Article source: http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/why-its-hard-to-build-emergency-savings/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Economix Blog: Which Americans Are Most Generous, and to Whom

CATHERINE RAMPELL

CATHERINE RAMPELL

Dollars to doughnuts.

The richest Americans give a greater share of their income to charities than low- and middle-income Americans do, but the mix of beneficiaries is decidedly different, according to congressional testimony from Frank J. Sammartino, the assistant director for tax analysis from the Congressional Budget Office.

Mr. Sammartino’s testimony includes some interesting statistics on the history and distribution of charitable giving, as well as estimates for how various changes in the deductibility of donations might affect giving rates. I’ve pulled out some of the more interesting tidbits.

First, here’s a look at charitable giving by income class. As you can see, the wealthiest Americans — those making over $500,000 annually, which is less than 1 percent of all tax filers — gave away 3.4 percent of their income in 2008. That is significantly higher than Americans at lower income levels:

DESCRIPTIONSource: Congressional Budget Office based on data from Internal Revenue Service, Statistics of Income Division, Individual Income Tax Returns 2008 (revised July 2010); the Federal Reserve Board’s 2004 Survey of Consumer Finances; and the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ 2002 Consumer Expenditure Survey. Note: Includes C.B.O.’s estimates of charitable contributions by people who filed income tax returns in 2008 but did not itemize deductions.

In total, giving by this top income class accounted for 24 percent of charitable donations from all taxpayers in 2008.

The destinations for those donated funds varied tremendously by income class, however. The most noticeable trend is that as income rises, proportional giving to religious organizations falls:

DESCRIPTIONSource: Congressional Budget Office based on data from the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, Patterns of Household Charitable Giving by Income Group, 2005 (Indianapolis: Indiana University–Purdue University, 2007). Note a.: Combined purpose funds, such as the United Way, receive contributions and allocate them to many different types of charities.

In 2005, households with an adjusted gross income below $100,000 annually allotted 67 percent of their charitable giving to religious organizations, whereas households earning at least $1 million annually gave just 17 percent of their donations to religious organizations. The biggest recipients of this highest income group’s donations were instead educational and health organizations.

The federal government subsidizes charitable giving by making it mostly tax deductible. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that this total subsidy in forgone tax revenues amounted to about $40.9 billion in 2006.

The taxpayers who receive the biggest chunk of this subsidy are upper-income earners, both because they are most likely to itemize their taxes (and so take a deduction for charitable giving) and because their marginal tax rates are higher. In other words, if a donor has a higher tax rate, the government has more potential tax revenue to lose by letting him or her write off donations.

Exactly how this subsidy affects people’s willingness to donate is hotly debated. Two studies cited by Mr. Sammartino’s testimony suggested that a 1 percent increase in the price of giving would reduce giving 0.5 percent to 1.3 percent.

That suggests that various proposals to reduce (or eliminate) the charitable giving subsidy would probably decrease donations at least a little bit. You can see the details for some of those proposals in Mr. Sammartino’s full testimony.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=2d20f4ec2135a93ebafaf39a1dfc6bee